Charity Gala Premiere of Spider Lilies - in aid of AWARE

CHARITY GALA PREMIERE OF SPIDER LILIES - IN AID OF AWARE
Tuesday, May 29 2007, 9:00pm - 11:00pm

AWARE invites you to attend the premier of "Spider Lily" and help AWARE with its fund-raising efforts. Encore Films and Cathay Cinema have generously offered AWARE the evening's takings.
"Spider Lily" is an interesting movie and done in good taste. The two main leads, who are lesbians, explore the deeper sense of love, companionship and longing rather than sex. It is a movie that will help AWARE highlight its Sexuality Education Programme and its work on Body Images.

The charity tickets can be obtained from Cathay movie website tickets.cathay.com.sg and Cathay movie line (phone booking) at 6235 1155. Or any Cathay Cineplex.

Do please go for the premier.

You will be enjoying a good movie and supporting AWARE in its work at the same time.

For more information, visit http://www.encorefilms.com/spiderlilies

ST Forum: Aids and gays: A flawed response (May 28, 2007)

ST Forum

May 28, 2007

Aids and gays: A flawed response

I REFER to the letter written by Mr Wong Suan Yin, 'Aids: Stop the spread of misinformation' .

The letter misrepresents what I have said. It is not true that I made the statement that homosexuality leads to the spread of Aids and therefore criminalising homosexual sex will prevent the spread of Aids.

My article only mentioned that there is an increased risk of homosexuals engaging in anal intercourse in contracting the HIV virus. The reasons given for this is that anal intercourse is inherently unhealthy and studies have shown that homosexuals are more promiscuous.

Mr Wong has missed the point made by me in the letter and has gone off tangent with his own argument.

Unfortunately his argument is flawed. Let me clarify.

HIV virus is spread in three main ways.

1. From mother to child during birth
2. Sexual contact during intercourse, oral, vaginal and anal
3. Via blood either through contaminated blood, contaminated blood products, contaminated donor organs, tattooing and intravenous drug abuse

According to WHO statistics, there is a higher incidence of HIV in women and children in Third World countries compared to the rest of the world.

It is just as true that in Singapore and in the United States, there is a high incidence of HIV among homosexual men who engage in anal sex.

How do we reconcile this? Obviously there must be environmental factors involved that lead to differences between the two. Unfortunately WHO statistics from most Third World countries do not show the mode of infection.

There are so many unanswered questions. We do not know how many of the mothers contracted HIV because of drug abuse or how many of their husbands were drug abusers.

We do not know how many of their husbands had intercourse with high-risk individuals. We do not know the incidence of bisexual men who are married.

In some African cultures, bisexual behaviour is rampant. Culturally, in some countries, young men are sent by their fathers to prostitutes for their first sexual experience.

Some studies have shown that the incidence of HIV among young children is higher than that of mothers in Africa. This implies that children are getting HIV from sources other than their mothers. Contaminated needles? Contaminated dental equipment?

How many adults are infected through contaminated medical equipment due to poor health care? All these cultural, social and environmental factors affect the behaviour and sexual practices of individuals and therefore account for the different figures seen in different countries.

We cannot apply these figures to the situation in Singapore because the environment is different.

Let me illustrate with an example.

We know that poverty leading to malnutrition and starvation is statistically one of the leading causes of death among children in the world. Obviously it is illogical to put all our resources in eradicating malnutrition and starvation to lower the death rate of children in Singapore. This will not help at all as it is not a leading cause of death in Singapore.

Similarly for the case of HIV infection, we have to look at the local context, what the local statistics are and what the risk factors for our population are. As I have previously stated, our local statistics and those of the US show that the group with the highest risk of being infected by the HIV virus is that of individuals who indulge in anal intercourse.

Currently anal intercourse is a criminal offence. The argument put forward that decriminalisation will make it easier to educate those who engage in such practices and lower the risk of HIV needs to be examined carefully.

As a doctor I wrote in to highlight the public health issues involved in this matter. As for public policy issues, this is not an appropriate forum. Parliament will consider all these issues in due course.

Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang

ST Forum: Religion, politics and sexual minorities (May 28, 2007)

ST Forum

May 28, 2007

Religion, politics and sexual minorities

I HAVE been following the online and printed articles on sexual minorities following MM Lee Kuan Yew's St James Power Station talk.

Now it seems that, along with science and acacdemia, religion has crept into the debate.

Religious fundamentalism and/or blinkered subscription to specific academic and scientific doctrine, whether religiously or politically charged, have severe social implications.

Based on the 'knowledge' generated from these seemingly legitimate fields, laws are imposed.

We have to look way back to Seventh Century A.D. Spain where Christianity and the monarchy justified persecution and violence to sexual minorities.

In another account, the definition bestiality is to have relations with someone (a human being) outside one's race, and this was defined by Christian leaders many centuries ago.

Christian Europe, by the 13th Century, came to regard sodomy as a 'wicked and unnatural vice' and legislation was enforced. Throughout that century, homosexual activity went from being completely legal in most of Europe to one that incurred the death penalty. Christianity was the motivation behind this.

Governed by the 'truths' in science and religion in the past century and a half, the following acts were performed on homosexuals: Surgical transplantation of testicular cells from straight men to gay men; castration of gay men; cerebral ablation of 'sexual deviants'; androgen replacement; aversive condition, including electrical, chemical and covert; hypnosis; and psychoanalysis. These acts would be otherwise condemned as inhuman in today's context.

Religious fundamentalists and blinkered academics who based their knowledge on dated information are often unable to account for changes in society, boundaries and socially-related definitions. These people need to understand the histories of their respective beliefs, however embarrassing, brutal, bloody and silly.

I recall one Singaporean motto that promotes life-long learning and recommend it for those who are impassioned by religious fundamentalism and blinkered academic subscription. Learning also involves understanding your past and knowing about your past through many sources, rather than only one source into which you might be already pre-conditioned and taken for the 'truth'.

There is no need for a moral panic. Sexual minorities are not a disease. All we have to do is to look at all the homosexuality- related moral panics in other countries in the past and the atrocities committed against them based on narrow and stubborn views.We are Singapore. Let's not only embrace diversity, but also celebrate diversity while respecting one another's boundaries without encroachment.

Ho Chi Sam

Need to bring sexuality into the open: AWARE

Need to bring sexuality into the open

Aware's sex education course equips kids with facts, skills to make wise choices

Monday May 28, 2007

Letter from Constance SingamPresident, Association of Women for Research and Education (AWARE)

We would like to respond to Mr Geoffrey Yeoh's concerns in his letter ("Parents be Aware of film's message", May 25) about our support of the film, Spider Lilies, and our comprehensive sexuality education programme.

Thank you, Mr Yeoh, for your support of Aware's goal of gender equality and your understanding and support of the work we do.

Aware welcomes open discussion and debate on issues, such as the one you have raised. We believe more openness leads to a better understanding of important issues and respect for individual choices.

We embrace diversity and individual choices, and are glad Singapore is now more open to discussing diversity. That films such as Spider Lilies and Brokeback Mountain have been or are being screened is a reflection of this more open and, hence, more healthy situation.

Aware's comprehensive sexuality education programme draws on established international programmes. It was developed over the course of a year in consultation with parents, youth social workers, teachers and academics from a range of institutions. As with our other programmes, it has been through a rigorous process of internal and external auditing and pilot testing. We have run the programme at secondary and post-secondary institutions, and received excellent feedback and requests for more sessions.

Young people need relevant information in order to protect their health and rights, and those of others. Research shows that comprehensive sexuality education is effective in providing adolescents with the tools, knowledge, skills, attitude and values to make responsible choices about their sexual health.

Our programme recognises that sexuality is not just about sexual intercourse. In addition to providing accurate information, it encourages students to explore their own values and develop the communication skills and self-respect necessary for positive and healthy living. It aims to replace silence and shame with information and skills.

By bringing sexuality into the open, young people are more likely to make wise, realistic and informed decisions. The programme also equips teens with the skills to resist peer pressure to have sex.

It was developed to complement other programmes and offer opportunities for healthy discussion in society about relationships and human sexuality because of the rising incidence of sexually-transmitted infections (STIs), teenage pregnancies and abortions. The latest figures show 678 of those aged between 10 and 19 sought help for STIs in 2005, compared to 256 in 2001. Between 1985 and 2004, 18 teens were diagnosed as HIV-positive.

