-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Chitchat Why Jamus Lim join Workers' Party ?
- Thread starter batman1
- Start date
Jamus continues house visits. 
For house visits last week, we made our way through about half of 315C #Anchorvale. Many families were home (hence the slower rate of progress), and there was more than a hint of a festive mood still in the air.
We met with one family where the couple were both working in small firms. One of them ran a childcare center, out in neighboring Fernvale. The center had some difficulty filling slots, which surprised me; we often write appeals for #Anchorvale residents looking for childcare. Many parents have very tight work schedules, however, and the additional hop—even if it is only a few bus or LRT stops away—would be prohibitive.
Creating additional commercial spaces for such facilities within #SengkangGRC would help resolve this location problem, but it can be a challenge, especially given how dense the town already is. I had previously spoken about how we might repurpose underutilized upper decks of multistorey carparks for such alternative uses, but HDB declined to pursue the proposal. Just last month, my teammate Chua Kheng Wee 蔡庆威 lamented in Parliament about forgotten neighborhoods, where—outside of Rivervale Mall and Plaza, there is only one coffeeshop and convenience store in the entire #Rivervale division.
#TeamSengkang will continue to think of creative ways to advance ideas to increase the commercial offerings in our town.
Jamus Lim
12 h ·For house visits last week, we made our way through about half of 315C #Anchorvale. Many families were home (hence the slower rate of progress), and there was more than a hint of a festive mood still in the air.
We met with one family where the couple were both working in small firms. One of them ran a childcare center, out in neighboring Fernvale. The center had some difficulty filling slots, which surprised me; we often write appeals for #Anchorvale residents looking for childcare. Many parents have very tight work schedules, however, and the additional hop—even if it is only a few bus or LRT stops away—would be prohibitive.
Creating additional commercial spaces for such facilities within #SengkangGRC would help resolve this location problem, but it can be a challenge, especially given how dense the town already is. I had previously spoken about how we might repurpose underutilized upper decks of multistorey carparks for such alternative uses, but HDB declined to pursue the proposal. Just last month, my teammate Chua Kheng Wee 蔡庆威 lamented in Parliament about forgotten neighborhoods, where—outside of Rivervale Mall and Plaza, there is only one coffeeshop and convenience store in the entire #Rivervale division.
#TeamSengkang will continue to think of creative ways to advance ideas to increase the commercial offerings in our town.
Ah Seng cannot be the spoke person. In local contact yes, international not so.
Jamus invites you to tour Cameron Highlands during the March school holidays. 
Fresh out of the CNY holidays and already planning for your next trip out of Singapore? Why not bring your family and join us for a 3-day-2-night tour to Cameron Highlands during the March school holidays?
Ticket sales commence next Monday (6 Feb 2023) at Blk 330A Anchorvale St from 8pm to 9.30pm.
For enquires, please message us via WhatsApp at 8030 0032 or email us at [email protected].
Jamus Lim
1 d ·Fresh out of the CNY holidays and already planning for your next trip out of Singapore? Why not bring your family and join us for a 3-day-2-night tour to Cameron Highlands during the March school holidays?
Ticket sales commence next Monday (6 Feb 2023) at Blk 330A Anchorvale St from 8pm to 9.30pm.
For enquires, please message us via WhatsApp at 8030 0032 or email us at [email protected].
Jamus discusses the repeal of a controversial law, Section 377A.
Near the end of last year, Parliament debated the repeal of a controversial law, Section 377A (the “A” stems from the fact that it replaced a more encompassing law, 377—which makes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" illegal—before being repealed in 2007). So, prior to 2007, you couldn’t (in principle) engage in oral or anal sex, if it didn’t ultimately lead to intercourse, regardless of whom it was with. 377A is a vestige of that time, which continued to criminalize gay sex between men. The repeal of 377A was paired with a constitutional amendment, to embed the institution of marriage into the document. While the amendment itself did not specifically define what marriage would be, it vested the right to do so in the arms of parliament.
