TNP: HIV Postive? You Deserve It (Oct 30)

'HIV-positive? You deserve it'

Infected man's mum slams him when he reveals condition. He now hides it from friends and colleagues.

Sat, Nov 01, 2008
The New Paper

By Benson Ang

HE is gay and HIV-positive.

In 2004, one evening during dinner, he broke the news to his family. His mother and elder brother were present.

He was advised by his doctor to break the news to his family so that they could react appropriately in case of an emergency.

James (not his real name), 38, said he was shocked by their reaction at the dinner table.

His dejected mother, in her 70s, first stared at him and asked: 'How did this happen?

He replied: 'Through sex.'

She shot back: 'Then, you've only yourself to blame.'

His brother kept silent throughout the conversation.

There was a deafening silence for the rest of the dinner, interrupted only by his mother's questions regarding the illness.

Frightened

From then on, his family members were so frightened of the virus that they even washed and stored the plates and utensils he used separately and kept them in a different place.

James, who works in the service industry, said: 'I know that sharing cutlery cannot transmit the virus. But because they had not much knowledge of this, I just played along to reassure them.'

This less-accepting attitude towards HIV-positive people was revealed in a recent Health Promotion Board (HPB) survey. This is the first large population-based survey of its kind, according to HPB.

Since the first HIV case in Singapore was detected in 1985, only one person has dared to come out as HIV-positive. The late Paddy Chew went public with his condition in 1998 and eventually died in 1999.

Which goes on to show that even after 10 years, the stigma associated with HIV patients still hasn't gone away.

Said James, who works in the service industry: 'It was a double whammy - telling them that I was gay and HIV positive.

'I think my mum was just devastated and traumatised. It took several months before she came around to accepting my condition.'

A year later, he moved out of his family flat to his own three-room flat.

It took his family about two years to come to terms with the illness and be comfortable with mixing their cutlery with his.

His mother began talking to him more frequently and things went back to normal.

He said he tested positive for HIV in 1996 through unprotected sex with a former lover.

So how did he manage to keep this secret for eight years? He said: 'This is nothing. People have kept secrets for their whole lifetime.'

The only people who know about his illness are his family, partner, and the HIV-positive people he came to know through an Action for Aids (AfA) support group. James joined the group in 2002 when he started on his medication.

Why did he take six years to start on medication when he knew he was already HIV positive?

He said: 'I felt healthy and was ignorant of the disease at that time.

(Page 1 of 2)

'It was only when I had a chest infection in 2002 that reality hit me.'

He said he has not revealed his condition to any of his friends and colleagues, despite having lived with HIV for 12 years.

He said: 'Singapore society is still very unaccepting of gay people, let alone those with HIV.'

So why isn't he revealing his status?

He says he is just being 'practical', since in Singapore, there are no laws protecting HIV-positive people from discrimination by their employers.

This was verified by three lawyers The New Paper spoke to.

James said that employers who may not know much about HIV may just terminate such employees out of fear.

He claimed that some of his HIV-positive friends told their bosses about their condition, and ended up being sacked 'for the minutest reason'.

He takes anti-retroviral drugs at home instead: twice daily - in the mornings and evenings - to combat the spread of the virus.

He does not have full-blown Aids, but sometimes experiences side effects from his medication, such as nausea, diarrhoea and skin problems.

And although he shops, eats, sings karaoke and goes to the movies with his HIV-negative friends, most of whom are gay men, none know about his condition.

James said: 'I haven't got the guts to tell them. I just act buat-bodoh (blur) when the subject comes up, because I don't know if they can really accept it or not.

'I just don't see the need to tell them, especially since news tends to have a roll-on effect.'

James suspects that he contracted the disease through unprotected sex with a former lover.

'But I can't be sure, so I don't want to point fingers.'

A few months later, he became 'very sick', and had to be hospitalised for six days.

A blood test confirmed his HIV status.

Life goes on

'At first, I felt down. But life goes on.'

He says he does not want to 'perpetuate the cycle' with his current partner of three years, who is HIV-negative. They use condoms.

Prior to sharing his secret, James said he asked his partner leading questions to see how accepting the latter was of people with HIV.

James revealed the truth only when he felt it was safe, a few months into the relationship.

James said: 'My partner cried. But two weeks later, he told me, 'No worries. We will go through it together.'

'This made life much easier.'