From 2001 to 2005, Health Ministry figures show an average of 1,500 teen abortions annually. In 2005, nearly all the 1,279 girls were between 15 and 19, and unmarried. Our programme will have a dramatic impact on curbing STIs and unwanted pregnancies.

We recognise Mr Yeoh's concerns are based on newspaper reports of our position and the movie. I would like to assure him that had he attended our comprehensive sexuality education programme, he would have been comforted to learn it has a holistic approach and covers a broad range of human experiences.

We are open to more discussion with Mr Yeoh and invite him and other like-minded readers to meet us. We will be happy to share with him more about the work we do and hope to engage in a constructive dialogue.

TODAY: A web beacon for transgenders (May 28, 2007)

A web beacon for transgenders

A project coordinator by day, he uses his net-savvy skills at night to reach out to an unlikely group

Monday . May 28, 2007

Cheow Xin Yi and Esther Fung
news@newstoday. com.sg

A sword-wielding wushu (martial arts) enthusiast who is also a father of two, Daniel is not someone you would readily associate with the transgender community.

So when the assistant manager of a construction firm decided to start a local web portal for the group two years ago, he was - not surprisingly - inundated with questions from those around him.

"Many people ask me for a reason. You can say it's sympathy or empathy, I seriously do not know. It's like asking, 'Why would you make a donation or do charity?'" he said.

Daniel met his first transsexual friend online more than 10 years ago during the early era of IRC (Internet Relay Chat), who "showed him what it was like to be a 'sister'," a local lingo for male-to-female transsexuals.

As he befriended more through the net, he started toying with the idea of forming an online support group for the transgendered, which consists of transsexuals, or those who wish to become members of the opposite gender, and cross-dressers.

"The focus is on the net-savvy ones. They are generally young, clueless about life, with no one to turn to besides surfing the web for information, " he said.

Garnering previous experience with hosting websites for the wushu community, Daniel finally set up SgButterfly. org in 2005, a website dedicated to the transgender community in Singapore.

While it focuses on transgender issues, anyone - including non-transgender people - can participate in discussion forums or register as SgButterfly members.

The open nature of the portal is deliberate, said Daniel, since a big objective of SgButterfly is to create awareness of a group prone to misconceptions.

"The idea is to educate people with proper information on issues like transgenderism and Gender Identity Disorder (GID)," he said.

GID is a psychiatric condition commonly associated with transsexuals.

Fully aware of the sensitivity of the topic, Daniel, however, stressed that education in this sense does not mean advocating a lifestyle.

"In life, nothing is 'the right way'. Information and discussions within the portal is to bring knowledge to all, but the decision to accept is really up to individuals, " said the 35-year-old, who takes pains to make sure that his website keeps within Media Development Authority guidelines.

Acknowledging that gaining public understanding for the group does not come overnight, Daniel is happy meanwhile with the progress that SgButterfly has made in uniting the community.

It currently has more than 900 members, monthly hits of 600,000 and 200,000 page views, a result Daniel considers "very successful for a local portal catering to a niche group".

Besides online activities, Daniel also organises monthly outings to further reach out to members.

But maintaining the website is no easy task. Besides the hours spent every night (four hours initially) to generate discussion and build up member base, Daniel has had to fend off online intruders who harassed members or solicited openly and privately.

To enforce tight measures for the website's non-soliciting policy, Daniel has eight moderators monitoring the forums everyday, removing and banning participants who break the rules spelt clearly on the website.

And of course, there were the raised eyebrows about his liaison with the community.

While his wife and parents approve of his SgButterfly activities, his wife has requested that his face not be identified for this article, for fear of a public backlash.

But Daniel is amazingly upfront with what he is doing - even his superiors at work know about his "interest". In fact, some SgButterfly members have visited Daniel - who stays in a four-room flat in Teck Whye with his wife - for Chinese New Year.

"I talk to lots of my colleagues about SgButterfly and its members. Many actually want to know more about my movement out of curiosity. They don't object, but neither do they openly accept it."

ST Forum: God has a place in public morals debate (May 26, 2007)

ST Forum

May 26, 2007

God has a place in public morals debate

I REFER to the recent Straits Times article entitled 'Is there a place for God in public morals debate?' by Senior Writer Chua Mui Hoong (ST, May 18).

My view is that God cannot be excluded in public morals debate. It is not a matter of willingness.

God is the author of morality in human history. In other words, moral standards and moral values originate from God, in monotheism the Supreme Being and in polytheism, the Supreme Beings, who transcend human beings.

Be it Confucianism which is strictly a value system, Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism, et cetera, all religious faiths that believe in an absolute Supreme Being or absolute Supreme Beings share the common values about sex, family life and procreation, and are against homosexual sex.

There are many other common values shared by different religious faiths.

For example, Buddhism stresses the importance of cause-and-effect relationship in a human life. Likewise, in Christianity, there is this natural law known as 'you reap what you sow'. If we sow the seed of approval for homosexuality, we are going to reap the grave consequences of it in due course.

Medical science cannot offer solutions to all human problems as it deals with only one aspect, the physical aspect, of human life. We humans are not merely physical beings. There is a soul - intellect, emotion and will - and many believe that there is a spirit within us. They cannot be seen under the microscope.

However, just because we cannot prove their tangibility does not deny their existence. Regardless of whether we like it or not and whether or not we have a religion, we are moral beings as we are born with moral instinct, a sense of propriety, known as conscience.

There is such a thing called guilt, which is not imaginary. When one violates his/her moral instinct, one feels guilty about it. Nevertheless, conscience can be distorted if it is given in to depravity of the mind and rationalisation.

Therefore, to people of different religious faiths, to debate and discuss moral issues and morality without God is akin to a little child who wants to be independently responsible for his/her own life and behaviour without the care and constraints of his/her parent(s); no matter how sophisticated and how impressive the arguments may be.

Public laws should not violate the common values of different religious faiths of its people.

Esther Chan Nek Fa (Ms)

TODAY: Parents, be Aware of film's message (May 25, 2007)

Parents, be Aware of film's message

Women's group 'support of lesbian lifestyle' upsetting

Friday . May 25, 2007

Letter from Geoffrey Yeoh

I was dismayed when I read the report, "Aware's controversial choice for charity gala premiere" (May 19-20).

It was highlighted that the Association for Women, Action and Research (Aware) had chosen a movie with a strong lesbian theme, Spider Lilies (picture), for its charity premiere next week.

What particularly shocked me was that the association' s president Constance Singam said the film "explores themes that Aware supports in its Comprehensive Sexuality Education, a programme for teens that helps them develop a healthy and positive attitude towards sexuality and of themselves".

She was also quoted as saying that Aware had previewed Spider Lilies, and found it done in good taste as, apart from the fact that its protagonists are lesbians, the story deals with love, relationships and body image.

To me, the fact that a lesbian-themed movie was selected sends a very public message that Aware is supportive of this lifestyle.

As a parent of a pre-teen daughter, I have aspirations of her growing up to be a successful professional in an environment where she can grow, develop and reach her full potential.

In this regard, I support Aware's goals of gender equality for all, which give both women and men optimal opportunities.

It would appear that Aware is deviating from this original objective and is now openly promoting a lesbian lifestyle among our women.

What is particularly disturbing is that, it seems, from Ms Singam's statement, to be targeting our teens.

As a parent, I find this unacceptable and strongly urge all schools and youth organisations to be mindful of Aware's position and not put our unsuspecting, impressionable teens at risk.

I do not know whether all members and volunteers of Aware support this policy but I know many of my female friends do not.

ST Forum: Relgion and politics in Singapore already mix (May 25, 2007)

ST Forum

May 25, 2007

Religion and politics in Singapore already mix

I REFER to the letter written by Mr Richard Woo Khiah Cheng, 'Religion mustnot be allowed to creep into or influence politics' (Online forum, May 23).

Mr Woo is correct in his assertion that morality, public or private, neednot be based on a religious background. However, I find it most ironic that he would choose to quote Sam Harris for the judicial support of suspected terrorists and the ethnic profiling of Muslims, or the Ayn Rand Institute whose founder firmly believed that mankind is the be all and end all of morality.

