ST Forum: Why this gay is for keeping Section 377A (Oct 27)

Oct 27, 2007
Why this gay is for keeping Section 377A

PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong made the right decision to keep Section 377A of the Penal Code, a law criminalising gay sex.

As a gay Singaporean, I agree that keeping Section 377A would maintain the social status quo and harmony.

Gay activists are trying to push the gay lifestyle to mainstream society. I do not agree with the activists' stand and I believe there is a silent majority of gay people who chose to keep quiet about the drama surrounding the bid to repeal Section 377A.

I live my gay life discreetly and I am happy to have been able to do so without any legal interference pertaining to my homosexuality for the past 30 years.

Singapore is a good place for a gay man to live in, as long as one understands the social contract involved and respects the mainstream's wish to have the traditional family unit as the social norm.

Aggressive promotion or campaigning for gay rights is counter-productive and I am strongly against such action.

Goh Kim Soon

A DISCREET LIFE FOR PAST 30 YEARS

I live my gay life discreetly and I am happy to have been able to do so without any legal interference pertaining to my homosexuality for the past 30 years.

ST Forum: Failed Bid to Repeal Section 377A (Oct 25)

Oct 25, 2007
FAILED BID TO REPEAL SECTION 377A
Govt did the right thing in keeping gay-sex law

I AM overwhelmed with joy that the Government has expressed unequivocally that it does not support the gay lifestyle in Singapore and Section 377A - a law criminalising gay sex - will not be repealed.

Over the past years, all across the world, we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of the gay lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterise those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable.

Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticise those with different views and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like 'homophobic'.

As we have become a more liberal society, I was worried, for a moment, that the Government would be swayed. I am glad it was not.

Enough has been said by both sides arguing for and against repealing Section 377A and I shall not add to it.

However, I would like to congratulate the Government for its courage and brilliance in handling this issue. By keeping Section 377A, it is sending a very clear message that we do not support the gay lifestyle.

I applaud the Government for doing the right thing, both morally and socially.

At the same time, by saying that the police will nevertheless be lenient in implementing the law, the Government is essentially saying that we will let gays live their own lives without interference.

Unlike in certain neighbouring countries, they have no fear that the police will come knocking on their doors in the middle of the night.

It is now time for the gay community to accept that the majority of Singaporeans are conservative and will not endorse a homosexual lifestyle. Husband and wife in a family setting is the foundational unit of our society. Destroy that unit and we destroy our society. To push their cause will further alienate gays from society.

For the majority of Singaporeans who are against homosexual behaviour, it is time to let the matter rest and the wounds heal. Let us accept gays for who they are. We may not endorse their lifestyle but there is no reason for us to condemn them. They are our fellow citizens. They are one of us.

Patrick Tan Siong Kuan

ST: Professor Thio Li-Ann ( Oct 23)

Oct 23, 2007
Professor Thio Li-Ann

'THEY offer an 'argument from consent' - Government should not police the private sexual behaviour of consenting adults. They opine this violates their liberty or 'privacy'. They ask, why criminalise something which does not 'harm' anyone; if homosexuals are 'born that way', isn't it unkind to 'discriminate' against their sexual practices?

These flawed arguments are marinated with distracting fallacies which obscure what is at stake - repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties.

Debate must be based on substance, not sound-bites. Let me red-flag four red herrings.

First, to say a law is archaic is merely chronological snobbery.

Second, you cannot say a law is 'regressive' unless you first identify your ultimate goal. If we seek to copy the sexual libertine ethos of the wild wild West, then repealing Section 377A is progressive.

Third, to say a law which criminalises homosexual acts because many find it offensive is merely imposing a 'prejudice' or 'bias' assumes with justification that no reasonable contrary view exists. This evades debate.

Fourth, some argue that legislators should be 'open-minded' and decriminalise sodomy. This demand for objectivity is intellectually disingenuous as there is no neutral ground, no 'Switzerland of ambivalence' when we consider the moral issues related to 377A which
require moral judgment of what is right and wrong - not to take a stand, is to take a stand!

The issues surrounding 377A are about morality, not modernity or being cosmopolitan. What will foreigners think if we retain 377A? Depends on which foreigner you ask.

While homosexuals are a numerical minority, there is no such thing as 'sexual minorities' at law. Activists have coined this term to draw a beguiling but fallacious association between homosexuals and legally recognised minorities like racial groups.