Added James: 'I'll never have a job again if I were to come out publicly in Singapore. I'll have more to lose.'

This story was first published in The New Paper on Oct 30, 2008.

BlogTV Episode 5: Am I Gay? (Sept 30)

From the BlogTV website

Episode 5: Am I gay?
Catch it on Tuesday, 30 September at 8:30 pm on Channel NewsAsia

When you were 16, perhaps younger, and beginning to understand
yourself better – what happens when you find that unlike your
classmates you are different? You're not attracted to the opposite sex?

A poll was conducted in 2007 and of the 187 secondary school respondents:

* 33% felt that homosexuality was wrong
* More than 35% felt that homosexuals were responsible for passing AIDS
* 42% blamed gay people for paedophilia

This poll raises the issue of whether there is enough frank talk about
homosexuality among younger students. Is the topic of homosexuality
still taboo in schools, and are schools doing enough to educate
students about their sexual orientation? Or is it a case of 'if I
don't talk about it, it ain't there.'

This week BlogTV turns the spotlight onto sex education. Is it enough
to just discuss safe sex? Should we not be discussing all the
different sexualities as well? How educational is our sex education
system anyway? And seriously, should teachers be teaching sex amidst
history, English literature etc?

We ask these questions and more as we attempt to answer the question
that might occur to every adolescent at least once - am I Gay?

With our guests, we look away from excuses and seek answers to see if
our education for youths needs to be revamped to include alternative
perspectives.

You can also catch a repeat of the programme at these following times:
30th September, 11.30pm
1st October, 1.30pm
2nd October, 5.30pm

Journal of Communication Inquiry: It's the Gays' Fault

This version was published on October 1, 2008
Journal of Communication Inquiry, Vol. 32, No. 4, 383-399 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0196859908320295

It's the Gays' Fault

News and HIV as Weapons Against Homosexuality in Singapore

Debbie Goh
Indiana University, Bloomington, dgoh@indiana.edu

As homosexuality in Singapore is illegal and suffers from social stigmatization, the local media avoided the topic until recent acknowledgment by a top-ranking official of the presence of gays in Singapore opened the floodgates for media publicity. The flourishing underground gay scene triggered the international media to name Singapore as Asia's new "pink" capital. Although it acknowledges homosexuals, the Singapore government still does not condone their activity and public declaration of Singapore as a gay haven spooked the government, who sought a subtle approach to discipline and control the public behavior of homosexuals: through discourse about homosexuality in the national newspaper. Drawing from Foucault's repressive hypothesis on sexuality, this article examines news coverage of the government's blaming of homosexuals for the rise of HIV/AIDS cases in Singapore and argues that Singapore's national daily, in framing homosexuality as promiscuous and contrary to traditional values, served as a platform for the government to reestablish control and subvert homosexuality in Singapore.

Key Words: news framing • homosexuality • control • Singapore • Foucault

Daily Telegraph: Lloyd's saviour was gay lover (Jul 27)

Lloyd's saviour was gay lover

By Lisa Davies
July 27, 2008 12:00am

WHEN he was called to give evidence in a packed Singapore court last week, Mohamed Mazlee bin abdul Malik knew his cover was blown.

Until then, the Malay-Singaporean had led a relatively unexceptional life.

But since he was revealed as the lover of Australian newsman Peter Lloyd, his life has been torn apart.

Mazlee, 37, is the man supporting the respected foreign correspondent in his darkest hour.

Lloyd is facing not only a minimum of five years' jail on drug charges, but also disgrace in the eyes of his boyfriend's country.

In the face of such potential local condemnation, however, Mazlee has stood up to be counted.

Not only has he stumped up 60,000 Singaporean dollars ($45,000) to ensure his friend's freedom until the charges are finalised, he will have Lloyd under his charge and care until he most likely goes to jail.

Mazlee has also had to promise the court he will make a citizen's arrest of his lover if he tries to flee the country or breach his bail in any other way.

To the court, he was just a good friend of Lloyd, as homosexuality is still technically illegal in Singapore.

But sources have told The Sunday Telegraph the couple were extremely close and were enjoying all the trappings of a new union.

"I know his family, I know his wife, I know his kids. I know his sister, I know his brother-in-law,'' Mazlee told the Subordinates Court last week.

"In any case, he will be staying in my place.''

As a Singapore Airlines steward, Mazlee has travelled the world and had dozens of friends in all corners of the globe.

