ST Forum: NMP Thio's comments were inappropriate (Oct 25)

Oct 25, 2007
NMP Thio's comments were inappropriate

I WRITE in response to Nominated MP Thio Li-Ann's speech in Parliament
and comments made to the press on Monday.

As the debate on Section 377A of the Penal Code - a law criminalising
gay sex - was heated, it was inevitable that tempers flared on both sides.

However, Professor Thio's comments were inappropriate and were deemed
disrespectful by many, and not just by the gay community.

It was entirely unnecessary to highlight bedroom practices and refer
to anal sex between men as 'shoving a straw up someone's nose to
drink', in the hope of eliciting disgust among parliamentarians and
the public.

Such comments are, at best, discourteous and do a disservice to the
intellectual nature of such a discussion, especially as the acts she
mentioned are also practised in heterosexual couplings.

Whether or not Section 377A was repealed, this issue has become a
milestone in the democratic involvement of our citizens and could be
potentially divisive.

In engaging in a healthy and lively debate - whether on Internet
forums, in letters to the media or even in Parliament - it is
important that we remain respectful of each other's views.

Azimin Saini

ST Review: Being gay and Singaporean (Oct 25)

Oct 25, 2007
Being gay and Singaporean

IT WAS no surprise a citizens' attempt seeking abolition of a law against male homosexual sex did not gain Parliament's assent. Many Singaporeans across the religious and language spectrum are not ready (if ever) for a radical bohemisation of sexual mores. This is clear in the weightage of pro and con views conveyed to the media and through the Internet, via the Government's own channels of citizen feedback and the occasional survey on gay issues, inexhaustible though these were. The wish for status quo in statutory law was reinforced by the majority sentiment of MPs who spoke on the debate lasting two days this week. Law academic Thio Li-Ann, a Nominated MP, stood out as an example of bedrock conservatism. The socially progressive would consider her characterisation of gay behaviour as over the top, but many more Singaporeans would endorse what she said.

What the proceedings did accomplish was nevertheless noteworthy, important even, in that an issue that is partly about cultural morality and partly about individual rights has been clarified. It had been left vague until now. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in his summation, took care to validate for most Singaporeans their adherence to long-held values of family and individual decency. But it was his declaration that gays are entitled to their space as full-participating citizens of the Republic that should be welcomed as progressive and timely. First reactions from gays have been positive. It showed they needed reassuring. The old official frown on homosexuals has gradually given way to toleration and then acceptance over the years, including in civil service recruitment, but it was significant hearing the Prime Minister say it. The straight-laced and deeply conservative among Singaporeans might consider even this to be too much of a concession. It is important for the gay community - typically well-educated, self-assured and creative, obvious assets to the nation - to know they belong. They have much to contribute. They need not decamp to countries more 'congenial' and accepting of alternative lifestyles.

The conservative streak runs deep through Singaporean society, however. Homosexuals should be smart enough to acknowledge it and tailor their programmes and campaigns accordingly. Singaporeans delight in being described as cosmopolitan. But that still is a leap to liberalism in social thought. This unusual episode of a citizens' petition being brought before the House for its consideration showed something else: Gay rights of both the male and female variety may never be resolved to the satisfaction of every interest group and citizens' constituency.

ST: Let's convince the majority to do what is fair: Charles Chong (Oct 24)

Oct 24, 2007
Let's convince the majority to do what is fair: Charles Chong
By Keith Lin

MP CHARLES Chong wants the Government to show leadership on Section
377A - by updating it to better reflect the realities on the ground.

And among the moves would be not to criminalise 'acts done in private
between consenting adults', and to make the provisions of the law
gender-neutral.

'We should show leadership and convince the majority to do what is
fair, just and representative of the age in which we live,' said the
MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol.

Speaking after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said there should be no
change to Section 377A, Mr Chong said he would not hide behind the
views of the 'conservative majority'.

If the experts are correct in their view that some people are born
with a different sexual orientation, then 'it would be quite wrong of
us to criminalise and to persecute those that are born different from
us regardless of how conservative a society we claim to be', he argued.

'We also claim to be a secular and inclusive society. We should
therefore respect the private space of those who are born different
from us, as much as we expect them to respect our common space.'

Besides, enforcing this would be onerous without what he called
'religious vigilantes' to spy on the goings-on in bedrooms and hotel
rooms, he said.

'And is it really the business of Government to regulate acts between
consenting adults born with different sexual orientations in the
privacy of their bedrooms?'

