TodayOnline.com: Sexual Orientation Not a "Right" (Sept 10)

Sexual orientation not a `right':

Just because the rest of the world allows it, doesn't mean Singapore
should

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Koo Xun Zhao

I REFER to "Stop making a mockery of Rule of Law: Let's accept gays"
(Sept 8) and would like to point out several fallacies inMr Ho Kwon
Ping's reasoning.

First, contrary to what he says, the Government has not said it would
not prosecute those who breach the law — just that it would not pursue
those who breach it.

This is a fundamental difference which does not result in what he
calls "a mockery of the Rule of Law". It can be just as easily argued
that we can avoid what Mr Ho calls our current "schizophrenic"
situation by actually enforcing the law on gay sex.

After all, it was the Rule of Law before the Government decided to be
more open to gays.

Mr Ho also compares the so-called "persecution" of gays with racial
discrimination. Sexual orientation or preferences, however, are not
"rights".

Hence the question of discrimination does not arise. Mr Ho also cites
proponents of the Rule of Law advocating the decriminalisation of gay
sex, "something which the rest of the world has longdecriminalised".

Using what the rest of the world does as the basis for establishing or
repealing a law has no grounds in law-making.

The same goes for the argument that Victorian laws be removed as there
are important laws in our books today that exist from those times that
are still relevant: For example, the law against incest.

Mr Ho claims that it is only "the most feverishly fundamentalist
Christians or Muslims" and the "homophobic" who care about whether the
law against gay sex is kept. In this, he is misinformed since there
are even gays who feel that the statute should be kept.

Moreover, The Straits Times reported on Sept 20 last year that a
survey by Nanyang Technological University found that seven in 10
Singaporeans frown on homosexuality.

I urge Mr Ho to speak to non-gays who are also knowledgeable, if not
experts, in the law and who are for criminalising gay sex to get their
perpectives on the issue.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/275026print.asp

TodayOnline.com: There Is A Reason for the Law (Sept 10)

There is a reason for the law

Homosexuality is anti-social

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Heikel Bafana

I REFER to "Stop making a mockery of Rule of Law: Let's accept gays"
(Sept 8). I must disagree with the assertions of Mr Ho Kwon Ping.

Mr Ho calls for homosexual behaviour to be decriminalised. Whatever
perception he has gleaned from the official attitude, the views of
large segments of our society against the homosexual lifestyle are
neither ambiguous, ambivalent nor schizophrenic.

Whether due to religious belief or personal family values,
homosexuality is widely seen in Singapore society as aberrant
behaviour. I concede, of course, that this view is not shared by
members of the gay community.

Mr Ho's assertion that only "the most fervently fundamentalist
Christians or Muslims" in Singapore care about making gay sex a
criminal act is baseless, and indeed, false.

The Penal Code provision represents the manner in which the law
expresses our society's commonality of understanding as to what is to
be allowed and what is not.

Encouraging a family unit that is able to procreate and rear children
who will contribute to the future of this country is the prime
imperative of our society, and legislating against any behaviour —
including accepting widespread homosexual behaviour, which attacks the
sacrosanct nature of the family unit — is perfectly acceptable.

The Rule of Law constitutes the sum total of the social contract which
we, as citizens, agree to live by. In a multi-racial and multi-faith
society like Singapore, the Rule of Law is a delicate alchemy of
competing racial, cultural and religious demands. It cannot be subject
to change merely because of the high-pitched calls of a small segment
of our society.

I concede that in the context of the prevailing practice of the
criminal justice system here, the belief may arise that homosexual
acts are not subject to criminal prosecution. However, this belief is
not entirely accurate.

Similar non-prosecutions by the authorities are also the norm, for
example, in cases of mischief or of assault involving simple hurt.

However — and this is the critical distinction — the victim still has
the right to lodge a Magistrate's Complaint and undertake a
prosecution himself. From this perspective, why should a person who
feels aggrieved as a victim of homosexual behaviour be deprived of
such a right to prosecute an assailant?

To achieve acceptance, tolerance or respect, perhaps it is more
effective for the gay community to address in substance the issues
which lead society to frown upon homosexuality. Such engagement would
be more effective than getting tied up in knots about the law.