He met Lloyd about a year ago, just before the journalist formally came out as a gay man and embraced his new lifestyle.

But as Mazlee stood to reveal himself publicly as his saviour, an orange jumpsuit-clad Lloyd hung his head, barely able to look at his boyfriend.

He had originally asked his Singaporean lawyer to post bail, but in the eyes of the court that is not an acceptable arrangement.

Although the money must be provided by a local person, that person must be known to the accused.

It also must be their own money, which Mazlee swore was his. As one local source put it, the Singaporean has done "the most noble act possible''.

But for Lloyd, it was heart-wrenching. Those close to him know he never wanted to put his lover in this position.

Before the drama began, Mazlee seems to have been a carefree man highly respected by his friends.

His page on an Asian social networking site carries a string of photographs of him with friends in Shanghai, Zurich, New York, Germany, the Canary Islands and Italy.

He lists his hobbies as music, swimming, gym and movies, and says he is a Duran Duran aficionado.

A former lover, identified as Joachim, describes Mazlee as "the most valuable person I have ever met in my life''.

ST Online Forum: Booklet on gays: SMU should support students' mature actions, not restrict them (Nov 8)

Nov 8, 2007
Booklet on gays: SMU should support students' mature actions, not restrict them

WE REFER to the letter, 'Allowing SMU students to launch booklet, event on gays sends wrong message' (Nov 3), by Ms Low Xiang Jun as well as various other letters responding to this matter. Ms Low raised an important and valid point about the role of tertiary educational institutions in Singapore. SMU's mission is to develop socially responsible leaders and innovators who will help shape the future of Asia.

Fundamental to this mission is our commitment to provide students, faculty and staff an intellectual forum for open discourse and dialogue, even on controversial matters. The highest aim of education is not to teach students what to think, but to teach them how to think - critically, rationally and creatively. We encourage students to express their views, but equally important, to recognise and respect the views of others, which may differ widely from their own.

In this instance, a group of undergraduates has developed a project aimed at giving a voice to an under-represented group by sharing their stories. Their purpose is to educate and promote understanding - not to advocate a particular lifestyle, but rather to provide insight that will enable their fellow students to develop a more informed perspective. This is not inconsistent with the objectives of the 'Leadership & Team Building' course.

Ms Low may wish to note that the group has stated very clearly in the publication that the members are 'not representative of gay activism' and many of them 'come from backgrounds that neither condone nor promote homosexuality'.

The intent of their publication is neither contentious nor divisive. The group has stated that they are only presenting voices which are 'real and come from real people'. Readers are given the latitude to form their own views and opinions.

The university should support such mature and sensitive actions on the part of its students, not restrict them. Our role is to respect and protect open dialogue and learning, permitted that the means employed to create awareness do not infringe university regulations or the laws of Singapore.

Professor Howard Hunter
President
Singapore Management University

ST Online Forum: Families and gays must keep an open mind (Nov 6)

Nov 6, 2007
Families and gays must keep an open mind

IN LIGHT of the recent debate over Singapore's gay sex laws, I have this much to say.

I myself have been gay for as long as I can remember. From the moment I became aware of my sexual urges, they had always been directed towards other males.

I never faced much direct oppression for my sexuality. My very much Christian family, instead of disowning or forcing change on me when I came out to them, were gentle and supportive, as they realised the extremely difficult and unjust position I was in.

Sin or not aside, I could face much prejudice from the public, who treated homosexuals like serial killers. My family understood that being homosexual did not make me one-dimensional. I was still everything else I was before sexuality ever entered the picture: the winner of a school science quiz, the teachers' pet, the artist, their eldest son.

I have gradually come to understand that, objectively, being gay may not be a permanent condition in me. But I also realise change does not come overnight. My family taught me to keep an open mind about everything, no matter what it was. I have a wonderful boyfriend and the both of us have reached mutual understandings with both our families. We both intend to stay together, but we are open enough to change that should time and tide prove otherwise, then we shall gladly pursue heterosexual relationships and remain good friends.

I am not asking for a legalisation of gay sex laws, or for complete freedom as a homosexual to do whatever I want. I merely ask for the majority to uphold the family values they so fiercely defended and love their homosexual members as any other member of the family.