Many folks viewed the pairing of the two as a political compromise. But the term “compromise” focuses on concessions. I didn’t see it that way. Rather, my support for both repeal and amendment reflects two distinct identities I carry as an MP: representative and policymaker. As a policymaker, the repeal was almost a no-brainer. I am against discrimination in all forms, and the law was discriminatory. Opponents had concerns about what repeal could mean for society, but a prospective fear can’t possibly trump an actual one. The pointed to how the law, while on the books, wasn’t being enforced. But that’s silly; even though it wasn’t, there’s a cloud that hangs over those in such relationships. It also makes a mockery of the rule of law to have laws that we say don’t matter.
Perhaps most importantly (from my view), love should never be criminal. As a mixed-“race” couple from different countries—who are parents to a mixed “race” child—I am uncomfortable with rigidity in sociocultural constructs such as race, gender, language, and even religion. Research suggests that religions have historically been syncretic, languages continually evolve, racial genotypes fall along a continuum, and even biologically-determined sexual dimorphism may be more subtle than traditionally perceived. This is not to deny inherent differences between people, but variations within social taxonomies often exceed those between them. When distinctions are much deeper than what we observe on the surface, there’s no justification for discrimination based on fluid social constructs.
If we agree with the repeal, doesn’t this not jive with the amendment? Only if you think in terms of black-and-white. There is a difference between removing an onerous law, versus affirming the qualities of an institution (in this case marriage). Here’s where we need to recognize the sort of Eastern society that Singapore is. It tends to be socially conservative, and shy away from the sort of polarizing cultural wars that are more commonplace in the West (of course it doesn’t mean all is well underneath).
Some very well-meaning folks may rankle at the very idea of gay marriage; this need not be religious in nature, just a reflection of sociocultural conservatism. While I tend to be more relaxed about such matters, I can see how others are less so. My impression from feedback received in #SengkangGRC is similar to what has been reported for the population more generally: that a plurality either don’t have a problem with same-sex relationships conducted in private, or don’t know enough about the issue to have an opinion. However, most also stressed the importance they placed on traditional notions of marriage: not just that it be between man & woman, but also the sort of values such families espouse: fidelity in marriage, respect for elders, faith in religion, and care for the community.
That’s where my role as a representative comes to the fore. Regardless of my personal take, I cannot conscionably ignore how a large majority of my constituents feel about what marriage should be. If you take this to the logical conclusion, that’s what every MP should be doing, and that’s how we derive our public policy. I agree with PM Lee that the right forum for such choices should be Parliament, not so much the courts. In the final analysis, it comes down to a balance: between individual rights, and majority preferences. There isn’t a perfect political system to guarantee that, but democratic republics try.
Some may argue that abstract institutions like marriage have no place in the constitution. I disagree. Constitutions embody the rights of nature, society, and government for a society. Marriage is precisely the sort of institution that can be enshrined in a constitution. But constitutions are also live documents, to serve the current generation. So while we can justify including marriage as an institution, the definition of what marriage entails should adjust to contemporary norms. That’s why we can’t hard-code marriage as male-female within it. The repeal of 377A was a nod toward preserving the liberty of individuals not be be jailed for who they choose to love, while including marriage in the constitution affirms the desires of the majority. Both are consistent with policy in a democratic republic. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus Lim
8 h ·Near the end of last year, Parliament debated the repeal of a controversial law, Section 377A (the “A” stems from the fact that it replaced a more encompassing law, 377—which makes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" illegal—before being repealed in 2007). So, prior to 2007, you couldn’t (in principle) engage in oral or anal sex, if it didn’t ultimately lead to intercourse, regardless of whom it was with. 377A is a vestige of that time, which continued to criminalize gay sex between men. The repeal of 377A was paired with a constitutional amendment, to embed the institution of marriage into the document. While the amendment itself did not specifically define what marriage would be, it vested the right to do so in the arms of parliament.