Race is a fixed trait. It remains controversial whether homosexual orientation is genetic or environmental, perhaps both. There are no ex-blacks but there are ex-gays.

The 'argument from consent' says the state should keep out of the bedroom, to safeguard 'sexual autonomy'. While we cherish racial and religious diversity, sexual diversity is a different kettle of fish.

Diversity is not licence for perversity. This radical liberal argument is pernicious, a leftist philosophy based on radical individualism and radical egalitarianism. It is unworkable because every viable moral theory has limits to consent.

If you argue from consent, how can you condemn any form of sexual self-expression, no matter how selfish or hurtful? But, no man is an island. Ideas, embodied in laws, have consequences. Don't send the wrong message.'

Please pray for them

From
http://enshrine377a.blogspot.com/2007/10/walk-for-jesus-action.html

Walk for Jesus Action

Jebez cried out to the God of Israel, "O that you would bless me and enlarge my territory! Let your hand be with me , and keep me from harm and so that we will be free from pain" And God granted his request. 1 Chronicles 4.10.

It is time to claim on God's promise to keep our country from the harm of having 377A repealed and from the pain of our children being corrupted.

It is time to take action and witness for Jesus!

This Sunday 21 October 2007, we will do a prayer walk around the civic area.

• Walk around St Andrew's Cathedral and pray for the soldiers of Christ
  
• Walk around the Singapore River, where our ancestors came to build a new land of hope for their children, and the Repeal of 377A will destroy their dreams.
  
• Walk around the CIVIC areas where many large corporations have policies that encourage alternative lifestyles.
  
• Walk around SMU and pray for our youths.
  
• Walk towards the Parliament House and pray for the members of Parliament.
  

What to do

• Start walking around the CIVIC area after church and do prayer walks.
  
• It is good if we synchronize at 12.30p.m. to start.
  
• Wear all white - the colours of saints - so that we can identify each other.
  
• When you see one of us, get in pairs (this is how Jesus sent his disciples out to witness and so we won't go against the laws of the lands about illegal gathering.
  
• When you see other pairs, greet them but keep to your group.
  
• When you see someone who is against you, tell them lovingly that even though you hate the sin, you love the sinner and offer them God.
  
• When you see someone friendly, explain why you are doing this and what damage 377A can do to our country.
  
• As you approach the Parliament House, keep in your pairs.
  
• If anyone tries to disband you, stay for a while, say a prayer and then move on peaceably.
  
• If the police asks for your cooperation, move into the Sanctuary of Saint Andrew's Cathedral and continue praying. The prayer of the faithful availeth much!
  

You shall march around the city... thus you shall do it for six days... then all the people will shout with a great shout ... and the wall of the city shall fall down flat (Joshua 6:1-5)

Tell your friends about this prayer walk. Refer them to this site.

To encourage each other, leave a name or a pseudonym if you are participating so others can also take heart and be counted!

ST Online Forum: Why Govt is right to retain S377A of the Penal Code (Oct 20)

Why Govt is right to retain S377A of the Penal Code

I STRONGLY disagree with the assertions made in the letters, 'NMP in no way overstepped his role' and 'Why is one law 'archaic' and not the other?' by Mr Ooi Jian Yuan and Ms Tan Yen Ling respectively (ST, Oct 18).

The Government is right to retain S377A of the Penal Code for several reasons.

First, the comparison of S377A with S498 of the Penal Code is wrong. S498 is about enticement of married women. Women are no longer viewed as chattels and, hence, S498 is no longer relevant. S377A, however, relates to sexual morality which is highly relevant. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not morally equivalent and S377A rightly reflects this position.

Second, the constitutional right to equal protection does not prohibit all differentiating measures. Only laws which do not bear a rational nexus to a governmental objective are unconstitutional.

Third, it is fallacious to assert that laws should be objective and neutral. All laws strike a balance between competing interests, or elevate an important interest above other interests. For example, we have laws embodying commercial morality (directors' duties and insider trading) and sexual morality (incest, paedophilia and bestiality). It is harmful to our society to insist on sexual freedom and autonomy free from governmental interference. We should not ape harmful foreign culture which exalts sexual freedom.