Diseases are a product of promiscuity, not homosexuality. Gays do not deserve hate (or hell) any more than the average person. It's not a 'special' sin in any way. If God were to judge humanity the way we judge one another, we're all doomed, straight or gay. Do not force change either; gently coax it out and allow it to develop naturally.

I also, in turn, suggest to other homosexuals that they re-examine themselves and keep an open mind about their sexuality. Do not be so stubborn and shut to the prospect of change. If we muse to ourselves that straight people can be converted, so it is vice-versa as well.

Kevin Lu Zixian

ST Review: The Gay Debate, Present by denied (Nov 1)

Nov 1, 2007
THE GAY DEBATE
Present but denied
By John Gee

AFTER the parliamentary debate over Section 377A ended in the retention of the clause, one pro-change activist was quoted as saying: 'What makes this so divisive is that so many of those who are against gays do not have gay friends and do not understand them.'

The sad reality is that many probably do have gay friends, but they just don't know it.

As a teenager in Britain, I remember hearing programmes on the radio in which gay characters featured, and knowing about certain gay people in public life and history books, but I didn't know any fellow students or teachers who were definitely gay.

Among people of my acquaintance, I was aware of no gay men and knew just one woman who was fairly certainly a lesbian, although the word was never used. She was a great-aunt of mine, who would come to family occasions with a woman who was always known as her 'friend', and whom she lived with for half of her life until she died at a ripe old age, loved and respected by all who knew her.

It was only when I went to university that I met men and women who were very open about being gay or lesbian, but that was something of a special environment, more tolerant of differences than most, even though male homosexuality had been decriminalised in 1967 (lesbianism was never recognised in British law).

Even there, I realised that there were gay men who quite deliberately kept their distance from those who were 'out'. They made a decision not to draw attention to their sexuality. I don't think it could have been as easy as it would at first seem; it meant forgoing the casual intimate exchanges in which heterosexuals often engage without a second thought - a touch, an embrace, an intense, close-up conversation.

As chance would have it, I came to know more lesbians than gay men, and two became close friends. Things they said gave me new insights into why it is that many homosexuals are wary of revealing their sexual identity.

One woman came from a Muslim family and had lived quite happily until her father decided that it was time she got married. Arranged marriages were the rule in her community, but she decided that she could not marry someone she could never love, and left home. Her mother and brothers were quite sympathetic, but the rift between
father and daughter was lasting.

When I first met her, I thought that she was very puritanical as whenever any reference to sexual matters arose, she seemed uncomfortable and would steer the conversation to another topic. It was only after a couple of years that a mutual friend told me, in a very matter-of-fact way, that she was a lesbian. Eventually, after a big upheaval in her life, she suddenly became very willing to pour out
her woes to me, and it was then that I heard the whole story.

Another woman I knew had several boyfriends, but the relationships never lasted long. It was only after a few years that she told me one day that she had a girlfriend.

She said she would have mentioned this to me before, but I had told a story about a gay man I knew that she saw as derogatory of him, and that frightened her into keeping quiet about her own sexuality. I knew her parents, whom she loved very much. Both were devout Catholics.

Her father died without her being able to tell him honestly about her sexual identity, but she did eventually manage to talk about it with her mother. There are old school friends she still sees occasionally, but she does not dare to risk them turning away from her if she reveals her sexuality.

Odd incidents served to remind me what gay people could face, simply because they were gay. A man I knew was beaten up one night just outside his own home after a group of particularly unpleasant and hefty young bigots living in the neighbourhood discovered that he was gay.

This was a far from isolated incident, but it hadn't happened to anyone I knew before.

A writer I knew and respected shared a home with his male partner for most of his life. They were very happy together and, had they been man and woman, most people would have seen theirs as a model relationship.

The writer died, and his lifelong partner was status-less. Arrangements for the funeral fell to the deceased's nearest blood-relatives and the grieving partner had to request their permission for him to attend, which, to their credit, they gave
willingly. I attended the memorial service and could not help thinking that this relationship had never been more explicitly acknowledged by the author's friends and family than at that moment.

I knew a trade union official who took on the case of a woman who claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed from her workplace. He soon found that his union superiors were reluctant to support her. One eventually spoke to him 'off the record' and said: 'You know she's a lesbian, don't you?' - an issue that had not figured explicitly in her dismissal. The official, an Irishman of distinctly nationalist
outlook, stood his ground: 'Lesbian? I'd defend her even if she was a Protestant!'

Homosexuals belong to many different communities and backgrounds, which is why talk of a 'gay community' can be misleading; sexuality is not the be-all and end-all of anyone's existence.

One consequence of this is that some gay people share most of the values of people who display strong hostility towards them. They may be strongly Christian or Muslim, or socially conservative; it must be wounding when they hear words of condemnation or mockery, but they persist in these antagonistic surroundings because they feel they have so many shared ideals.

And so I look back on my schooldays with a mind informed by experience and I realise that I almost certainly did know gay people then. I also remember the jokes told about homosexuals and how they were so often figures of fun, malice and fear.

I felt uncomfortable about the hostility this expressed, and soon stopped laughing at the jokes, but I didn't speak up to object, and I don't remember anyone else doing so: After all, people might have said that you were one of them, and who wanted that? How would young gay people have dared to reveal their true sexual feelings in those
circumstances? So they lived out a pretence, unable to be true to themselves.

It still happens, all around the world. If, in most societies, homosexuals largely seem to belong to a middle class or intellectual environment, it is because that is where they tend to be most readily accepted as the individuals that they are. Homosexuals who are poor and live in more socially conservative environments just become used to adopting a heterosexual facade, even entering into loveless
marriages that must often leave both partners unsatisfied and children disturbed at the sense of something missing in their parents' relationship.

I have no view one way or the other about homosexuality being right or wrong: It exists and it doesn't matter to me what consenting adults do in their private lives, providing it causes no harm to others. That is what reason says, regardless of religiously based prohibitions. I do have a definite view on lives being blighted and human happiness denied by the enforcement of codes of behaviour and values that force
many of those they target into living a lie: That is wrong - morally wrong, I believe.

I can only be sceptical of perspectives that, at no cost to those who embrace them, force upon others lives of self-denial and often loneliness, as well as varying degrees of estrangement from family, co-religionists and segments of their communities. While that happens, many people will go on knowing gay men and lesbian women, but not knowing that they do.

John Gee is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

ST Review: Gays and biology: Who is right, PM or the MP? (Oct 27)

Oct 27, 2007
Gays and biology: Who is right, PM or the MP?
By Andy Ho

IN THE parliamentary debate over the continued criminalisation of gay sodomy, MP Lim Biow Chuan (Marine Parade) disagreed with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong who said that growing scientific evidence shows homosexuality is substantially inborn.

What does the research say? To me, there are four big items that are not what they seem to be.

# First, twins are not what they seem to be. Identical twins share the same genetic make-up while non-identical twins share only half of that, so if the former show a higher similarity in rates of gays, that would suggest a genetic component in homosexuality.

According to some doctors, previous studies of identical twins suggest that 30-60 per cent of the incidence of gayness can be attributed to genetics.

Indeed, many such studies up to the early 1990s indeed suggested so. An Australian study published even in 2000 gave figures in the same ballpark.

Hoewever, many twin studies are methodologically flawed. For one thing, a social phenomenon as complex as gay behaviour is usually reduced to a single item asking the respondent to self-identify as straight, gay or bisexual. Thus, elements of gayness - like sexual fantasy, attraction and behaviour - are not captured carefully in such studies.

For another thing, participants are usually recruited through either twin registries or gay publications, so there is self-selection bias. In the former case, twins who are more like one another tend to respond more frequently to such studies. In the latter case, gay twins - who use such media - must be much more likely to be respondents than non-gay ones.

Thus, most twin studies might start off with a higher proportion of gay twins than a survey of the population at large. When a study of the latter type was indeed carried out in 2002 by Yale and Columbia researchers, they found 6.7 per cent of identical twins to be gay, 7.2 per cent of non-identical twins and 5.6 per cent of true siblings in general.

They concluded: 'Clearly, the observed...rates do not correspond to degrees of genetic similarity. (If) homosexuality has a genetic component, it is massively overwhelmed by other factors.'

# Secondly, families are not what they seem to be. Family studies show gay men tend to have a greater number of older brothers - but not higher numbers of older sisters, younger brothers or younger sisters - than straight men.

Since the environmental influence of more males at home has been shown to not likely cause homosexuality in younger male siblings, it is inferred that this relationship must have arisen from things that happened to male foetuses while they were in their mothers' wombs.

The foetus cannot 'know' its own birth order, only the mother knows it, and, apart from her mind, only her immune system has memory for that. So perhaps a male foetus presents male antigens to its mother's immune system which develops antibodies to such proteins. Thus the more male babies a mother bears, the more of such antibodies she develops, which may then attack the brain of a subsequent male foetus, perhaps impairing its masculinisation.

In such a scenario, however, the genitalia, especially the testes, should logically bear the brunt of an immune attack by the mother's antibodies, but there is no evidence for this in gays. Moreover, most late birth order males aren't gay even when an elder brother is.

Also, the brains in male and female babies are similar at birth, with gender differences in their brains developing only after birth when such an immune attack, if any, is no longer occurring. In addition, foetuses that die in the mother's womb resulting in miscarriages - presumably due to immune attacks - are more often female than male.

Interestingly, too, there are no published studies of attempts to demonstrate such antibodies in mothers with one or more gay sons. No clinical manifestations of such antibodies have been identified as well.

A side note on families: Studies from the early 1990s showed that gays also tend to have a gay maternal uncle. This suggested possible genetic factors transmitted through the X-chromosome. (Females are XX and males are XY).

Specifically, the Xq28 region on the X-chromosome was thought to be a 'gay gene' candidate, but the most up-to-date molecular genomics has not been able to confirm this.

# Thirdly, fingers are not what they seem to be. A well-reported story in the media concerns research comparing the lengths of the second and fourth fingers. The ratio is proposed as a measure of how much the male hormone has acted on a gay man as a foetus.

After accounting for height and weight differences, straight men are said to have longer ring fingers than women and gay men. Since 1998, of about 100 studies, some have confirmed the statistical correlation while others have not. In a 2005 review, a University of Texas at Austin group found that while the ratios for gays remained relatively similar across studies, those for straights varied – especially between American and British studies - which then led to differing conclusions across studies. Also, while the ratios were consistent for white homosexuals, they were not so for other ethnicities, including Asians.

It is now known that female hormones (that are physiologically made in the male body from the male hormone) are probably more important than male hormones in the development of bone length in men.

# Finally, brains are not what they seem to be. In the early 1990s, the sizes of some parts of the brain (including the suprachiasmatic nucleus and the anterior commissure) were observed to differ between straights and gays.

(In)famously, English neuroscientist Simon Le Vay - whose gay lover died from Aids in 1990 - published a paper in 1991 showing that gays who died from Aids had a smaller zone in the brain called INAH-3 compared to straight men and was only as large as that in straight women.

INAH-3 (or the third interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus), known to regulate sexual behaviour in monkeys, is the smallest of the four 'intersitial nuclei' which are only the size of a grain of rice, so measurements are inherently difficult. Yet, Dr Le Vay measured volumes when cell counts (in tiny brain slices) would have been more accurate. His sample size - 19 gay men, 16 supposedly straight men and six supposedly straight women - was also small.

Their incomplete sexual histories were bothersome too. Thus men and women in his sample who had died from Aids and were known to have used drugs intravenously or received blood transfusions were assumed to have contracted the virus in these ways and not gay sex. They were assumed to be straights though they could have been gays as well. Moreover, it is possible that HIV can shrink INAH-3.

Importantly, other scientists - including a 2001 study - have not been able to repeat Dr Le Vay's findings.

Taken together, the evidence for the role of biology in gayness is still not particularly strong yet. Conversely, it cannot be disputed that an individual's lived experience is very important in determining his self-identity and behaviour. Whatever the case, we are far from understanding how gayness arises in men.

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 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.

The Advocate: Lutheran pastor calls for removal of celibacy requirement for gay clergy (Jul 27)

July 27, 2007

Lutheran pastor calls for removal of celibacy requirement for gay clergy

Lutheran pastor Wayne Miller of Aurora, Ill., who will soon become bishop of the Metropolitan Chicago Synod, is calling for his denomination to remove a celibacy requirement for gay and lesbian clergy, reports the Chicago Sun-Times. "That's where I think the church is going," said Miller. "That's where I think it needs to go."

Miller is hoping the change could come as early as next month in Chicago, where the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is scheduled to conduct its churchwide assembly. Nearly a third of the denomination's 65 synods are asking for a policy change in clergy standards.

Homosexuality is a debated issue at mainline church conventions. The ELCA has adopted a compromise position, allowing gay and lesbian clergy to serve as long as they remain celibate. Heterosexual clergy, however, are not subject to the celibacy requirement if they are married, a right gay clergy don't have.