Nations like Russia and North Korea that have once experimented with the ideas pushed by these gentlemen to their logical conclusion find themselvesfacing a humanitarian and social disaster that will take decades to heal.

As Mr Woo pointed out, more than 85 per cent of Singapore are religious orat least profess to be. Presumably a number of ministers and senior civilservants belong to the 85 per cent and their moral views are likely to bereligiously inclined, rather than the principles of secular humanism yet Singapore is not threading on a dangerous path which Mr Woo seems so worried about.

In Singapore's case, leaving the definition of God aside, the public seems to be quite clear and in unison on what God wants on the national level.Religion is mixed with politics in Singapore even if the names are notspoken loudly. Views of the Government on homosexuality, censorship and the family, however, reveal a religious bent to Singapore politics.

Li Jiefeng

ST Forum: Homosexuality - better to educate our young on importance of marriage and family (May 25, 2007)

ST Forum

May 25, 2007

Homosexuality - better to educate our young on importance of marriage and family

I REFER to the letter by Mr David Garcia, 'Is homosexuality wrong?: Three factors to consider' (Online forum, May 22).

I do not know of the teachings of other Christian churches or otherreligious groups, but I do know that in my church, homosexuality and homosexual acts are wrong.

As clearly declared in 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World' issued by The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church ofJesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we have been taught that 'all human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God. Each is abeloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents and, as such, each has adivine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal and eternal identity and purpose'.

I further quote: 'The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Evepertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declarethat God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earthremains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacredpowers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman,lawfully wedded as husband and wife.'

This Proclamation was inspired and issued in September 1995 because of theincreasing threat to the sanctity of marriage and family. The complete textcan be viewed at www.lds.org

Many may have argued for decriminalising homosexual acts on grounds that itis widely accepted in other parts of the world. Some have even suggestedthat they add a colourful and intellectual vibrancy to our city.

I do not deny that there are many gays who are highly intellectual andc olourful. But, is that grounds for decriminalising homosexuality?

I would argue strongly against it. Just as there are many high society drugabusers, who are highly intellectual and colourful, should we also legalise the use of drugs in Singapore? I think and hope not. We are all well aware the dangers drug abuse pose to society.

Homosexuality and homosexual acts are no different from drugs. Such actswill slowly destroy families and families are the fundamental unit of everysociety.

There is a Chinese saying; 'First there is the family, then the country'.Instead of decriminalising homosexuality and homosexual acts, we should beeducating our young on the importance of marriage and family. Many of society's problems will go away if we build stronger families.

That said, it does not mean that we should condemn homosexuals. Instead, weshould do everything we can to help them understand the divine nature oftheir gender. After all, they are humans too.

Patrick Tan Siong Kuan

ST Forum: Some erroneous claims in writer's views on gay debate (May 25, 2007)

ST Forum

May 25, 2007

Some erroneous claims in writer's views on gay debate

I REFER to the article, 'Is homosexuality wrong?: Three factors to consider' (ST, May 22), by Mr David Garcia.

I would like to clarify a few points which I believe he misrepresented.

Firstly, Mr Garcia states that there is no official statement by the churchthat states homosexuality is wrong. This is an erroneous statement.

For instance, the bishops of the Anglican church in South-east Asia, haveissued an official statement in 2003, stating: 'A natural, holistic andconsistent reading of the Scriptures clearly shows that it is against the practice of homosexuality. In the context of orthodox and classical Christianity, the canonical authority of the Scriptures is taken to berecognised and received by the community of faith and not subject tomajority, culturally relevant or even theological voting.'

The Bible, the basis of Christian beliefs, also states categorically: 'Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor maleprostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.'

Hence, the Bible states that homosexuality is an offence, viewed in the sameway as adultery, theft and slander. A core Christian belief is that of repentance, meaning 'a change of mind' towards God. The Christian faith embraces people who repent from homosexuality but does not condone homosexuality as an offence.

Secondly, Mr Garcia states that 'stealing is a crime, not kleptomania'. Kleptomania is stated as a disorder in American Psychiatric Association official DSM handbook.

There is acknowledgement that kleptomania is a disorder. The DSM handbook definition of kleptomania is 'the recurrent failure to resist impulses to steal items'.

As I have worked with inmates from Singapore Prison, I can tell you that in real life, a person with kleptomania who has stolen things is still judged guilty in the eyes of the law. The assertion by Mr Garcia that an act of theft of kleptomania may be 'excused' is not true.

In a previous letter to The Straits Times, Dr Alan Chin asserted that homosexuality is a disease from a medical point of view. In fact,homosexuality is stated as a disorder in the American Psychiatric Association DSM handbook all along, until it was removed under political pressure from gay activities in the 1970s. Just as a person with kleptomaniais not excused by law when caught in the act of stealing, the law does not excuse people caught in homosexual offences.

Mr Garcia states that 'reason helps when religion gets unreasonable' and 'we must use reason to talk and discuss about religious and social matters'.

I would like to point out that reason and religion are not two opposingvalues that are to be weighed against each other. Is the basis of MrGarcia's reasoning based on atheism as a world view? Different people wouldhave different basis of reasoning based on their world views. This isespecially so in multi-religious Singapore where most people profess a religion. Thus, what is considered 'reasonable' can only be shaped by the values of a society.

Jenica Chua Chor Ping (Ms)

UMNS Report: Pastor speaks of transgender experience

Pastor speaks of transgender experience

The Rev. Drew Phoenix, a transgender United Methodist pastor, shares his story during the May 24 plenary session of the Baltimore-Washingto n Annual Conference in Washington. A UMNS photo courtesy of the Baltimore-Washingto n Conference.

A UMNS Report
By Linda Bloom
May 25, 2007

A transgender United Methodist pastor has shared his story with other members of the denomination' s Baltimore-Washingto n Conference in the hopes of promoting a broader discussion about gender identity.

The Rev. Drew Phoenix - formerly the Rev. Ann Gordon - spoke at both a closed clergy session and a general plenary session on May 24 during the annual conference meeting at the Wardman Park Hotel in Washington. He is pastor of St. John's United Methodist Church in Baltimore.
"I was very grateful for the opportunity to be able to share my story and who I am," Phoenix told United Methodist News Service in a phone interview following those sessions. "I was very pleased at the number of people who were very honest in their reflections and questions."
He said he has been undergoing medical procedures for the transition from female to male during the past year, with "a great team of medical people who helped me think it out."
In his statement to the plenary session, the 48-year-old pastor explained that "last fall, after a lifelong spiritual journey, and years of prayer and discernment, I decided to change my name from Ann Gordon to Drew Phoenix in order to reflect my true gender identity and to honor my spiritual transformation and relationship with God."

By sharing the story of his spiritual journey and relationship with God, Phoenix said he hoped the conference participants "will commit ourselves to becoming educated about the complexity of gender and gender identity and open ourselves to those in our congregations who identify as transgender. "

Phoenix, who was ordained in 1989 and previously served in the Bethesda area, said he joined the ministry because of "a calling to be in service to folk who are oppressed, who are poor, who are excluded, who are marginalized. "

Although he was named Ann and declared a girl, Phoenix said he always felt he was male and had trouble understanding "the disconnect I was experiencing between my physical, external self and my internal, spiritual self."

"Fortunately, today, God's gift of medical science is enabling me to bring my physical body into alignment with my true gender," he told the plenary session.
No church policies

Bishop John ScholHe had informed his bishop, John Schol, and his congregation about his decision to undergo the transition. Schol told United Methodist News Service that he, the conference cabinet and the congregation have approached the matter in a serious and prayerful manner.

The United Methodist Book of Discipline has no specific policies regarding gender reassignment. "The cabinet and myself have done everything to ensure that the Discipline is being carried out," Schol said.

Both Phoenix and St. John's staff-parish committee requested that the pastor be reappointed to the church as part of the normal appointment cycle, which begins July 1. That request will be granted, according to the bishop.

Church members told Schol that under Phoenix's leadership, membership has grown and the congregation' s financial situation has improved. "There is a spirit within the congregation that hasn't been experienced within a number of years," the bishop reported.

More effective pastor
Phoenix believes his transition is making him "even more effective" as a pastor and said his greatest concern "is that the congregation continues to grow and thrive."
That growth, he pointed out, is evident at St. John's, located just north of downtown Baltimore. With a membership spanning a wide range of ages and backgrounds - including the first youth group and confirmation class in years - the congregation is planning to renovate its historic building.

Phoenix is not the first transgender clergy member in the Baltimore-Washingto n Conference. In 2002, the Rev. Rebecca A. Steen decided to leave the denomination after controversy over her desire to return to active ministry after gender reassignment.

She had sought voluntary leave from the conference in 1999. Prior to that time, Steen, who was then the Rev. Richard A. Zamostny, had served churches in three Maryland communities during a 17-year career.

TODAY: Main Society not ready, Minister says he is "not ready to move" on homosexuality

'Main society not ready'
Minister says he is 'not ready to move' on homosexuality

Wednesday . May 23, 2007
Derrick A Paulo
derrick@mediacorp. com.sg

If Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew has his way, there will be no changes to Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes homosexual acts a crime here. "I'm not ready to move, and I don't think a major section of society is ready to move," he said.

Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui gave his personal views yesterday at a dialogue session for the annual Pre-University Seminar at the Nanyang Technological University. The issue cropped up when a student asked RAdm Lui how the Government will reconcile "ideas and ideologies" that will be increasingly in conflict as Singapore "opens up to the world and becomes more liberal". She was referring to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's comments at a forum last month in which he said the Government is not the moral police on the homosexuality issue.

In response, RAdm Lui said: "Yes, there will be different tension points, maybe what some would characterise conservatives versus liberals. We can't be stiff-necked. We need to be open to ideas but we have to come to our conclusions through the framework in Singapore. That's why it's important to have our own deep convictions and beliefs.

"While acknowledging Mr Lee's comments on the possible genetics of homosexuality, RAdm Lui said he does not subscribe to the theory that it is a "medical condition".

"Do you excuse paedophiles or psychopaths because of a medical condition?" he asked.

He is also not swayed by arguments that homosexuality does not affect others in society, that it is just between two people. "There can be lots of relationships, like between a person and an animal, or a person and another person, but which is incestuous. There are norms in society.

"The Government will move at the pace at which society "allows us to move", RAdm Lui said.

TODAY Voices - Let's not get distracted by sex (May 22, 2007)

Let's not get distracted by sex

Tuesday . May 22, 2007
Letter from Terence Teo

Sex is always an interesting topic, and the debate about homosexuality is no exception. However, before we get too distracted by sex, let me make two clarifications:

There is no law against homosexuals. People who are homosexual per se are not criminals. What has been said so far seems to suggest that a person is a criminal just by being homosexual in orientation. This is not true. Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code do not appear to solely target homosexuals.

Section 377 is targeted at a specific sexual act, an act of "gross indecency" or an act "against the order of nature". These provisions will apply to anyone, regardless of sexual persuasion, if they commit such acts.

Section 377A singles out "male person" as the potential perpetrator but since females too are homosexual, it suggests this section is not specifically targeted against homosexuals but a male perpetrator of any sexual orientation.

Section 377 is even wider and applies to anyone having carnal intercourse with any man, woman or animal.

We could argue that male homosexuals are more at risk of violating either Section 377 or 377A, or both, because the nature of their preferred form of sexual activity is more likely to result in such a violation and this, therefore, is grossly unfair to them. This is an entirely different issue, which nevertheless underscores the point that Sections 377 and 377A do not criminalise homosexuals but rather certain sexual acts, which may be the preference of male homosexuals, but is not their exclusive preserve.

Homosexuality is not a crime, and the physical nature of the relationship is not the issue here. In my view, the real issue is about whether we are ready to legalise homosexuality and to understand the social implications and consequences of such a move - whether to allow them to marry, adopt children, apply for a flat, and so on.

Let us not get distracted by the provisions of the two sections in the Penal Code or other more lurid topics. Instead, we should discuss if society is ready to accept same sex marriages, same sex parents, and all that may result from legalising homosexuality.

ST Forum: Irresponsible to suggest treatment based on one study (May 22, 2007)

ST Forum

May 22, 2007
Irresponsible to suggest treatment based on one study

I AM writing in response to Dr Alan Chin's letter, 'Figures speak for themselves: Practising gays have higher risk of HIV'.

He went to great lengths to provide statistical data that male-to-male sexual activities have resulted in a disproportionately high incidence of HIV transmission.

Considering this with his other key point that homosexuality is not an immutable trait and that we should not deny anyone the right to change, Dr Chin seems to suggest that gay men should exercise the right to change their sexual orientation in view of the health risks they face.

With discrimination faced by gay people in many societies, it is interesting that not more gay men have exercised the right to change their orientation by evidence that most self-identified gay men remain gay.

One wonders who in their right mind would choose to suffer societal rejection if there was a way out. If reparative therapy to change one's sexual orientation is so pervasively successful as Dr Chin claims (he has not provided any statistical evidence though), why is it not adopted by most medical practioners as a treatment for homosexuality?

It is irresponsible for a medical doctor to suggest a treatment based on one study. Dr Chin has conveniently ignored the comments made by the author of the study, Dr Robert Spitzer himself, in response to misuse of his study results as published in the Wall Street Journal May 21, 2001 (verbatim).

'In reality, change should be seen as complex and on a continuum. Some homosexuals appear able to change self-identity and behavior, but not arousal and fantasies; others can change only self-identity; and only a very few, I suspect, can substantially change all four.

'I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation.

'I did not conclude that all gays should try to change, or even that they would be better off if they did.

'The issue here is not about the right to change one's sexual orientation. Since when has that right been denied?

As a medical doctor communicating his views in a public forum, Dr Chin should have presented a more robust analysis of a scientific study done by someone else, especially when there already exists a wide spectrum of professional opinions on the study in question.

Peter Goh Kok Yong

ST Online Forum: Is homosexuality wrong? Three factors to consider (May 22, 2007)

ST Online Forum

May 22, 2007
Is homosexuality wrong?: Three factors to consider

I REFER to the article, 'Is there a place for God in public morals debate' (ST, May 18), by Ms Chua Mui Hoong.

First, let me explain that there is not a single official statement of the church that says that 'homosexuality is a sin'. That would be like saying 'kleptomania is a crime'.

Kleptomania is a condition that inclines those who suffer from it to steal; just like homosexuality is a condition that inclines people to commit homosexual acts (sinful in the eyes of the church). Stealing is a crime, not kleptomania.

The Church believes that homosexual acts, not homosexuality nor homosexuals, are wrong. Neither does the church say that homosexual acts are necessarily sins, only sinful.

In the same vein, an act of theft of kleptomania may be 'excused' on the basis of the special condition of the person, although the act of theft has indeed being committed.

The law (and church) speaks about the wrongness of the act (sinfulness) ; the court (conscience) about the guilt of the person (sin). In other words, we must distinguish between the three matters at stake, the condition of the person, the free acts of the person and the culpability the person deserves.

This said, I cannot agree more with the point the author puts across: 'Public reason is accessible to all regardless of religious faith.'Reason and religion should complement each other. Reason helps when religion gets unreasonable; religion helps when reason loses sight of truth.

We must use reason to talk and discuss about religious and social matters because what is reasonable is reasonable to all. Law (and God's commandments) , human acts (sins or virtues) and responsibility (guilt or lack of it) are important social (and religious) matters.

Psychology should study the psychological condition, civil law (or God's or church's law) should establish the 'wrongness' (sinfulness or lack of it) of the act, and the court (or conscience) should establish the guilt and punishment the person deserves.

To discuss it, we only need to know where to put the brackets.

David Garcia

ST Forum: Criminalisation of gay acts: need for equality before the law (May 22, 2007)

ST Forum

May 22, 2007
Criminalisation of gay acts: Need for equality before the law

I REFER to Ms Yvonne Lee's letter, 'Gay debate continues: Writer responds', (Online forum, May 17).

Ms Lee has quoted from the affidavit for a court case of one medical doctor, John R. Diggs, Jr, MD, that homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy.

A closer examination of the affidavit whose source is supplied by Ms Lee herself shows that Dr Diggs observed: 'People who engage in homosexuality have the same basic sexual equipment as people who do not.