Another aspect of Section 377A which he took issue with was the fact
that only men engaged in such acts are deemed to have run foul of the law.

'The section criminalises acts of gross indecency in public and in
private only if it is engaged between men. Now surely the minister
must acknowledge that women are as capable as men of committing such acts.

'Is Section 377A therefore as it stands a correct statement of our
values and principles? Or are there no lesbians in Singapore?'

He added that Section 377A should be extended to protect women from
the unwanted sexual advances of other women.

Now, only men who solicit or attempt to solicit sex from another man
can be charged under the law.

Noting that there were concerns about the drastic consequences for
society if Section 377A was repealed, he reminded them of similar
concerns from the past.

A senior politician, who he did not name, argued that the removal of a
regulation would lead to 'conflicts, fights and murders'.

'Well, we have abolished that archaic regulation and permitted bar-
top dancing for some years already and the world has not come to an
end yet,' he quipped.

klin@sph.com.sg

ST: Let's convince the majority to do what is fair: Charles Chong (Oct 24)

Oct 24, 2007
Let's convince the majority to do what is fair: Charles Chong
By Keith Lin

MP CHARLES Chong wants the Government to show leadership on Section
377A - by updating it to better reflect the realities on the ground.

And among the moves would be not to criminalise 'acts done in private
between consenting adults', and to make the provisions of the law
gender-neutral.

'We should show leadership and convince the majority to do what is
fair, just and representative of the age in which we live,' said the
MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol.

Speaking after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said there should be no
change to Section 377A, Mr Chong said he would not hide behind the
views of the 'conservative majority'.

If the experts are correct in their view that some people are born
with a different sexual orientation, then 'it would be quite wrong of
us to criminalise and to persecute those that are born different from
us regardless of how conservative a society we claim to be', he argued.

'We also claim to be a secular and inclusive society. We should
therefore respect the private space of those who are born different
from us, as much as we expect them to respect our common space.'

Besides, enforcing this would be onerous without what he called
'religious vigilantes' to spy on the goings-on in bedrooms and hotel
rooms, he said.

'And is it really the business of Government to regulate acts between
consenting adults born with different sexual orientations in the
privacy of their bedrooms?'

Another aspect of Section 377A which he took issue with was the fact
that only men engaged in such acts are deemed to have run foul of the law.

'The section criminalises acts of gross indecency in public and in
private only if it is engaged between men. Now surely the minister
must acknowledge that women are as capable as men of committing such acts.

'Is Section 377A therefore as it stands a correct statement of our
values and principles? Or are there no lesbians in Singapore?'

He added that Section 377A should be extended to protect women from
the unwanted sexual advances of other women.

Now, only men who solicit or attempt to solicit sex from another man
can be charged under the law.

Noting that there were concerns about the drastic consequences for
society if Section 377A was repealed, he reminded them of similar
concerns from the past.

A senior politician, who he did not name, argued that the removal of a
regulation would lead to 'conflicts, fights and murders'.

'Well, we have abolished that archaic regulation and permitted bar-
top dancing for some years already and the world has not come to an
end yet,' he quipped.

klin@sph.com.sg

ST: Space for everyone, but one step at a time (Oct 24)

Oct 24, 2007
FROM THE GALLERY
Space for everybody, but one step at a time
By Lee Siew Hua

LEAVE Section 377A alone. But also know there is space for all in
Singapore.

This is a bottom line that strives to be as balanced and symmetrical
as it can be. And in laying it down over a shifting social landscape,
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong reveals a little more of his style in
navigating the untidy eddies and the moral tussles in the life of a
modern nation:

The journey ahead will have to be step by step. Sorry, no avant-garde
leaps.

He focused his whole speech on this one strand of legislation, while
not commenting on the rest of the Penal Code.

It is a telling choice, for the seeming smallness of Section 377A
belies the possibility that it can warp parts of the social fabric if
not handled with the deftness or the heart it deserves.

A hint of what may unravel in society came across in his warning: 'The
more gay activists push this agenda, the stronger will be the
push-back from conservative forces in our society...

'The result will be counterproductive because it's going to lead to
less space for the gay community in Singapore.

'So it's better to let the situation evolve gradually.'

The desire to move gradually over uneven terrain is an echo of his
much-dissected 2004 speech at the Harvard Club of Singapore, when he said:

'We will have to feel our way forward, crossing the river stone by
stone, to use Deng Xiaoping's phrase.'