As reported by the Sun-Times, more than 1,000 voting church members are expected at the August 6–11 assembly at Navy Pier. If the rules for gay clergy aren't altered, Miller acknowledges he'll experience conflict between his personal beliefs and his vows as bishop.

"That is the dilemma of a bishop at this particular moment in history," he said. (The Advocate)

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.

TNP: We gave the word "gay" back to the gays (May 10)

by Peter HL Lim

THERE was a time when a Singapore Cabinet minister persuaded the local English-language media not to use the word 'gay' as a synonym for homosexual.

'Gay', the minister told senior editors, was a happy word.

It conjured up a carefree spirit.

According to the minister, it was regrettable that the word was being used in the West to refer to homosexuals.

He said that he was not issuing a directive on behalf of the Government.

But he strongly urged the Singapore media to call a homosexual a 'homosexual', and not to misuse the word 'gay'.

The minister was very concerned that the Singapore media should not, even unwittingly, promote or glorify homosexuality.

We tried to accommodate the minister's request concerning the use of the three-letter word.

It was not easy, especially when we were writing headlines. Headings almost always have a severely-limited word count. A word like 'homosexual' takes the space of three or more short ones.

So, after giving the request a fair go, we reverted to mainstream usage of gay as a socially acceptable, less in-your-face way of referring to homosexuals.

According to the New Oxford Dictionary of English, the word's centuries-old meanings 'carefree' and 'bright and showy' have virtually dropped out of use.

Now that Singaporeans are engaged in what last Friday's The New Paper called a Gay Debate, I am happy to detect more acceptance of the fact that homosexuals are human beings like the rest of us.

MORE ACCEPTANCE

The debate continues whether gays are people who have chosen or have been pushed into an alternative or undesirable lifestyle, or whether they are what nature intended them to be - born that way.

In other words, are they - using a tendentious term - normal like everyone else is 'normal' in the context of personal behaviour and sense of values or of morality?

No one in the Government seems to be bothered anymore by homosexuals co-opting the word 'gay' for their way of life.

Instead, the Government is taking what it calls a pragmatic approach.

It acknowledges that there is a place in Singapore for homosexual people, and also that there are those who strongly disapprove of homosexuality.

So it is not initiating any move to take sex between males out of the list of criminal acts. Yet sex between lesbians is not a crime.

There are no moral police out to hunt down homosexual acts between consenting adults.

But the law will punish any homosexual caught preying on children or making any inappropriate move on anyone.

The same applies to heterosexuals caught committing similar offences.

When I was 12 years old, I came very close to being raped by a gay friend of my father. When I was a young adult, another gay friend of my father held me in a crushing, unwanted embrace, kissing and groping me.

Despite those unpleasant experiences, I am close to a relative and have good friends - male and female - who are gay or bisexual.

Maybe because I have never married, I have been asked more than once, seriously, whether I was gay.

Those who know me, especially those who like to tease me about my mythical swinging bachelorhood, have not felt any need to ask me that question.

And I feel no need to take the word 'gay' back from homosexuals - even though they are now saying that 'happy' is the new 'gay'.

ST: Gays' letter on oral sex fails to convince MPs, Legislators advise: Drop emotional approach

Gays' letter on oral sex fails to convince MPs, Legislators advise: Drop emotional approach

by Soh Wen Lin and Sue-Ann Chia
An emotionally charged appeal by a gay-rights group to decriminalise homosexual oral sex, made in an open letter to all MPs, has not swayed the legislators into changing their stance.

Several among the nine MPs contacted about last week's letter from the People Like Us activist group said society may not be ready for the group's agenda to be pushed, and that using tactics that played on emotions could dilute the issue. 'Such appeals from special interest groups are no surprise, but... these groups cannot push ahead of what wider society is able to support,' said Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines GRC).

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast GRC) said that as the Government opens up, individuals and groups may try to raise particular issues. But he added: 'Those who use this avenue must respect the space of others as well.'

The group sent letters on Jan 21 to all MPs using Parliament as the mailing address. So most of those contacted yesterday had yet to read the mail. But copies were sent to the media and the letter was also posted on the group's website. In it, the group noted that changes being considered to the law banning oral sex between men and women appear likely to 'leave oral sex between two persons of the same sex as a criminal offence'.