Many folks viewed the pairing of the two as a political compromise. But the term “compromise” focuses on concessions. I didn’t see it that way. Rather, my support for both repeal and amendment reflects two distinct identities I carry as an MP: representative and policymaker. As a policymaker, the repeal was almost a no-brainer. I am against discrimination in all forms, and the law was discriminatory. Opponents had concerns about what repeal could mean for society, but a prospective fear can’t possibly trump an actual one. The pointed to how the law, while on the books, wasn’t being enforced. But that’s silly; even though it wasn’t, there’s a cloud that hangs over those in such relationships. It also makes a mockery of the rule of law to have laws that we say don’t matter.
Perhaps most importantly (from my view), love should never be criminal. As a mixed-“race” couple from different countries—who are parents to a mixed “race” child—I am uncomfortable with rigidity in sociocultural constructs such as race, gender, language, and even religion. Research suggests that religions have historically been syncretic, languages continually evolve, racial genotypes fall along a continuum, and even biologically-determined sexual dimorphism may be more subtle than traditionally perceived. This is not to deny inherent differences between people, but variations within social taxonomies often exceed those between them. When distinctions are much deeper than what we observe on the surface, there’s no justification for discrimination based on fluid social constructs.
If we agree with the repeal, doesn’t this not jive with the amendment? Only if you think in terms of black-and-white. There is a difference between removing an onerous law, versus affirming the qualities of an institution (in this case marriage). Here’s where we need to recognize the sort of Eastern society that Singapore is. It tends to be socially conservative, and shy away from the sort of polarizing cultural wars that are more commonplace in the West (of course it doesn’t mean all is well underneath).
Some very well-meaning folks may rankle at the very idea of gay marriage; this need not be religious in nature, just a reflection of sociocultural conservatism. While I tend to be more relaxed about such matters, I can see how others are less so. My impression from feedback received in #SengkangGRC is similar to what has been reported for the population more generally: that a plurality either don’t have a problem with same-sex relationships conducted in private, or don’t know enough about the issue to have an opinion. However, most also stressed the importance they placed on traditional notions of marriage: not just that it be between man & woman, but also the sort of values such families espouse: fidelity in marriage, respect for elders, faith in religion, and care for the community.
That’s where my role as a representative comes to the fore. Regardless of my personal take, I cannot conscionably ignore how a large majority of my constituents feel about what marriage should be. If you take this to the logical conclusion, that’s what every MP should be doing, and that’s how we derive our public policy. I agree with PM Lee that the right forum for such choices should be Parliament, not so much the courts. In the final analysis, it comes down to a balance: between individual rights, and majority preferences. There isn’t a perfect political system to guarantee that, but democratic republics try.
Some may argue that abstract institutions like marriage have no place in the constitution. I disagree. Constitutions embody the rights of nature, society, and government for a society. Marriage is precisely the sort of institution that can be enshrined in a constitution. But constitutions are also live documents, to serve the current generation. So while we can justify including marriage as an institution, the definition of what marriage entails should adjust to contemporary norms. That’s why we can’t hard-code marriage as male-female within it. The repeal of 377A was a nod toward preserving the liberty of individuals not be be jailed for who they choose to love, while including marriage in the constitution affirms the desires of the majority. Both are consistent with policy in a democratic republic. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus spoke to the folks at the Daily Ketchup, on a wide-ranging slew of topics. 
Recently, I spoke to the folks at the Daily Ketchup, on a wide-ranging slew of topics, including various elements of public policy (education, wages, productivity), being a representative of the people, and little bits and bobs about my personal life. I had hoped that our session would be more of a conversation—I shared that hope at the beginning—but I suppose the hosts (being good at what they do) managed to reveal as little about their own views as possible, while extracting as much as possible from me. Those are interested in the very long chat can tune in here:
Jamus Lim
1 d ·Recently, I spoke to the folks at the Daily Ketchup, on a wide-ranging slew of topics, including various elements of public policy (education, wages, productivity), being a representative of the people, and little bits and bobs about my personal life. I had hoped that our session would be more of a conversation—I shared that hope at the beginning—but I suppose the hosts (being good at what they do) managed to reveal as little about their own views as possible, while extracting as much as possible from me. Those are interested in the very long chat can tune in here:
