ST Insight: Three MPs weigh in

May 11, 2007
Three MPs weigh in

MS INDRANEE RAJAH, 44, is a Senior Counsel. She is single and has been an MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC since 2001.

a.. Your response to MM Lee's comments?
He's right. I think decriminalisation is inevitable. It's not a question of 'if' but 'when'. The 'when' depends on whether our society as a whole is ready to accept homosexuality. That is a judgment call that our Government is going to have to make.

a.. What do you think of the current situation, where homosexual sex is banned but the ban is not proactively enforced?
It is an anomaly. Something is either a crime or it is not. If it's a crime, you enforce compliance, and if it's not a crime, you don't. The only reason why we have this anomaly is that the Government is trying to maintain balance between those who have strong religious beliefs or conservative
views on homosexuality, and those who feel that homosexuality is acceptable.

a.. On what basis should laws be made? Should they reflect values and morality? What about pragmatism?
Laws are a combination of values, morality, pragmatism and social and political objectives. You can't pigeonhole these factors into neat slots and give equal weightage. You have to go with a sense of what is generally acceptable and enforceable. These evolve over time.

a.. How do we advance the debate on decriminalising homosexual sex, beyond the fixed standpoints that have been presented?
I don't think you can.

a.. There has always been a sense that societal norms here should evolve at the pace of the most conservative members of society. Do you agree? What sort of pace should society proceed at in terms of discussing this issue?
I don't agree. There are many things where we have moved quickly when we had to. When the Women's Charter was passed, it removed polygamy at one stroke. That was a radical change when it was passed. Think of all those men who were overnight restricted to one wife only!

But society was ready to accept that law when it was passed. So the pace at which we can proceed is the pace that we think the majority of society can accept, without too much upheaval.

MR SIEW KUM HONG, 32, senior counsel for CA, an IT management software company. He is single and has been a Nominated Member of Parliament since January.

a.. Your response to MM Lee's comments?
My first thought was that his view was premised on pragmatism, not principle. It might result in what I believe to be the right conclusion (ie decriminalisation of gay sex), but I do not agree with the reasoning process. In the end, it rests entirely on homosexuality being genetic but if there is subsequently any evidence that homosexuality is not genetic, then does it mean we should change positions again?

My own belief is that homosexual sex should be decriminalised regardless of whether homosexuality is genetic. It is fundamental to respecting people's dignity and their freedom to lead their private lives as they decide to the extent it does not harm others, regardless of why they would want to lead their lives that way.

a.. What do you think of the current situation, where homosexual sex is banned but is not proactively enforced?
Having a provision in the books that the Government has explicitly stated it will not proactively enforce, risks bringing the law into disrepute. And here's another question: What if a homosexual is jilted and makes a complaint against his former partner? Should the police take enforcement
action then? But should enforcement be based solely on whether a complaint is made? If so, is that a rational and justifiable basis for deciding whether to enforce?

a.. On what basis should laws be made? Should they reflect values and morality? What about pragmatism?
I do not think that laws should reflect values and morality per se. Instead, I believe that laws should deter and prevent harm to people. And if that coincides with morality, then great.

But they are conceptually separate and distinct concepts, and we need to bear that in mind. There is a great danger when laws are used to enforce values and morality, because they do change. Women previously could not vote, and this was enforced by law. Obviously, values and morality have changed since those times, and I think rightly so. They are also not universal, and so could potentially oppress those who do not share such values and morality.

a.. How do we advance the debate on decriminalising homosexual sex, beyond the fixed standpoints that have been presented?
I'm not sure if you can. The starting points are so fundamentally different that they are essentially arguing at cross-purposes. 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.

But policy- and law-makers have a different responsibility. I would hope and expect policy- and law-makers to acknowledge that their own values and moral beliefs are personal to them, and that policy- and law-making requires them to adopt more objective approaches.

Some will and have argued that the approach embodied in the Wolfenden Report (a 1960s document that sets the basis for the decriminalisation of homosexual sex in the United Kingdom) itself represents a value statement about the importance of personal liberty. But I would argue that that is a universal value, and is irrelevant.

The question is the extent to which personal liberty should be limited by the law, and so it falls on those who argue for criminalising homosexuality to demonstrate convincingly that private consensual homosexual sex results in external harm that merits it being criminalised.

a.. There has always been a sense that societal norms here should evolve at the pace of the most conservative members of society. Do you agree? What sort of pace should society proceed at in terms of discussing this issue?Actually, that's not the case. I think Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has previously stated that we should not move at the fastest (most liberal) or the slowest (most conservative) , but with the mass in the middle. So far, the Government has identified the mass in the middle to be against the decriminalisation of homosexual sex.

But should that be the sole consideration? Surely the moral sensibilities of the mass in the middle should be balanced against the implications of the continued criminalisation of homosexual sex: the intolerant message sent by society, the lack of dignity or respect shown to a segment of our society (estimated at maybe 4 to 6 per cent), the inexorable exodus of homosexual Singaporeans overseas never to return, and the unquantifiable number of foreign talent who are homosexual and so simply decline to come to work in Singapore.

Law-making is a balancing act, to balance the different interests at play. I am not convinced that the continued criminalisation of homosexual sex strikes a balance that is most beneficial to Singapore and Singaporeans.

MR LIM BIOW CHUAN, 44, sole proprietor of his law firm, Lim BC & Co. He is married with two daughters, and has been an MP for Marine Parade GRC since last year.

a.. Your response to MM Lee's comments?
I have my reservations that homosexuality is genetic. There are studies which suggest that homosexuality could be due to a combination of biological, psychological and social factors.

Even if homosexuality is genetic, but if the social norms suggest that it is still not acceptable to most people, I feel that we should proceed with caution rather than move straight towards decriminalisation of the act.

If a person says that he is polygamous by nature because of some genetic factors, does that mean that I should accept that it should be made legal for him to be polygamous? I would be slow to adopt that approach as currently, most people in Singapore are still not prepared to accept that
homosexuality is acceptable in this society.

a.. What do you think of the current situation, where homosexual sex is banned but is not proactively enforced?
I believe that we should discourage homosexual practice as an alternative lifestyle as it goes against the basic family values that Singapore is promoting. But yet, we should recognise that there are people who, for whatever reasons, be it genetic or psychological or social, are still
homosexuals. Should we prosecute them and make them criminals? I think the position of the Church is correct, which is that we should hate the sin (homosexuality) but embrace the sinner. Homosexuals are also people who should be entitled to basic human dignity and entitled to health care, education and employment.

a.. On what basis should laws be made? Should they reflect values and morality? What about pragmatism?
Laws should be made by legislators to reflect the current social norms and values which are acceptable by the general population.

a.. How do we advance the debate on decriminalising homosexual sex, beyond the fixed standpoints that have been presented?
I ask myself, what do I want to see in my home country? Do I want a place where the values are still based on the family being the most important to the average Singaporean? Or do I accept that it is okay where you can co-habit and have children without the need for marriage; where you can
bring up a child without being married. In a homosexual relationship, there would be no children and there would be no wife and no mother. My belief still is that the family is important for every Singaporean and we should encourage as many Singaporeans as possible to marry and procreate within the family setting.

a.. There has always been a sense that societal norms here should evolve at the pace of the most conservative members of society. Do you agree? What sort of pace should society proceed at in terms of discussing this issue?
I am still a conservative by nature and I would prefer to stay at the pace which Singaporeans are comfortable with. We do not have to follow the rest of the world when it comes to such societal norms as each country should evolve at its own pace.