'This meant that heterosexuals have the same sexual organs and some can also engage in what is regarded as 'homosexual acts' as well.

Unsafe sex by heterosexuals and homosexuals can result in the same medical and health risks like those listed by Ms Lee - promiscuity, multiple sexual partners, assault and battery and anal intercourse.

Homosexuals do not have the monopoly of such risks. In reality heterosexuals carry higher risks and spread sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/Aids to their sexual partners and unborn children.

In the discussion on natural drives, Dr Diggs wrote: 'We discourage heterosexual promiscuity, cigarette smoking, and intoxication of various sorts, even though there may be a natural inclination to do these things. Some claim a natural inclination, as adults, to sexually exploit children. This society discourages to the point of making it criminal.

'Dr Diggs is right that we should discourage heterosexuals from expressing such inclinations. At the same time I agree with him that we should do the same with homosexuals.

But homosexual orientation is not an inclination or a tendency that we must curb. It is just as natural an orientation as the heterosexual to engage in heterosexual and for some homosexual acts as well.

Sexuality is common and the health risks of sexual acts are the same. The distinctive difference is that of same-sex and opposite-sex acts.

Why do we criminalise one and not the other? This is where there is a need for equality before the law and justice needs to be seen to be served.

Dr Yap Kim Hao

SAFEHAVEN, a Ministry of Free Community Church presents Rev Dr Mel White (24 May 2007)

"Thank God I am Queer - A Gay Christian's Journey"

24 May 2007, Thursday, 7.30pm
Free Community Church
100A Eu Tong Sen St, #04-02 Yangtze Building

Introducing Mel White

The Rev. Dr. Mel White is a former ghostwriter for fellow evangelicals, including Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, and Jerry Falwell. Inspired by the nonviolence movements of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., White founded SOULFORCE, a nonviolent movement based on their principles to address the suffering of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.
In 1997, he was awarded the ACLU's National Civil Liberties Award for his efforts to apply the "soul force" principles of Gandhi and King to the struggle for justice for sexual minorities.
He is the author of over 16 books, including Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America, published in 1994, and Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right, published in 2006.

Well, in a nutshell, Mel White is a BIG DEAL. Not only is he a celebrated writer and pastor, he's also a powerful advocate for being Christian and gay. And he speaks from a position of authority, having been the Dean of the largest gay-lesbian church in America, the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, Texas and Minster of Justice of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches. At a personal level, Mel White struggled with his sexuality for 30 years before he finally accepted his sexual orientation as a "gift from God".

If there was one Safehaven talk that you MUST ATTEND, make no mistake, it's THIS ONE. Come and listen to how one man struggled to overcome the teachings of the Church that homosexuality is a sin, to be able to say today, "Thank God I'm Queer!" So make your way down to FCC this coming Thursday, 24 May, 7.30pm, and meet face-to-face the man himself.

Alphonsus Lee
Chairperson, SAFEHAVEN

Safehaven is an informal fellowship for gay and lesbian Christians. We believe that God is able and desires to bless gay and lesbians Christians without having to deny their sexuality. Safehaven is interdenominational and welcomes Protestant and Catholic members who are interested to integrate faith and sexuality in their lives as Christians.

Today Voices: Law highlights social fabric anchored on family culture

May 21, 2007

Today Voices: Law highlights social fabric anchored on family culture

Letter from LAI YEW CHAN

HOMOSEXUALITY is a lifestyle — not a mere idiosyncrasy — that carries overarching implications in our social and family spheres and even for our long-term demographic structure. The extent to which society embraces it determines the degree of its penetration in the recesses of society.

Therefore, economic benefits aside, the one overriding issue in this “pink dollar debate” is the kind of legacy we wish to leave for the next generation. If we still wish to see our social fabric anchored in the nucleus family, the gay lifestyle should remain a subculture and not be a part of mainstream
society. So long as it remains a subculture, we are conveying to our young the message that society still values the family culture.

Although Section 377A of the Penal Code is said to be more honoured in principle than in observance, it should remain enshrined in legislation. Its abolition will mean that even the lawmakers, the elected representatives of the people, are according public space for such acts.

Today Voices: Why an anti-gay law?

May 21, 2007

Today Voices: Why an anti-gay law?

Section 377A not key reason why gays stay or leave S’pore

Letter from JOHN TAN

I REFER to the report “What price, the pink dollar?” (May 19) by Jasmine Yin and Gracia Chiang.

There is no doubt that Section 377A of the Penal Code, a law criminalising homosexual activity between men, should be tossed out of Singapore’s law books. We should not have to compare ourselves with other countries, but it may be good to know that Indonesia, China, Cambodia, Laos,
Vietnam, the Philippines and many of our other Asian neighbours have no such law discriminating against gay men.

I would think that some of these countries have societies that would be as, if not more, conservative than Singapore is.

As to whether we would be able to retain Jeremy and his scholarly partner, I doubt the “law” has any real impact on their decision. New York, London and Hong Kong may be “more open” to gays, but there is still a sizeable chunk of the mainstream population who will not tolerate any public display of affection between two men.

My point is, while the outdated law may still be around, it is not a real push factor that’s chasing the gay men out of Singapore. Neither is it stopping gay men, who can contribute greatly to the economy, from coming to Singapore. Maybe some gay activists might refuse to step in or stay in Singapore as a matter of principle, but a majority of gay men, like straight people, take into consideration a low crime rate, clean living environment, a vibrant economy, language, and many other factors as the reasons for a stay-or-leave decision.

Today: The Gay Debate and the Breakthrough We Need

May 21, 2007

The GAY DEBATE AND the BREAKTHROUGH WE NEED

P N BALJI

Editorial Director balji@mediacorp.com.sg

NO amount of print or pressure, or even persuasion, is going to change the Government's stand on what is being described by some as an archaic and discriminatory law: A law that makes overt homosexuality a crime in Singapore.

That is the only black-and-white certainty in the on-going debate on gays. The rest, as they say, is all grey.

So why bother even talking about it, asked a friend exasperated with the glacial pace in the politics of change here.

Over lunch, we tried to jog our collective memories on the number of occasions when the Government introduced a new law or changed a stand because of overt influence from the outside.
Two stick out like sore thumbs: Former Nominated Member of Parliament Walter Woon's push in 1995 for a law to force children to pay for their parents' maintenance — the only Act passed by Parliament since 1965 not initiated by the Government — and the official embrace in 2001 of a group of nature lovers who wanted to save Chek Jawa from reclamation.

There have been instances of Government reversal (such as on the graduate mothers policy) and tweaking (to allow the restricted viewing of certain movies). But these have all originated from within, with no overt pressure or persuasion from without.

The Jeremys of this world, as quoted in Today's weekend report, need to know that this is a government that guards jealously its self-imposed change-from-within mandate.

For every Jeremy and partner who want to pack up and go because of the legal discrimination against gays here, there is a Dennis and partner, who swear by Singapore's enlightened attitude — covert though it may be — towards gay couples like them.

I met Dennis, his partner and two other gays at a 31-year-old lady's birthday a month ago. They led me into a world of highly-intelligent, highly-articulate and highly-successful people.

They have an opinion – a penetrating and alternative one, mind you — on nearly everything that is happening in Singapore and around the world. That is definitely refreshing in a place where debate and discussion, even in a dinner setting, is lacking.

Even more refreshing was to see how the four gays took care of the two straight women at the table. They fussed over the women, talking about the latest fashion trends and bitching about nearly everything and everybody under the sun. The dinner ended with one of the women whispering into her husband's ear: "They are God's gift to women!"

I am sure many of the 62.3 per cent of the heartlanders who said, in a Today survey, that they are against legalising homosexuality would have a different view if they got to mingle with these people more often.

That is what happened with Britain's Ministry of Defence which allowed gays to serve in the armed forces.

Today, seven years later, the ministry's verdict: None of its fears of harassment, discord, blackmail and bullying have come to pass, according to an International Herald Tribune report.

If it can happen in a macho and tightly-regulated environment like the armed forces, then Singapore society in general should pose no great barrier.

Singapore needs gays, not just because of the pink dollar and the economic value they bring, but also because they add a colourful and intellectual vibrancy to our city.

With the law and the politics on gays unlikely to change for sometime, the next best thing is for us all to get to know them better.

