TNP: Repealing law doesn't mean promoting gay lifestyle, say two MPs (Oct 25)

AN inconvenient truth.

Perhaps that's what Section 377A is to some Singaporeans and the Government, MP Baey Yam Keng suggested in Parliament yesterday.

The MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, who once declared his support for scrapping the law that criminalises gay sex, said: 'We have inherited 377A from the British.

'It is easier and, as the Senior Minister of State (Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee) said, more practical to maintain the status quo than to change it.'

But Mr Baey asked: How well does 'the perceived majority holding the status quo view' understand the issue?

'I suspect a significant segment of our society does not really care, and some are just uncomfortable with this topic and choose the convenient way to stick with the status quo without knowing what the act exactly is and does,' he said.

Like the resident who told him at a meet-the-people's session that she was glad the Government was keeping Section 377A.

'But when I asked her if she knew what 377A was about, she said no,' Mr Baey recalled.

Convenience is definitely not what works for his fellow MP, Mr Charles Chong.

He said: 'I think I would be remiss as a legislator if I merely hid behind the views of the 'conservative majority' and maintained the status quo, which, of course, would be the least inconvenient thing to do if you were not gay...

APATHETIC

'It would simply not be realistic to expect the majority of Singaporeans to ever reach a position of being pro-homosexuality or where they will actively seek to repeal Section 377A.

'Even if heterosexual Singaporeans are apathetic towards homosexuality, it would be much easier just to maintain the status quo than to take steps to modify, if not expunge, 377A from the Penal Code.'

Is it really a slippery slope Singaporeans would be on if Section 377A is repealed?

Mr Chong gave the example of bar-top dancing.

'Some years ago, a senior politician (who shall remain un-named) argued his case as eloquently and as passionately as some of our NMPs did yesterday, in retaining an archaic regulation,' he said.

'The removal of such a regulation, it was said, would have led to staring incidents, fights and murders if it were to be abolished.

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

Mr Baey argued that repealing Section 377A does not mean promoting homosexuality.

'We do not want to condone smoking and drinking, (which) are not criminal, although we have made tobacco and alcohol less accessible and a lot more expensive,' he said.

'We want to promote marriage and procreation. Hence, singles do not enjoy certain tax and housing benefits.

'But they are not jailed.'

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

TODAYOnline: When ambiguity works, let it be (Oct 24)

When ambiguity works, let it be

PM Lee on keeping Section 377A, even as homosexuals
must have a place in society

Wednesday • October 24, 2007

Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

IT may be untidy and ambiguous.

But for once, such lack of cut-and-dried neatness in its laws is
what Singapore needs, according to Prime Minister Lee Hsien
Loong, as the country continues its fragile balance of affirming
old-fashioned family values and making new space for
homosexuals.

As the heated debate on the decision by lawmakers to continue
to criminalise homosexual acts raged on without any convergence
in sight, Mr Lee yesterday stepped in to make clear the
Government's position.

Explaining why it was retaining Section 377A — which bans
sexual acts between men — even though it does not proactively
enforce this law, Mr Lee said: "The current legal position reflects
the social norms and attitudes. It is a practical arrangement that
has evolved out of our historical circumstances. It's better to accept
the legal untidiness and the ambiguity. It works; don't disturb it."

Observing how the debate had unravelled over recent months, with
"well-organised pressure campaigns" from both sides of the fence, Mr
Lee said the issue had become a red herring for gay rights or "a
symbolic issue … for both opponents and proponents to tussle around".

Added the Prime Minister: "Abolition isn't going to give (gay rights
activists) what they want. What they want is not just to be free from
Section 377A but more space and full acceptance by other Singaporeans."

He added that "supposing we move on Section 377A", the gay rights
activists "will push for more, following the examples of other avant
garde countries in Europe and America", including same-sex marriages
and what is taught in school about homosexual relationships.

Yesterday, the Bill to amend the Penal Code, Singapore's largest set
of criminal legislation, was passed in Parliament.

But the changes were overshadowed by the retention of Section 377A.
The two-day Parliamentary sitting was dominated by one of the House's
most impassioned debates in recent times — filled with fiery rhetoric
and heart-felt pleas — with Nominated MPs Siew Kum Hong and Thio
Li-ann quoting the Prime Minister to buttress their opposing arguments.

Mr Siew had also submitted a public petition calling for the repeal of
Section 377A, on the grounds that it violated the Constitution, which
guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens.

But Mr Lee said the Attorney-General had given him "clear" advice that
the continued retention of Section 377A "would not be a contravention
of the Constitution".

While there is growing scientific evidence that homosexuality is
inborn, Mr Lee reiterated that gays should not be considered a
minority "in the sense that we consider, say, Malays and Indians as
minorities with minority rights protected under the law".

Yesterday, more MPs spoke on the topic, with Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC MP
Charles Chong suggesting that the law be changed to allow consensual
homosexual acts in private. Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng also
lamented how homosexuals in Singapore are stereotyped into categories
such as "effeminate men, men who prey on young boys, flamboyant men
who seem to lead decadent lifestyles and Aids patients".

Retaining Section 377A would perpetuate the view that gays are
"criminals who should spend time behind bars", even though many are
"just your average men on the street", said Mr Baey.

Concurring that homosexuals "must have a place in this society", the
Prime Minister added: "Among them are some of our friends, our
relatives, our brothers and sisters, and our children. We do not want
them to leave Singapore for more congenial places but homosexuals
should not set the tone of Singapore society."

Noting that out of the 17 MPs who spoke on the issue, only Mr Baey
spoke in Mandarin, Mr Lee pointed out that many Singaporeans —
especially the Chinese-speaking community — are "not that seized with
the issue … including a significant number of gays themselves". "For
the majority of Singaporeans, the attitude is a pragmatic one: 'We
live and let live'."

As it is, homosexuals "have a lot of space in Singapore society", he
added. Citing the example of Raffles Institution teacher Otto Fong —
who was asked by the Ministry of Education to remove a blog entry in
which he spoke about his sexual orientation — Mr Lee reiterated that
gays "should not promote their lifestyle to others, or set the tone of
mainstream society".

"(Mr Fong) is a good teacher, by all accounts. How you live is your
own thing but what you disseminate comes very close to promoting a
lifestyle. There is space but there are limits."

Mr Lee also responded to comments made by Dr Stuart Koe, one of the
gay rights activists who started the petition against Section 377A.

Dr Koe was quoted in Today as saying that the current situation was
like having "a gun put to your head and not pulling the trigger".
"Either put the gun down, or pull the trigger," Dr Koe had said.

The Prime Minister's response: "If we try to force the issue and
settle the matter definitively one way or the other, we will never
reach an agreement. Instead of forging a consensus, we will divide and
polarise our society."

Mr Lee also drew a distinct line on when Singapore should blaze a
trail, and when it should take a backseat to global developments.

On issues such as the economy, technology and education, Singapore
will "stay ahead of the curve, leading the pack", he said, even if the
issue proves unpopular or controversial.

But on issues "of moral values with consequences to the wider
society", Mr Lee said Singapore should decide "what is right for
ourselves", and study the "impact of radical departures from the
traditional norms on early movers".