Fourth, Mr Ooi argues that NMP Siew Kum Hong is 'straight' and should be applauded for supporting the homosexual cause. NMP Siew's sexuality is irrelevant to the desirability of his petition. NMP Siew supports a relativistic sexual morality as a liberal. This radical ethic is based on consensus of individuals. It is insidious and harmful to the interests of the society at large. For example, one can then argue that incest should be decriminalised if two adults consent.

Let us not throw off essential restraints under the insidious covers of autonomy, equality, freedom and liberty.

Yu Yin Wei (Ms)

ST Forum: Fallacy to talk of 'gay' discrimination (Oct 20)

Fallacy to talk of 'gay' discrimination

I STRONGLY disagree with the assertions made in the letter, 'Why is one law 'archaic' and not the other?' (ST, Oct 18), by Ms Tan Yen Ling.

It is obvious that homosexuals are part of family units - that is not the point in contention. However, the core family unit is and must be formed around the union of a man and a woman. Repealing Section 377A of the Penal Code will threaten this core family structure by paving the way for homosexual marriages.

It is a fallacy to state that there is discrimination against homosexuals - sexual orientation/preferences are not 'rights'. Hence the question of 'discrimination' does not arise.

The issue of homosexual marriages is vastly different from interracial or inter-religious marriages. In both of the latter instances, the basic family structure of union of man and woman is preserved.

Ms Tan tells of 'parents who were initially disapproving coming around after they got to know their child's partner and see the sincerity and realness of the relationship'.

Sincerity and realness of a relationship is hardly the test for what is morally right. Otherwise, an incestuous couple with a 'sincere and real' relationship would qualify for approval as well.

Lastly, comparing the repeal of Section 498 with Section 377A is like comparing apples with oranges. The repeal of Section 498 is based on the equality of men and women. Section 498 is not about adultery. It may include the act of enticing a person away (without having sex with her) for someone else to seduce her.

It was enacted at a time when women were less educated and were in need of protection. Such protection is no longer needed.

The repeal of Section 498 affirms the equality of women. Equality of gender is a universal right.

On the other hand, Section 377A deals with sexual behaviour, and sexual conduct/behaviour is not a 'right'.

Boaz Nazar

Sexual orientation/preferences are not 'rights'. Hence the question of 'discrimination' does not arise.

TNP: 'Silent' majority turns up the VOLUME (Oct 20)

'Silent' majority turns up the VOLUME

THEY are the 'silent majority' who say gay sex is wrong.

Except for a few letters to the press, they have mostly kept their views private.

Until yesterday.

That's when www.keep377A.com was launched.

The petition urges the Government not to remove Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises gay sex.

At press time, there were 132 signatures.

This follows an online petition (www.repeal377a.com) urging the Government to repeal the law and Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong's announcement that he was tabling a petition in Parliament to abolish the law.

That petition, started last Friday, has 6,200 signatures. It closes today.

Both petitions ask for the full name of those who sign, but the keep377A site says the names won't appear on it, and also asks for a nickname.

The repeal377A site says the full names will appear on the letter to the Prime Minister, and asks those who prefer not to have their name displayed on the website to give their initials.

One of those who started the Keep 377A petition, Mr Martin Tan, 30, told The New Paper in an e-mail interview: '(The petition) was started by a few concerned individuals who feel that perhaps it is time for the majority to speak their mind.

'We believe that repealing Section 377A will have an adverse effect on society in the long run and is contrary to what the majority of Singapore want, which is to retain Section 377A.'

Under the heading 'We the Majority', the website cites a recent Nanyang Technological University study of more than 1,000 people that revealed 70 per cent of Singaporeans frown upon on homosexuality.

REFLECTING THE MAJORITY

The open letter to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on the website said Section 377A is 'a reflection of the sentiments of the majority of society' and that repealing the law is 'a vehicle to force homosexuality on a conservative population that is not ready for homosexuality'.

Those who signed the petition gave reasons such as homosexuality is wrong, and not wanting to 'undermine the family unit upon which our society is built'.

One person wrote: 'It is not right to alter the S377A which stands for traditional family values which built what Singapore is today.'

A church worker, who wrote a letter to a newspaper voicing her objections to repealing Section 377A, told The New Paper: 'It's a good idea. It shows the silent majority isn't that silent after all.'