Mr Ho calls for an act of boldness to allow gays to "realise their
dreams". To believe that changing a piece of legislation will attain
this result is misconceived.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/275023.asp

TodayOnline: What's next? Same sex marriages? (Sept 9)

What's next? Same sex marriages?

Tuesday • September 9, 2008

Letter from Anton Chan

MR HO Kwon Ping is wrong to propose the acceptance of gays into
Singapore society because accepting a gay lifestyle would have a
tremendous impact on society as a whole in terms of religious beliefs,
social well-being and families.

As a Christian, I oppose legalising a gay lifestyle in Singapore
because it's against my beliefs. As a father of three teenagers, I
care because I don't want my children to be affected by such a lifestyle.

Imagine if we allow the acceptance of such a lifestyle in Singapore.
What next? Legalise same sex marriages? Legalise adoption of children
for gays?

Where are we as a socially-conservative society heading towards?

Soon gays will claim the right for social acceptance in all areas
including education, welfare et cetera. What effect will this have on
the next generation of children and parents who wish that their
children will grow up normally and produce children in the normal
course of their being?

The only strong contention in Mr Ho's proposal is the so-called gay
leading edge in the "creative class". Doesn't our society have many
other people to develop and nurture? Why are we so eager to promote
creative class talent in Singapore? So that we can become a more
tolerant society to accept whatever lifestyle these bring? Definitely no.

I would like to borrow a similar argument by Attorney-General Walter
Woon regarding the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota). In "None above
the law" (Sept 8), he said: "If Dr Lee (Wei Ling) disagrees with Hota,
she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended ... But until
Parliament amends or repeals the Hota and the Oaths and Declarations
Act, they remain the law of Singapore."

If anyone disagrees with the law for gays as enacted by Parliament,
he/she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended ... But
until Parliament amends or repeals the law of Singapore for gays, it
remains the law of Singapore.

TodayOnline.com: What's Next? Same Sex Marriage? (Sept 9)

What's next? Same sex marriages?

Tuesday • September 9, 2008

Letter from Anton Chan

MR HO Kwon Ping is wrong to propose the acceptance of gays into
Singapore society because accepting a gay lifestyle would have a
tremendous impact on society as a whole in terms of religious beliefs,
social well-being and families.

As a Christian, I oppose legalising a gay lifestyle in Singapore
because it's against my beliefs. As a father of three teenagers, I
care because I don't want my children to be affected by such a lifestyle.

Imagine if we allow the acceptance of such a lifestyle in Singapore.
What next? Legalise same sex marriages? Legalise adoption of children
for gays?

Where are we as a socially-conservative society heading towards?

Soon gays will claim the right for social acceptance in all areas
including education, welfare et cetera. What effect will this have on
the next generation of children and parents who wish that their
children will grow up normally and produce children in the normal
course of their being?

The only strong contention in Mr Ho's proposal is the so-called gay
leading edge in the "creative class". Doesn't our society have many
other people to develop and nurture? Why are we so eager to promote
creative class talent in Singapore? So that we can become a more
tolerant society to accept whatever lifestyle these bring? Definitely no.

I would like to borrow a similar argument by Attorney-General Walter
Woon regarding the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota). In "None above
the law" (Sept 8), he said: "If Dr Lee (Wei Ling) disagrees with Hota,
she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended ... But until
Parliament amends or repeals the Hota and the Oaths and Declarations
Act, they remain the law of Singapore."

If anyone disagrees with the law for gays as enacted by Parliament,
he/she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended ... But
until Parliament amends or repeals the law of Singapore for gays, it
remains the law of Singapore.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/274854print.asp

ST Forum: Rights debate: Whose interest is right? (June 25)

Rights debate: Whose interest is right?
I FEEL unnerved after reading Ms Ng Eew Hwong's views last Saturday in
her letter, 'Rights Debate: Question is 'what are good values'?". She
seems to echo only cliches and official comments in her letter.