They have the same emotions we have. A teacher friend once told me, misty- eyed and all, about the pain he suffered after breaking up with his partner. Another, a doctor, spoke of how he is consumed by guilt every time his parents ask him why he is not getting married.

Yes, gays are normal people and they should be treated normally. That is the breakthrough we need to achieve in this gay debate.

CNA: Analysis: The gay debate and the breakthrough we need

Analysis: The gay debate and the breakthrough we need

No amount of print or pressure, or even persuasion, is going to change the Government’s stand on what is being described by some as an archaic and discriminatory law: A law that makes overt homosexuality a crime in Singapore. That is the only black-and-white certainty in the on-going debate on gays. The rest, as they say, is all grey. So why bother even talking about it, asked a friend exasperated with the glacial pace in the politics of change here. Over lunch, we tried to jog our collective memories on the number of occasions when the Government introduced a new law or changed a stand because of overt influence from the outside. Two stick out like sore thumbs: Former Nominated Member of Parliament Walter Woon’s push in 1995 for a law to force children to pay for their parents’ maintenance — the only Act passed by Parliament since 1965 not initiated by the Government — and the official embrace in 2001 of a group of nature lovers who wanted to save Chek Jawa from reclamation.

There have been instances of Government reversal (such as on the graduate mothers policy) and tweaking (to allow the restricted viewing of certain movies). But these have all originated from within, with no overt pressure or persuasion from without. The Jeremys of this world, as quoted in TODAY’s weekend report, need to know that this is a government that guards jealously its self-imposed change-from-within mandate. For every Jeremy and partner who want to pack up and go because of the legal discrimination against gays here, there is a Dennis and partner, who swear by Singapore’s enlightened attitude — covert though it may be — towards gay couples like them. I met Dennis, his partner and two other gays at a 31-year-old lady’s birthday a month ago. They led me into a world of highly-intelligent, highly-articulate and highly-successful people.

They have an opinion – a penetrating and alternative one, mind you — on nearly everything that is happening in Singapore and around the world. That is definitely refreshing in a place where debate and discussion, even in a dinner setting, is lacking. Even more refreshing was to see how the four gays took care of the two straight women at the table. They fussed over the women, talking about the latest fashion trends and bitching about nearly everything and everybody under the sun. The dinner ended with one of the women whispering into her husband’s ear: “They are God’s gift to women!” I am sure many of the 62.3 per cent of the heartlanders who said, in a TODAY survey, that they are against legalising homosexuality would have a different view if they got to mingle with these people more often. That is what happened with Britain’s Ministry of Defence which allowed gays to serve in the armed forces.

Today, seven years later, the ministry’s verdict: None of its fears of harassment, discord, blackmail and bullying have come to hot news newscomment pass, according to an International Herald Tribune report. If it can happen in a macho and tightly-regulated environment like the armed forces, then Singapore society in general should pose no great barrier. Singapore needs gays, not just because of the pink dollar and the economic value they bring, but also because they add a colourful and intellectual vibrancy to our city. With the law and the politics on gays unlikely to change for sometime, the next best thing is for us all to get to know them better.

They have the same emotions we have. A teacher friend once told me, misty- eyed and all, about the pain he suffered after breaking up with his partner. Another, a doctor, spoke of how he is consumed by guilt every time his parents ask him why he is not getting married. Yes, gays are normal people and they should be treated normally. That is the breakthrough we need to achieve in this gay debate.

TODAY: What price, the pink dollar?

What price, the pink dollar?

WHAT HEARTLANDERS SAY What it means for the hunt for talent how businesses strike a balance

Weekend . May 19, 2007

Jasmine Yin and Gracia Chiang
jasmine@mediacorp. com.sg

HE IS your typical high-flyer - head of corporate finance at a major investment firm here. But 40-year-old Jeremy (not his real name) may soon bid farewell to his life in Singapore.

His partner of seven years, a scholar with a master's degree, is eyeing a home in cities that are "more open" to gays, such as New York, London and Hong Kong, where he can "be himself" - without a law against homosexual activity hanging over their heads.

"I just want to live my life quietly and be who I am, without having to constantly worry if one day the Government will decide to enforce this law." said Jeremy.

The law in question, Section 377A of the Penal Code, may rankle with those such as Jeremy who think it an archaic, discriminatory piece of legislature that should be repealed, since the authorities have said they do not proactively enforce it in the case of private consensual acts between adults.

But many others believe it is a necessary moral safeguard, a signal of society's still-mostly conservative and wholesome family values. And as a poll commissioned by Today showed (see table), a majority of Singaporean heartlanders share this view.

Asked if homosexuality should be made legal, 62.3 per cent of the 300 respondents disagreed - 25.3 per cent strongly so. Only 11.6 per cent thought it should be legalised while, interestingly, 26 per cent had no views either way.

The issue cropped up for debate recently, when Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew flagged the need for a "practical, pragmatic approach" at a forum.

While the conservative majority's views on homosexuality should be respected, he had said, "they tell me, and anyway it is probably half-true, that homosexuals are creative writers, dancers, et cetera. If we want creative people, then we've got to put up with their idiosyncrasies so long as they don't infect the heartland".

While it is unlikely that Section 377A will be repealed any time soon, Mr Lee noted: "If this is the way the world is going and Singapore is part of that interconnected world - and I think it is - then I see no option for Singapore but to be part of it.

"Some have long argued that a law criminalising homosexuality can only work against the Republic's push to lure foreign talent here and to grow an ideas-driven, creative economy. But equally, such pundits have failed to convince a large segment of heartlanders of the economic value that homosexuals might bring.

In the Today telephone survey, 41 per cent of respondents disagreed with the statement that gay people had much to contribute to the national economy. In contrast, 32.7 per cent thought they did.

Political scientist Kenneth Paul Tan is one of those who frames the debate in the context of Singapore's aspirations to become a global city. He feels the law will be another reason for talent not to come here.

It will be seen as a culturally intolerant and sterile place and that is the image it presents to the world by persisting with Section 377A, said the Assistant Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

He cited a study published in 2002 by Carnegie Mellon academic Richard Florida, who coined the term "creative class" - comprising talented and innovative people who can choose to work anywhere in the world. They are likely to be drawn to cities that show a tolerance for differences, and in turn, these cities perform well economically, Prof Florida argues.

Places that welcome the gay community are seen to welcome all kinds of people, he notes. San Francisco and San Diego - two cities in California - rank on his list of most diverse and creative in the United States.

Others have pointed out that mobile gay professionals with spending power can contribute to a nation's economy in other ways. Indeed, some businesses in Singapore are eyeing the "pink dollar".

One example is four-year-old fashion chain NewUrbanMale, which recorded $6 million in revenue last year. Said founder-director Shenzi Chua: "We are perfectly cool that we are known as a gay brand even though our target group is much wider and includes straight men and women." Half his design team is gay.

There is, however, a catch: Some enterprises worry about what conservative customers would think of a gay-friendly business.

Gays account for up to 20 per cent of takings at Hotel 1929 near Chinatown. Said its sales manager Charmaine Wee: "We see that business increasing if the law changes, but we won't say that we are going to pursue the pink dollar enthusiastically.

"The hotel is aware that a large number of corporate clients are uncomfortable with the idea of targeting the pink dollar.

But is the promise of economic gains enough to sway naysayers - which include the religious groups - that the Government has often described as the "traditional" majority?

Notwithstanding the survey results, Dr Tan called the idea of a conservative majority that is actively against homosexuality a "myth".

Said the political scientist: "There are certainly conservative Singaporeans whose views any open society must also take into account. Most, however, don't really have a view on homosexuality either way, but may feel compelled to offer a 'safe', meaning 'conservative' , response when polled.

"But when it comes to elections, no government would want to take a chance."

Certainly, such voices have been vocal in the media. These range from those who lament the erosion of social and religious values, and what they see as harm to the public good, to those who say they are "okay" with gays as long as they keep their distance and are "discreet".

Some pundits say these attitudes will change as society gets more cosmopolitan and connected globally. Yet, there are some in the gay and lesbian community who pooh-pooh the economic argument for decriminalising homosexuality.

Said Dr Ethan Lim, a 29-year-old doctor who is gay: "I would rather people see me as a person. But our society places heavy valuation on economic success.

