▲ 117 points
back
118 comments
Apparently this comes in a package with a constitutional amendment that enshrines marriage as exclusively opposite-sex, which will make legalising same-sex marriage harder down the road.
Not ideal, but still seems like net progress.
Making something not a crime is the first step towards full legalization.
Well, that's right thing to do IMO. It may be true that what happens in people's bedrooms is not government's business, but it's also true that the state has no obligation to subsidize particular lifestyles, especially when it's tantamount to waging a culture war on it's population.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of which ideology you favor. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Well, I object to this for multiple reasons.
First of all, it would be nice of you to at least looked at the responses to this comment, and reminded users that many of those are explicitly against HN guidelines (which is objectively true, with comments like just "What on earth?" [1], and my comment is essentially stating an opinion clearly acceptable in e.g. Singapore, and I know one of your goals on HN is to not be completely US-centric). Browbeating is clearly not what HN is for, and IMO allowing it would cause a lot more damage than allowing accounts primarily used for politics. Curious political discussion has some real content, browbeating doesn't.
Secondly, the effect of that policy is to essentially ban accountants with unpopular political opinions on one side of the spectrum (because people don't want to associate it with their normal work, for obvious reasons). One evidence for this is that you've probably banned more accounts on one side of political spectrum with that rationale. That should be easy to check, since the politics of accounts which use HN primarily for politics should be quite clear from their commenting history. I'm not accusing you of personal conscious bias against right-wingers in moderation here, I'm just pointing out that policy would result in more of them getting banned, since more of them have no choice but to try to conceal their identity (due to "consequences" at work, etc.). Remember what happened to Brendan Eich?
Thirdly, I disagree with your characterization of my comments as "ideological battle". I'm merely stating my political opinions, I have tried to never escalate into personal attacks, and I have tried to always add something concrete and interesting to the discussion, along the HN'a norm of intellectual curiosity. To me, ideological "battle" would imply the kind of dogmatic political rallying I got in response to my comment.
Finally, it seems that you are banning my account on a first strike. I don't remember having any previous negative interaction with the mods.
P.S. After posting this, I also noticed that you have "shadow banned" me, in the sense that my comment looks completely normal to myself when logged in, but I can't find a trace of it when logged out. That's an unethical practice in my books, and something that you have explicitly stated that you reserve for spammers and serial trolls [2].
Isn't this amendment adding an obligation on which lifestyles the state can subsidize though?
If the state should be free to choose, it should be free to choose, not be limited by the constitutional text.
You'll have to explain how gay people being allowed to visit their loved ones on their death beds as a culture war against "the population" though.
Are gay people not part of "the population" ? I'd expect the population to be the set of all people in the country, not some subset that you happen to like
> If the state should be free to choose, it should be free to choose, not be limited by the constitutional text.
I'm making a distinction between the state and the government. The state also includes people who write and interpret the constitution.
> You'll have to explain how gay people being allowed to visit their loved ones on their death beds as a culture war against "the population" though.
I'm not sure why would you think I'd be against that.
> not some subset that you happen to like
It's not just some subset, it's the overwhelming majority.
> it's also true that the state has no obligation to subsidize particular lifestyles
So you oppose heterosexual marriage as well? As it is also a particular lifestyle.
See my other comment below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32544217.
Except when the state is subsidizing heterosexual lifestyles to wage a culture war on its population
What on earth?
I suspect they never did care about this issue at all but they're trying to walk a tightrope trying not to piss off foreign investors (IIRC Goldman Sachs partners had something to say about this law) and the core PAP voter base, which tends to skew heavily in favor of "conservative/family values" and against this.
Then again, times may be a a-changing.
I like how he literally has no need to do this, and in spite of the concerns you mentioned is doing it anyway.
I lived in Singapore for 3 months, and as a gay man never felt unwelcome or unsafe. I benefit from other privileges that probably affected my experience, but Singapore is a pretty harmonious place.
Times are changing.
The issue has always been “what if.”
Singapore is no stranger to selective enforcement and using the legal system against critics (often via things like defamation lawsuits). This particular law was never weaponized in that way, but there was never anything stopping them from doing so.
Good for you. I had gay friends who did not feel safe when I lived there - not exactly from 377A (the policy has been unenforced for years) but maybe losing their positions if it came out.
They didnt go to pink dot because they were afraid of appearing in any photos.
What's funny about LGBTQ friendly Western countries is that the risk of assault is higher than places that aren't LGBTQ friendly in Singapore or Japan.
So you can have on the surface level, diversity but offer no safeguards or protection against assault or even murder in the case of transwoman in the West.
Thailand? No open LGBTQ legislation or politics like you have in the West but it remains the most trans friendly country in the world.
Note that citizens may feel more acutely about systemic discrimination against homosexuals. A large factor is subsidized public housing, which a large fraction of the citizens live in. Being married and having children gives you priority for public housing, but only heterosexual unions being recognized as marriage excludes families of homosexual partners from receiving the same support.
I lived in Singapore for a few years, I moved there from a western country. I found that even given the laws at that stage that the homosexual community was fairly open, and accepted. The majority of my wife's friends are gay, and open about it.
Singapore is a nice and safe countries but there are definitely trade offs.
There were some legal challenges likely for the relevant statute, and doing it this way is much more in keeping with Singapore's approach to keeping politics "in politics".
It's carefully coordinated and done in a way that most conservatives can't really attack. In line with .sg's usual approach to doing things carefully and slowly in a controlled manner.
> Goldman Sachs partners had something to say about this law
Don't you think it's absurd that an investment bank has influence over a country's social policy? For all the cheerleading we do about democracy, we also don't seem to care that behemoth US companies exert their influence over other countries, thus diluting the value of a citizen's vote. No one is concerned that there is no wall of separation between business and politics.
