There is an absurdity to all of this and the state of affairs too. The demand is quite simple, and despite the noisy opposition to it, one has to ask what actually changes if repeal goes through? Nothing, really. PM Lee's most used response so far has been similar to his father's: at its core that because the law is not actively enforced and gay men are not, essentially, hunted, that it shouldn't be made an issue of. Until that is, the popular mindsets of Singaporeans do a volte-face and swing all the way for the liberal.But that kind of attitude almost makes a mockery of the constitution. If the law is not enforced and therefore redundant, why leave it in the books? Ong Ye Kung, our Minister for Education, for one made the frankly audacious claim that there is "[no] discrimination at work, housing (and) education" toward LGBTQIA Singaporeans. That is fatally inaccurate and does nothing for the case against repeal on two counts: first, the religious vitriol response is evidence of the contrary; and second, if there were no discrimination would that not suggest that our society is indeed ready for repeal? What is the truth? You can't have it both ways for the sake of rhetorical convenience.Appeasement is the likeliest answer – and it’s the kind of stance that this country has taken. Inherited, perhaps, from Lee Kuan Yew’s pragmatism – that morality is secondary to utility. It’s a sentiment echoed when our Mr K. Shanmugam, our Minister for Law, said that it would be “wrong for me to impose my personal views on society as a policymaker” It's a rationalism that's designed to quell discontent, a scratching of tape over a gap in the boat. Conservatism is the natural preserve of a comfortable people. Revolutions aren't born out of paradise. Are policy-makers expected to operate without their own sets of ethics and morality? Complete objectivity is impossible – and it would be foolish to pretend anyone can be rid of a personal perspective. But it is perhaps even more irresponsible and mildly hubristic to pretend to be capable of complete objectivity.It's a kind of cowardice to lay the blame on the administrative machine and redirect instead to the people – rather than owning personal responsibility for the roles that can be played in the writing (or trashing, in this case) of Singapore's laws.