"Touting economic benefits can "help sell most things" - but Dr Russell Heng, senior fellow at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies, says he would rather "believe that the driving forces here should be principles of equality in citizenship, doing what is right, and not just what may be profitable".

A better reason for repealing Section 377A, said Dr Lim, would be how it would help national health efforts in tackling sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and HIV/Aids. Groups like Action for Aids would then have more leeway to reach out to such groups with its message of safe sex. "It's not so much about homosexuality but unsafe sex practices that increase the risk of getting STDs," he added.

The divisions are clear. At the core of the debate is the question of what kind of society Singapore is.

Accommodating alternative lifestyles, yes. Welcoming such lifestyles with open arms, not yet.

ST Online Forum: Changing a person's sexual orientation: conclusion flawed

ST Online Forum
May 19, 2007

Changing a person's sexual orientation: Conclusion flawed

I AM writing in response to Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang's letter titled, 'Figures speak for themselves: Practising gays have higher risk of HIV'.

I thank Dr Chin for keeping the discussion on an emotional topic grounded in rational discourse, and such an effort deserves a considered response.

First, with regard to Dr Chin's point about the higher relative incidence of Aids in homosexual people - the risk of contracting Aids among people who 'practise' homosexual sex is not a justification for continued criminalisation, but by safer-sex education and outreach programmes. This is exactly society's approach towards addressing the risk of contracting STDs among people who actively 'practise' heterosexual sex or that of lung cancer among people who smoke.

Dr Chin goes on to address the question of whether or not a person can change his sexual orientation, and quotes a study by Dr Robert Spitzer to draw the conclusion that 'even if one person can change, then homosexuality is not an immutable trait'.

Unfortunately, Dr Chin's conclusion is a skyscraper erected upon a foundation of straw. Dr Spitzer's study does not support Dr Chin's claim that homosexuality is not immutable because the sample population was not random but specially hand-picked for a special purpose.

Sadly, this is a mistake that is made so often by non-specialists that Dr Spitzer himself was compelled to respond. On May 21, 2001, the Wall Street Journal published a commentary by Dr Spitzer about his own study where he said (verbatim):

'In reality, change should be seen as complex and on a continuum.'Some homosexuals appear able to change self-identity and behavior, but not arousal and fantasies; others can change only self-identity; and only a very few, I suspect, can substantially change all four.

'I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation.

'I did not conclude that all gays should try to change, or even that they would be better off if they did.

'In other words, just because one person among millions might possibly be able to change his intrinsic sexual orientation and attractions after years of therapy, it does not therefore mean that everyone else is able to (or should even try, given the potential destructive consequences of failure). After all, can you imagine what it would take to make a red-blooded straight man stop being attracted to a Playboy centrefold?

Lastly, I will turn again to Dr Spitzer's commentary to address the issue of equal treatment (not protection, mind you!) for homosexual people:

'My study concluded with an important caveat: that it should not be used to justify a denial of civil rights to homosexuals, or as support for coercive treatment.

'Gay rights are a completely separate issue, and defensible for ethical reasons.

'I could not have said it any better myself.

Lee Jin Hian

Is there a place for God in public morals debate?

May 18, 2007

FRIDAY MATTERS

Is there a place for God in public morals debate?
By Chua Mui Hoong, Senior Writer

GOD often enters the picture when there is debate on issues of morality and values.When it comes to gay issues, for example, some Christians may say that homosexuality is a 'sin' - not just any old sin but a particularly grievous one that harms individuals and children and families and indeed puts the entire bedrock of society at risk - and should thus be criminalised.

Back in 2003, when the Government liberalised its hiring policy and said being homosexual was no longer a bar to holding a sensitive government position, the gay issue erupted into the national consciousness.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's recent remarks have caused the issue to be raised again. He said that if homosexuality is genetically determined, 'why should we criminalise it?' But he also said Singapore is a conservative society, and the Government did not wish to upset citizens' sense of propriety.

So the situation in Singapore remains: homosexual sex acts remain a crime, but the state won't act like a moral police and go around barging into bedrooms.

Once again, the battle lines are drawn clearly, with the notion of homosexual sex acts as a 'sin' cropping up.

But 'sin' is a theological concept, defined by some religions as an offence against God. Should it have a place in a public discussion on morals?

Or to frame the question in another way, should religion have a place in public discussions on morality? To what extent? And are there ground rules for such debate, so people of different or no faiths can engage in meaningful dialogue?

One solution is to give up and say that people of different beliefs can never engage since they start off with different a priori positions.

Nominated MP and lawyer Siew Kum Hong noted: 'How do you convince, through argument, a Christian who is convinced that homosexuality is evil and immoral, a sin that needs to be outlawed? I don't think you can.

'I am more sanguine. I not only believe Singapore can evolve ground rules for discussing moral issues among people of diverse or no faiths, but I also believe it is essential that we do so, given the increasing sway of religious teachings, and the rise in values-related issues Singapore will confront.

The gay issue is just one example. Others include recent debates on casinos and stem-cell research, and sexuality education (abstention or contraception? ), and one day, perhaps, euthanasia.

With moral debate a certainty in public discourse, it behoves Singaporeans to develop an understanding of how to engage in such discussions fruitfully.

Some people may respond by saying that religion and private morals have no place in public debate.

The thinking here is that Singapore is a secular state made up of people of many or no faiths, so God should be kept out of policy discussions.

But this position ignores the psychological reality that people's values are shaped by their religion, so religion will slip into the picture anyway.

As the 1989 White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act states: 'It is neither possible nor desirable to compartmentalise completely the minds of voters into secular and religious halves, and to ensure that only the secular mind influences voting behaviour.'

In Singapore, 85 per cent of the population profess a faith, such as Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Christianity or Hinduism and others, with diverse teachings on ethics.

It may be more realistic to acknowledge that religion affects an individual's private morality, and hence shapes his view on public issues.

Should the line then be drawn here, to let citizens practise their private morality, but curtail their ability to use religiously motivated views to influence the public agenda?

In 2004, I wrote a commentary arguing this point of view, saying that religious groups should limit their influence to their own flock, and not try to organise to get others round to their point of view.

I have since come to see the limits of such a position, which curtails individuals' and organisations' right to influence the policy process.

So, should people of faith be allowed to use religious justifications for their views and influence others accordingly? For example, can the argument to keep homosexual acts a crime be based on religion?

Prescribing this would be foolish in a multi-faith society with people who adhere to different religious teachings.

Those who want to advance public discussion must make use of public reason, and put up public justifications for what they believe in.

In other words, religion may influence your view on an issue. But when arguing your case in the political arena, you need to present arguments understandable and acceptable to those of different faiths.

Influential moral thinker John Rawls' The Law Of Peoples is devoted to the issue of whether religious doctrine is compatible with democracy.

He sets out to distinguish a person's value system or 'comprehensive doctrine, religious or non-religious' as one which 'we do not expect others to share'.

In political discussions on an issue, however, 'each of us shows how, from our own doctrines, we can and do endorse a reasonable public political conception of justice...The aim of doing this is to declare to others who affirm different comprehensive doctrines that we also each endorse a reasonable political conception'.

For example, Christians may cite the Good Samaritan story to say that Jesus taught that we should care for our neighbours.

But to convince non-Christians, they have to 'go on to give a public justification for this parable's conclusions in terms of political values', notes Rawls.

How can they do so? Well, they may argue that we owe a duty of care even to strangers, using the principles of proximity and reciprocity: You were there, and can help, so you should, because you would want others to do so if you were in such a situation.

Such use of 'public reason' is accessible to all regardless of religious faith.

This way, individuals may hold fundamentalist religious views that are non-negotiable, yet are able to take part meaningfully in discussions on morality using 'public reason', appealing to common values held by those of different faiths.

But this requires mutual respect, a spirit of civil tolerance and a willingness to bracket one's own religious beliefs to hear others out.