In appealing for decriminalising oral sex between gays, the group took the approach of asking MPs to consider gays who might, it suggested, be family members. 'This does not apply to me or my family - we are all apt to say. We know our children are not gay - parents are apt to say. But the law of probability tells us some of you are going to be proven wrong,' said the letter.

'Supporting the continued criminalisation of homosexual sex between consenting adults is a violation of your love for your own children,' it concluded.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC) said he would regard the letter as feedback which, if constructive, would be discussed. 'From there, the Government will have to take a position, in the interest of the whole community. As society progresses, new norms will develop. But we will still need to strike a balance and know where to draw the lines.'

But he did not think the reference to children of MPs, even if meant as an illustration, was 'the right way to do it'. 'Should we ask for 20 lifeguards for a swimming pool, because children drown and MPs also have children?' he asked. Said Mr Gan Kim Yong (Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC), who has two daughters, aged 12 and nine: 'Its main argument is there will be some homosexuals among us and our children, given statistical averages.

'However, I think the mere statistical presence of homosexuals among us does not make it the right thing to do and certainly does not imply fundamental shifts in societal norms.' Added Mr S. Iswaran (West Coast GRC): 'Using statistical probability, why stop at homosexuality? If there is a statistical probability that a certain percentage of people will be pick-pockets, that will include MPs' children and relatives as well. So then what?' Mr Gan also said the writers' personal approach showed they were 'trying to appeal to the paternal instinct of the reader rather than rational reasoning'. Mr Alex Au, one of the letter's three signatories, said they adopted the approach as a foil to what he described as the 'calculative, esoteric and clinical' arguments usually used in such debates.

'There are going to be gays in our circle. How do we face these loved ones, and justify ourselves?' he said. The MPs acknowledged that as social norms evolve, such appeals should be taken in stride. As Minister of State (Community Development and Sports) Chan Soo Sen put it: 'MPs are quite use to receiving such emotionally charged letters, it is part of democracy. As a policymaker, it is beneficial to listen to all views. It is our aim to cultivate an open political culture. But we cannot rule by consensus.'

BT: Catering to the trendy, well-heeled and the gays

Catering to the trendy, well-heeled-- and the gays:
High tea party at Lincoln Modern targeted at gay and lesbian singles and couples a first

by Andrea Tan and Daniel Buenas
Singapore - Simon Cheong's Lincoln Modern project has broken new ground - for the first time in Singapore, and probably Asia, a property developer is openly targeting its project at the gay community.

Mr Cheong's SC Global and Fridae, which bills itself as Asia's Gay + Lesbian Network, are jointly organising a 'special exclusive viewing' of the Newton condominium for the gay community. Singles and couples in the gay and lesbian community in Asia will be invited to the Sunday high tea party on Nov 23.

Apart from this, a private viewing can also be arranged through marketing agent Colliers International. Owning a piece of Lincoln Modern does not come cheap. The 30-storey, 56 'ultra-modern' units are designed by Chan Soo Khian of SCDA Architects. The two-bedroom units are priced at $1.3-1.5 million while three bedrooms go for $1.4-1.8 million, or an average price tag of $1,100 per square foot. The project was first released at the end of 2000 at just under $1,200 psf average.

There are 33 units left. Commenting on its marketing tack, an SC Global spokesman told BT: 'We have a duty to our shareholders to reach out to all segments of the market and to maximise the sales of our development, and it would include this community.' The Lincoln Modern is targeted at the 'trendy, glamorous and well-heeled urbanite'. Fridae said on its website that strong interest has been recorded by gay and lesbian individuals, expatriates and affluent Singaporeans.

'The Lincoln Modern as a product was conceived as a recognition that singles and couples who want housing that is well designed and fits their expectations of quality and lifestyle,' the SC Global spokesman added. 'We're just trying to reach a very specific segment of the market with this product. There's a very good match here.'

Lincoln Modern is inspired by the late architect Le Corbusier's signature interlocking system and has a six-metre high loft space in the living areas. Are there plans for such future events for other SC Global developments like The Ladyhill and BLVD at Boulevard? 'We have no organised marketing programme to target this community specifically,' the spokesman said. Other developers which have attracted the gay community's attention have been very discreet about their marketing activities.

'We don't particularly target this segment but a lot of the projects that we've done appeal to this group,' said property agent Hampden managing director Michael Ng. 'We do see quite a lot of alternate lifestyle people coming by. It's modern city-living in happening locations and near amenities.'