But business consultant Jenica Chua, 33, who wrote to The Straits Times criticising Mr Siew for overstepping his boundaries as an NMP, warned that it shouldn't escalate into a war between the opposing sides.

'We're not in a fight or a shouting match,' she said. 'We should want what's best for Singapore at large.'

And her stand on this contentious issue?

'As a Singaporean, I stand by the majority view - that is, to keep Section 377A and not allow homosexuality to become a mainstream value,' she said.

The church worker agreed.

'It shouldn't be about the conservatives versus the liberals, but about values that are important to our society.'

Dr Alan Chin, who once wrote to The Straits Times forum warning about gays' high-risk lifestyle, thinks the petitions by both sides are pointless.

'They won't change a thing. The Government has already decided on (the matter),' he explained.

In its latest Penal Code review completed last month, the Government decided to keep the status quo on Section 377A as Singapore is 'a generally conservative society'. However, it would not actively prosecute people under this section.

But Mr Tan said: 'Whether the Government has already decided or not should not change the fact that the time has come for the majority to make our stand.

'The main objective is to make known what the majority of Singaporeans want, that is to retain Section 377A.

'To quote one of the signatories, 'It's not about doing things right, it's about doing the right thing'. We believe what we are doing is right.'

by Low Ching Ling

CNA: Group sets up site urging Singapore to keep gay sex ban

SINGAPORE: In an apparent counter move, a group calling itself "the Majority" has set up a website to collect signatures backing a call for the government to keep the law against gay sex.

The group, in an open letter to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, asks the government to "do what is right and retain Section 377A for the future of our children and our nation".

Under Section 377A of the Penal Code, it is illegal for men to have sex with one another. While prosecution is rare, those convicted can be jailed up to two years.

The online letter read: "Section 377A is a reflection of the sentiments of the majority of society. Most Singaporeans hold conservative family values and do not accept homosexuality as the norm.

"Repealing Section 377A is a vehicle to force homosexuality on a conservative population that is not ready for homosexuality."

Repealing the law, the letter said, could lead to the redefinition of same-sex marriage and the trend of adoption by same-sex parents.

The website, which went live yesterday at about 12.30pm, seems to be a response to an ongoing public online campaign calling for Section 377A to be repealed — even sporting a similar website design.

The pro-repeal website is urging people to sign two documents, one an open letter to the Prime Minister and the second a petition — which closes today — to be submitted to Parliament on Monday by Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong.

In the latest Penal Code review, which was finished last month, the government decided to uphold the status quo on this issue. The Ministry of Home Affairs had said that Singapore was generally a conservative society and "we should let the situation evolve".

As of 10.45pm yesterday, the website in support of Section 377A had gathered 118 signatures, most of which were accompanied by comments. Wrote a petitioner who signed off as "Bo Bo": "We should never submit to what the rest of the world finds trendy and acceptable."

Wrote Sammy, another petitioner: "It is not right to alter the Section 377A which (sic) majority stands for traditional family values which built what Singapore is today."

Mr Martin Tan, 30, who organised this latest online show of support for Section 377A, told TODAY the website allowed the "silent majority" to have its say.

"What the gay community does in private is their private space," said Mr Tan, an executive director of a not-for-profit organisation. "We just do not want our country's legislation to change just for a small minority who are vocal."

The pro-Section 377A group, said Mr Tan, was started by a small group of four "concerned individuals" who forwarded the link to friends. The open letter, he added, will remain on the website and not be submitted to the government.

When contacted, organisers of the online letter and the petition against Section 377A declined to comment on the new website. But they did say the petition to Parliament had garnered 2,519 signatures so far.

Gay rights activist Alex Au saw the new website as Singaporeans exercising free speech. But as for the group calling itself "the Majority", he said the matter was not a "numbers game" but an issue of "fairness and equality".

Saying the latest website reflected "healthy" debate, Dr Gillian Koh, senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, said the scene should not be "monopolised" by those who want the law repealed.

For those who want it retained, she added, "it's a way to signal to other Singaporeans that a bunch of them care about this issue too".

However, Dr Koh also believed that despite several surveys showing that most Singaporeans feel homosexuality should not be made legal, most would choose to stay out of discussion — remaining as "spectators" only.

"What will happen is that people from the religious backgrounds, those with clear vested interests, will speak up," said Dr Koh.