For all the cheerleading we do about democracy
Singapore isn't really that democratic though. Somehow it kind of works for them.
https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/202...
Singapore’s parliamentary political system has been dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and the family of current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong since 1959. The electoral and legal framework that the PAP has constructed allows for some political pluralism, but it constrains the growth of opposition parties and limits freedoms of expression, assembly, and association.
Singapore is free to enact draconian laws. Expat workers, and the multinational corporations who employ them, are also free to criticise or, ultimately, to leave the country in response to those draconian laws. This would be very bad for Singapore, given the contribution those workers and corporations make to its economy, so Singapore will weigh its desire for draconian laws against its desire for a strong economy and make its own decision.
So many people confuse the freedom to do something with the freedom to do something and force the rest of the world to act as if you didn't do it.
There is always influence. One can never separate it and become a truly, wholly non-influenced person, society, or country. Muslim traders in the 1400s spread their religion throughout Southeast Asia because they wanted to influence their customers, and customers converted because they wanted better deals from those who would deem them of a similar faith. That is the same process here. If a country doesn't like such influence, such as Japan with the Dutch, they can ban it.
Singapore is a giant company, that is how the country is run. Fiscal policy plays a major role in the life of everyone in the country, and that is why the country has made such improvements. Foreign investments are very important to Singapore, and do carry weight on decision making.
There is a trade off in every situation, and I believe that for most Singaporeans they are more focused on getting a HDB and $300K car and living in safe, prosperous environment, thus they allow for this type of interference. Right or wrong, it does work to provide the needs to the people.
Singapore is about as democratic as China for what it’s worth.
>> we also don't seem to care that behemoth US companies exert their influence over other countries
In the case of United Fruit fomenting military coups all over LatAm, I agree. But in this case we're simply exporting our values through soft power, money and influence. I don't see a problem with it. Some countries outright ban our social media and films - many like Iran or China citing American corporate support for gay rights (which for most conservative dictatorships is a convenient way to redirect popular anger toward an outgroup and to clamp down on free speech).
American values as relate to what you can say and who you can love are better[0] than the values of countries which dictate who can sleep with and arrest people in their beds (e.g. Malaysia). I'm glad our corporations uphold our values overseas. What is particularly offensive is when they don't, when they cave in to the whims of totalitarian governments, e.g. Disney and the NBA kowtowing to China.
Would it be bad if our corporations were going into free democracies and spreading values that align with dictatorship and the abrogation of freedoms? Yes. That's what Chinese companies are doing here.
Good for Goldman, and all other US companies that put pressure on countries they do business with to uphold universal human rights.
[0] I don't just mean morally better, although I do believe in universal rights and ethics. I mean that American-style personal liberty has outcompeted other systems in the marketplace of ideas, in economics and development, and is a more fit model for generating broad societal wealth than totalitarianism is. This explains why it's both utilitarian for Goldman to support LGBTQ rights, and for Singapore to agree to those terms from foreign companies.
Why would Goldman Sachs care about this? It's funny to me because same sex relationships were never an issue until the arrival of Judeo-Christian values via colonialism from the West.
Japan also had a long history of same sex culture, as did Korea and many other countries.
Then those cultures that imposed this discrimination turn around to poke fun at Islam for burqini or burka when as a secular outsider, its no different than Judeo/Christian/Abrahamic religious attitude and persecution of same sex relationship.
The top banks and the top consulting firms love smart and educated gay men who disproportionally fill their ranks. Why? Because they’re far less likely to have children, and they marry (if at all, particularly the nyc crowd) far later in life. So you can overwork them and make them fly all around the world an huge percentage of the year and they won’t complain like married straight people will.
Goldman Sachs is a stand-in for the kinds of international companies that might have offices in Singapore. Being an international finance hub is valuable to singapore and those companies will often employ lots of western expats in the country. Those expats are likely going to care about this and they will make their employers care somewhat about this too.
Look up "Goldman Sachs DEI ESG"
My take: More Consumers, More Profit
"As a firm focused on sustainable and inclusive growth, we are channeling the power of capital to drive economic prosperity for more people." https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-commitments/diversity-and-i...
Gay people are generally more educated and less likely to have kids/family. This makes them more likely to move to east Asia for a banking job. Their employers don’t want the country they work in to criminalize them.
Goldman Sachs is based on NYC and is primarily staffed with college educated, urban liberals. One of their key executives (Marty Chavez) was openly gay. I was at their headquarters (consulting) when the 2016 election election happened and the mood was utterly morose.
“Gay sex” bans being essentially bans on gay love, because sex is a crucial part of any loving relationship. Two people in love have sex. Criminalize the sex, make a romantic relationship difficult enough to be impossible. Erase gay people from existence. Standard straight homophobia playbook.
> sex is a crucial part of any loving relationship
s/any/most/
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what love is. I'm sure there are plenty parents, siblings, etc. that would be quite appalled to learn from you that they can't experience love without having sex with each other.
Cheap shot. It's clear that the comment was about love/relationship between partners.
Eros.
Sex is one way to express intimacy, which can be a sign of, but is not the same thing as love. Quite trivially observable in any loving relationship between people who can't physically have sex because say a partner is disabled. Or just between couples who have been married for 50 years. Probably not as active in the bedroom compared to their 20s, but not less in love (probably the opposite).
Conflating sex and physical attraction with love is a very modern phenomenon, and I think may have something to do with the instability of relationships.
What about sex between women? Will that stay illegal?
That wasn't illegal.