Most important of all, it requires a willingness to consider that one's private morality, based on one's own religious beliefs, need not be the basis of public law.

muihoong@sph. com.sg

ST Online Forum: Gay debate continues: Writer responds (May 17 2007)

ST Online Forum

May 17, 2007

Gay debate continues: Writer responds

I REFER to Mr Brian Selby's letter, 'Why is male homosexuality a crime but not lesbianism?' (Online forum, May 15), written in response to my three-point rebuttal (ST, May 10) of his first letter, 'Professor's views on gays prejudiced' (Online forum, May 8), which he wrote in reaction to my op ed, 'Decriminalising homosexuality would be an error' (ST, May 4).

I thank Mr Selby for his unreserved apology, in relation to the personal and professional allegations made against me in his letter of May 8.

Clearly, the decriminalisation of homosexuality as one aspect of a broader homosexual rights agenda raises politically controversial issues. This has provoked polarised responses and have caused deep social rifts in countries like the US and Canada.

My op ed sought to inform the debate by highlighting relevant legal social and policy issues which will need to be considered in the context of Singapore's multi-racial and multi-religious society by the Government.

I reject Mr Selby's suggestion that my op ed and rebuttal have been deliberately 'vague'. The first was intended for general readership and the intent of the second was not to provide a substantive discourse of these controversial issues of law and social policy, given the restraints of this forum. One might equally ask Mr Selby to substantiate his own views to prove his case.

However, as Mr Selby has in his latest letter highlighted certain issues for my response in a civil fashion, I make the following observations:

First, I agree that my op ed has attracted a substantial amount of debate generated by websites and blogs written by certain individuals of a self-declared 'liberal' or homosexualist persuasion.

However, I do not share Mr Selby's delight in what he calls the 'muddle scrum of public debate'. The right to free speech which the Constitution safeguards for Singapore citizens is not absolute but subject to express limitations.

Not all types of 'speech' will help 'Singapore become a better civil society' as certain types of 'speech' seek to prevent the articulation of differing viewpoints through intimidatory and hateful tactics.

''Speech' which attacks my character or professional ability seeks to chill my rights of free conscience and speech as a concerned Singaporean as well as to violate the principle of academic freedom.

Further, 'speech' which demonises and labels the views expressed in my op ed as 'religious' or 'bigoted' opinions, in an attempt to paint them as irrelevant to an important public policy debate within the context of a multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore, may well be an insidious cover-up for subjective prejudices and biases. This undermines pluralism and constructive debate.

Some comments thrown up in this debate seem to indicate that arguments based on or inspired by 'religious' values should be excluded from public debate. This rests on a certain assumption about what a secular state requires.

The assumption seems to be influenced by one school of constitutional thought that 'Church' (or Mosque or Temple) and 'State' be strictly separated. This version of 'secularism' rests on an unspoken anti-theism and is not universally endorsed.

There is a broad spectrum of positions which countries have adopted in relation to the role of views inspired by religious convictions in public debate.

This ranges from anti-theistic separationists (for example, Stalinist regimes or radical liberals/'secular fundamentalists' ) who seek a 'religious cleansing' of the public square, to those who seek a genuine pluralism by protecting the expression of all moral viewpoints whether based on 'religious' or 'secular' convictions (assuming these can even be separated). All viewpoints are subject to public scrutiny and debate, rather than being censored by law or social pressures.

Indeed, Singapore's version of secularism is not benighted or anti-religion; Singapore is secular but not atheistic, as a minister once stated. Singapore's model of secularism is more appropriately characterised as agnostic or accommodative as defined by the Singapore Court of Appeal, which is committed to freedom of religion and the role of the state in removing restrictions to one's choice of religious belief.

Therefore, in our aspirations towards democracy, no view should be gagged just because it is identified as a 'religious' one. Otherwise, secular humanism and its morally relativist viewpoint, which forms part of its comprehensive world view, would by default be privileged and foisted on society as a new sort of 'secularised religion'.

Second, there are medical opinions that homosexual sex (that is, anal sex) is inherently unhealthy.One may argue that this is a 'private' matter, affecting only individuals who contract diseases such as 'gay bowel syndrome'.

However, this is a narrow view of what amounts to 'public health' concerns, given that the activities and diseases of individuals may affect the public at large.

Further, the possibilities of allocating public funds to resolve these sorts of health problems make this a matter of public concern as it could mean that funding for research into other illnesses like cancer and diabetes is reduced.

Concerned citizens who would like to be informed on this matter may usefully refer to the medical opinion of one Dr John R. Diggs, Jr's (August 16, 2000), which was set out in his affidavit in relation to a Massachusetts lawsuit (concerning homosexual activists' legal claims against parents who opposed sexual 'orientation' education in schools):

'There are a variety of significant medical and health risks associated with homosexuality and the gay 'lifestyle'. These include promiscuity, multiple sexual partners, assault and battery and anal intercourse. The sexual practices of male homosexuality consist primarily of oral-genital contact and anal intercourse. These practices are inherently dangerous because of the proclivity to produce occult and overt physical trauma, often spreading sexually transmitted disease. The rectum is particularly vulnerable to sexual trauma, where breaks in the protective membrane barrier facilitate blood exchange and, in turn, the transfer of infectious agents. Furthermore, certain male homosexual practices, such as 'fisting', that is, the insertion of the entire hand into the recipient's anal canal, are likely to cause more serious injuries... Studies have repeatedly shown that lesbians and gay men are at increased risk for mental health problems, including depression, substance abuse, and suicidal behaviour, compared to heterosexuals. .. Homosexuals perpetrate child sex crimes at a rate many times their number in the population.. .

'Full text available at http://www.massnews .com/past_ issues/2000/ 9_Sept/900fist3. htm

Third, my observations on the development of the homosexual rights agenda in countries like the US, Canada and Europe and how this seeks to coerce changes in moral and social attitudes towards a broad range of issues are factually based.

Mr Selby should consider the effects of decriminalising homosexuality in other jurisdictions, and how it affects the community, as documented in news reports and case law.

For example, if homosexuality is decriminalised, this will require changes in other aspects of law and life such as changes in insurance and tax benefits laws; schools may have to teach that a range of family set-ups (for example, having two fathers instead of a father and mother) is possible or that homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally equivalent.

This will violate the conscience of certain teachers and also can violate parental rights in the moral education of their children. This is not fictional nor can it be brushed aside as a 'slippery slope' argument. This would obfuscate matters which are of real concern to the majority of Singaporeans. Indeed, perhaps this is the intent of those deriding 'slippery slopes'.

Fourth, as stated in my op ed, the Singapore Constitution does not prohibit all types of differentiating classifications. In layman words, classifications which are not rational and do not serve a legitimate policy, are unconstitutional.

The critical issue is whether the criminalisation of homosexual acts has a rational basis.

The views in my op ed show the broader legal social and policy issues forming the rational basis for S377A of the Penal Code which criminalises homosexual acts by male.

To argue that S377A is not rational because the laws do not criminalise lesbianism assumes that the law must achieve a technically 'perfect classification' which includes all homosexual acts under its ambit.

There is no such requirement. Broader social objectives may be served by S377A, so as to validate it and its classification, under Singapore equality jurisprudence.

Fifth, Mr Selby has assumed that laws do not and should not affect our 'private activity'.

However, human beings while desiring a sphere of autonomy are also social beings and live in community. Laws do reflect community standards which place limits on 'private activity' - that is the basis for laws against incest, paedophilia or even surfing and downloading Internet porn, for example.

The critical question is what constitutes 'private' activity and when does 'private activity' have repercussions for the public, so as to be subject to legal regulation and sanction?

No law is morally neutral and it is intellectually dishonest to assert that there are moral values which are objective, and some which are subjective.

To call for the decriminalisation of homosexual acts, on grounds of non-discrimination on the basis of 'sexual orientation' is to assert a moral or amoral position which cannot claim 'neutrality' . No one is neutral in this debate.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has stated that 'ur enforcement approach also remains the same' as Section 377A will not be proactively enforced 'against adult males engaging in consensual sex with each other in private.'

This is the current practice and reflects a pragmatic compromise. This does not mean the law will not be enforced but one can take the government at its word to continue the current practice.

Thus, under the proposed Penal Code amendment, homosexuals wishing to lead 'private' lives may do so 'peacefully' in Singapore, provided they do not foist their homosexual acts on the public or seek to mainstream homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.

Yvonne C. L. Lee
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law Deputy Director, The Asian Law Institute (ASLI)
National University of Singapore