If she wishes to ask 'what are good values', I would ask what are
'public interests' or, for that matter, what is the 'public' in the
first place? As I understand it, the 'special consideration' claimed
by Ms Ng is nothing more than a financial incentive, a carrot to
entice people to start families. The policy purpose is to increase the
national birthrate, not to provide for a family's needs. The latter is
meant to be achieved by the Baby Bonus policy. I am not being
insensitive; just realistic.

Ms Ng's belief that homosexuality will be mainstreamed is indicative
of homophobia. While I personally am not so inclined towards the LGBT
(lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered) 'cause', nonetheless I
believe that banning too many shows on homosexuality would lead to the
prohibition of essential educational material. At the same time, just
because 'many may find it undesirable' like Ms Ng doesn't mean that
they are necessarily right. Only the future will lead us to a
definitive conclusion on whether they are harmful or not.

At any rate, Ms Ng did not qualify specifically why she finds the
Government's statement encouraging. If she is offering blind faith to
the Government, then her level of intellectual maturity is not
particularly encouraging. If the vague nationalism in the comment
appeals to her, then she should reconsider why she thinks we are
superior to the West?

What is 'public morality' anyway? Is it moral standards of the public,
including the 'vocal people' Ms Ng dislikes, or the moral standard of
some senior members of society, who wish to force it on everyone else?

Lastly, I would comment that Ms Ng and other like-minded people should
consider whether their version of the 'common good' is applicable in
today's society where extremely diverse personalities and lifestyles
exist.

Not every agenda deserves special treatment, but to merely dismiss any
agenda as false and their proposers as 'some (vocal) people" is
tantamount to adopting a supremacist attitude and a closed mindset.

For at the end of the day, values are merely interests that a minority
projects onto the majority or vice versa. The real question is: Whose
interest carries the largest element of truth?

Clement Wee

ST Forum Online: Vital to distinguish between rights and claims (June 12)

June 12, 2008

I REFER to Mrs Constance Singam's letter, 'Human-rights fanatics is what S'pore needs' (June 6).

There is a need to distinguish between a human right and a claim by vested political groups.

For instance, is the right of adoption a human right?

In some countries, vested parties push for rights of adoption, including assisted reproduction for same-sex couples. This is campaigned under the banner of human rights.

Homosexual activists, keen for the decriminalisation of homosexuality, use the human rights banner to push for their cause.

However, when this is achieved, homosexual activists use the same argument to push for other 'equal rights'.

In some countries, it is compulsory to teach that homosexuality is a norm in pubic schools, recognise same-sex couples as 'married' and for orphanages to allow adoption by same-sex couples.

The promotion of the homosexual lifestyle is funded by tax payers' money under the 'equal rights' argument.

Opponents like orphanages which are against adoption by same-sex couples, for instance, are subject to legal action or even forced to close down.

The Singapore majority have demonstrated their preference for family values as a basic fabric of society.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also states that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by the State.

It is prudent of Attorney-General Walter Woon to highlight the danger of human rights being abused by a fanatic group, against the will of the Singapore society and the founders of the UDHR.

Chua Chor Ping (Ms)

ST Forum: Vital to distinguish between rights and claims (June 12)

June 12, 2008
Vital to distinguish between rights and claims
I REFER to Mrs Constance Singam's letter, 'Human-rights fanatics is
what S'pore needs' (June 6).

There is a need to distinguish between a human right and a claim by
vested political groups.

For instance, is the right of adoption a human right?

In some countries, vested parties push for rights of adoption,
including assisted reproduction for same-sex couples. This is
campaigned under the banner of human rights.

Homosexual activists, keen for the decriminalisation of homosexuality,
use the human rights banner to push for their cause.

However, when this is achieved, homosexual activists use the same
argument to push for other 'equal rights'.

In some countries, it is compulsory to teach that homosexuality is a
norm in public schools, recognise same-sex couples as 'married' and
for orphanages to allow adoption by same-sex couples.

The promotion of the homosexual lifestyle is funded by tax payers'
money under the 'equal rights' argument.

Opponents like orphanages which are against adoption by same-sex
couples, for instance, are subject to legal action or even forced to
close down.

