Alice Cheong

Our [favourite beloved?] Land Transport Authority’s yesterday’s regular review of ERP rates concluded that we need to increase the maximum ERP charge for CTE from the PIE between 8:30am and 9am by another 50 cents to $5 for cars, in order to tackle congestion. Meanwhile, car owners are not the worst hit. Goods vehicles and buses will have to pay $10.

However, does raising ERP rate really tackle the problem of road congestion? From the demand & supply economical viewpoint:
- If the demand is too high and this demand is in-elastic, meaning that traveling by that stretch of road is more of a neccessity, the demand will not change by making the cost even more expensive. Just like even if you raise the cost of flour and bread, people still have to eat. The demand is in-elastic. They will still pay for it, unless there is a much better alternative.
- Moreover, if the number of COE for cars issued is increasing, the demand will naturally increase further. It will not helped to reduce congestion.
- Supply? The other alternative will be to increase the supply. In this case, there will need to be additional roads.

In short, increasing the demand (more COE), and increasing the ERP price will not help to reduce the congestion, except hitting the pockets of vehicle owners who need to travel during those timing, as long as there is
1) No increase of good alternative routes (read as roads)
2) No better alterative mode of travelling (read as public transport)

The first bill for National Registry of Diseases Bill is read for the first time on 22 Oct 2007. That means, the proposal for this act, complete with the details have been drafted and put on the table. It is waiting to be sign, stamp, chop and approved.

So, what are the details and how will we be affected? A quick glance through the bill yield their following noble goals.

There shall be a National Registry of Diseases, the functions of which are —

1. to collect information on reportable diseases that have been diagnosed and treated in Singapore;
2. to establish, keep and maintain for each reportable disease a register containing individually-identifiable information obtained under this Act;
3. to compile and publish statistics on the epidemiology,
   management and outcomes of reportable diseases;
4. to provide information for the purpose of supporting —
   (i) health services that are being provided by healthcare institutions to the patients thereof who are suffering from any reportable disease; and
   (ii) national public health policies, initiatives, programmes and related studies concerning any reportable disease; and
5. generally to do all such acts, matters and things as are necessary to be carried out under this Act.

For a starter, the reportable disease only include a single disease, cancer. As such, I expect no public opposal. However, for all conspiracy theory writers out there, I believe they will be speculating on the next disease that will be included into it. So, what is on your mind? When will you be “tagged”?

Quoting Minister Ho Peng Kee

“Public feedback on Section 377A has been emotional, divided and strongly expressed, with the majority calling for its retention.”

“Neither side is going to persuade or convince the other of its position. We should live and let live, and let the situation evolve in tandem with the values of our society.”

“Whilst homosexuals have a place in society and, in recent years, more social space, repealing Section 377A will be very contentious and may send a wrong signal that the goverment is encouraging and endorsing the homesexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life.”

Section 377A is to be retained!

So, is Singapore ready for the much much much earlier mentioned Pink $$$ dollar?

It is interesting to note that Section 377 from the penal code has been repealed, and the comment for the repeal is that “This amendment updates the Penal Code to ensure it remains relevant in today’s context.”

So, with the repeal of Section 377, what does it means? Quoting from Ministry of Home Affairs website:
“Any sexual act, e.g. oral and anal sex, between a consenting heterosexual couple who are 16 years of age and above (done in private) will no longer be criminalised, i.e. oral and anal sex will therefore no longer be criminalised.”

Then, what about Section 377A? As Section 377A has been retained, it means that any “gross indecency” between any gay couple (specifically only for males), regardless of in public or private, is still a crime.

The comment for the retaining of Section 377A, as quoting from Ministry of Home Affairs website:
“Public feedback on this issue has been emotional, divided and strongly expressed with the majority calling for its retention. MHA recognizes that we are generally conservative society and that we should let the situation evolve.”

So, does that means that it is acceptable for the public that heterosexual couples can have the same “gross indecency” but it is not acceptable for gay couples (specifically only for males) to have “gross indecency”. And this view holds even when the “gross indecency” are performed in their own private bedrooms. Does it smells of homophobia (male-male-phobia)?

As a primer to whose who is not sure of what is Section 377 and Section 377A

Section 377 (Unnatural offences)

All forms of carnal intercourse against the order of nature (other than vaginal intercourse) between a man, woman, or an animal, are criminalised; regardless of whether consent was obtained or if the act was performed in a private or public place.

Section 377A (Outrages on decency)

It is an offence for any male person, who in public or private, commits an act of gross indecency with another male person.

The information on repealing 377 and retaining 377A is up-to-date as pertaining to the 17 Sep 2007, Summary of the key amendments to the penal code, Press Release from Ministry of Home Affairs.
http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=1115

In conclusion:
My personal interpretation is that, for example, an oral sex (OS),
- can be performed legally (without contravening any law, or is not a criminal) by a hetersexual couple,
- but cannot be performed legally (contravene Section 377A, or is criminal) by a gay couple (specifically only for males).