Stone by slippery stone in a river. That's where the 'balance' that he
repeatedly alluded to in his speech comes into play.

His hope is for a stable society with traditional heterosexual family
values - but with space for homosexuals to live and contribute to society.

So here is a sense that the Prime Minister is decisive on the
imperative of balance, but in certain aspects is feeling his way
ahead, with Singaporeans on all sides watching - and the more vocal
ones urging that he step in opposite directions.

There is 'no perfect balance', as he readily acknowledged to an
intently listening Chamber.

But that is the art of politics in engaging some of the changing
segments of Singapore that are more noisy, conviction-filled and
space-seeking than before.

And the negotiations over moral issues are nowhere as structured as
other battles, even that against an unruly beast like dengue.

To some delight, Dr Amy Khor, Senior Parliamentary Secretary
(Environment and Water Resources), told the Chamber that in the
search-and-destroy operations against dengue in Bukit Batok, the
inspectors could on occasion tell her how many mosquito-friendly
buckets some households harboured.

Neither are moral questions rapidly resolved, the way the Orchard Road
beggars and tissue-paper peddlers are whisked away, as the House
earlier heard.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister's presentation was also striking for the
way he addressed the gay community directly.

He saw in their midst responsible, invaluable, highly respected
contributing members of society. Many are our friends, relatives,
colleagues, siblings, brothers and sisters or some of our children, he
said.

But, he also saw through the orchestrated push that gay activists have
staged to compel the Government to talk about Section 377A openly.

He stopped short at saying there may be a backlash from society,
choosing instead the more calibrated 'push back'.

One constant in all this tussling is that he will keep an eye on
cohesion in the Singapore family.

After all, the gays are also 'our kith and kin', he said.

The idea of Singapore being a family was also taken up by Members of
Parliament on both sides of the debate. The collective hope seems to
be that as debates over values intensify, the family keeps its
colourful differences but will not descend into dysfunction.

At another level, the family has been fundamental to Singapore policy
in pervasive ways. It is built into the Housing Board allocation
policies, with families favoured over singles, for instance.

So the constancy and sanctity of the family remains paramount, even as
the world changes, and even as the sleeping Victorian-era Section 377A
inherited from Britain was reawakened for a new debate in another era,
another land, yesterday.

The whole episode is fascinating for what it reveals of the shifts in
Singapore life, and its governance.

It is not unexpected, for cultural wars have been heating up in the
United States and elsewhere, and we expect people to sincerely hold
positions on values.

And certainly there will be more untidiness ahead that cannot be
regulated away, but will demand greater resourcefulness, harder
thinking, truer debate. Yesterday showed that this is not an easy road
for all, but worthwhile.

siewhua@sph.com.sg

AFP: Singapore gays unfazed by sex ban (Oct 24)

Singapore gays unfazed by sex ban

Agence France-Presse
10/24/2007

SINGAPORE -- Singapore's gay community vowed Wednesday to press on with a public education campaign after parliament rejected their petition to repeal a law making sex between men a crime.

"There is no turning back," said the organizers of a campaign that failed in its bid to repeal the law.

They said they were disappointed that parliament rejected their petition to abolish section 377A of the Penal Code.

"We come away from this experience with great optimism that this is but the start of a process of public education, understanding, acceptance and respect for the gay community," they said in a statement.

The city-state's parliament on Tuesday approved the first major penal code amendments in 22 years, including legalization of oral and anal sex for heterosexuals.

But legislators retained a section that criminalizes sex between men, ditching a rare petition brought before the legislature to abolish the law, which petitioners say violates constitutional provisions for equal treatment.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, explaining his government's position, said Singapore remains a conservative society and gays will not be allowed to set the tone.

Lee said abolishing the law could "send the wrong signal" and push gay activists to ask for more concessions, such as same-sex marriage.

He said, however, that homosexuals will be given space to live their own lives as long as they do not actively advocate their lifestyle.

The tone of society, "remains straight and we want it to remain so," Lee said.

Campaigners were unfazed.

"The gay community in Singapore is here to stay. We are not going away," their statement said.

"It's not just a gay thing. It's about equality."

Proponents of a repeal and those who wanted the law retained organized rival online petitions to support their causes.

Two days of heated debate in parliament touched on moral values and the need to maintain the family as the basic building block of society.

"I think the vast majority of Singaporeans want it this way. So does the government," Lee said Tuesday.