The Singapore majority have demonstrated their preference for family
values as a basic fabric of society.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also states that the
family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
entitled to protection by the State.

It is prudent of Attorney-General Walter Woon to highlight the danger
of human rights being abused by a fanatic group, against the will of
the Singapore society and the founders of the UDHR.

Chua Chor Ping (Ms)

Christian Post: Christian Leaders: Homosexuality shows Singapore needs revival (May 7)

Christian Post - 07 May 08 - Christian Leaders: Homosexuality Shows Singapore Needs Revival

Responses to an ongoing survey on whether the homosexuality law in the Singapore Penal Code should be actively enforced have pointed toward a common conclusion.

Thirty-three surveys were sent out to Christian leaders from various denominations, churches, missions and ministry organisations by The Christian Post Singapore over the course of the past week.

Seven Christian leaders responded to the survey, of whom two addressed the questions directly.

The Rev. Yang Tuck Yoong, the Rev. Dominic Yeo, the Rev. Joseph Prince, Senior Pastors of the Cornerstone Community Church, Trinity Christian Centre and New Creation Church respectively, declined to comment on the subject.

Amos Ang, a campaign director in Singapore Campus Crusade for Christ, pointed out that the issue is ‘highly politicised’ and refrained from making further comment on an organisational level, although he noted that many in the campus organisation have “participated individually in polls against homosexuality in Singapore.”

Going a step further, the Orthodox Parish Priest, Father Daniel indicated that the issue was never a political one, but rather, a pastoral issue.

His responses recalled the Biblical and apostolic method of addressing the dilemma of Christians in regard to the social immorality of the places in which, for instance, the Corinthian church lived.

In any case, the priest suggested, the standards that are applied to the Church should not be the same as those applied to the unchurched and unbelieving world at large.

By implication, the method used to save the world should not be the method of politics.

The leader of the Eastern Orthodox denomination in Singapore cautioned Christians against using political means to resolve the issue that are really based on a judgmental posture of living.

“Help me to see my own sin, and not to judge my brother, for blessed art Thou unto the ages of ages, Amen,” said Father Daniel, quoting from the Lenten Prayer of S. Ephraim the Syrian.

As to the method that should be employed, a mega-church pastor gave a clear response.

Lighthouse Evangelism’s Senior Pastor Rony Tan said Singapore society is facing more problems than just homosexuality. He remarked that the nation was also dealing with the issues of pornography, drugs, child abuse and other forms of immorality.

He concluded that what the nation needs is really a mighty revival of God’s righteousness and holiness.

Sydney Morning Herald: Selective Tolerance is not Tolerance for All (Nov 19)

Selective tolerance is not tolerance at all
Michael Kirby - Michael Kirby is a judge of the High Court of Australia. This article is based on the Griffith Lecture, which he delivered in Brisbane on Friday.

19 November 2007

Freedom of religion does not have an easy relationship with revealed religions. It is difficult for many believers to tolerate the postulate of error: the possibility that another God or earthly messenger may exist, different from their own, or indeed that there may be no God.

Lina Joy was born in Malaysia into a Muslim family. At birth she was given the name Azalina binti Jailani. In 1998 she decided to convert to Christianity. She announced her intention to marry a Christian man. Under Malaysian law she would be unable to do so unless her new status as a non-Muslim was officially recognised.

Azalina applied to change the name on her identity card to a Christian name. She was successful. However, the regulations required that the identity cards of Muslims state their religion. Therefore, when Lina Joy received her new identity card, the word Islam still appeared. In effect it stood as a barrier to her marriage.

She then applied to have the word Islam removed from her identity card. Her application was rejected. She contested the policy, invoking the Malaysian constitution, which provides that: "Islam is the religion of the federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the federation."

Upon the rejection of Lina Joy's application by both the High Court and Court of Appeal, she appealed to the Federal Court, the country's highest judicial body. She argued the requirement that she must obtain the approval of a third party to exercise her choice of religion was unconstitutional. By a majority of two to one the judges found against her. Inevitably, it was noticed that the two majority judges were Muslim. The dissenting judge was a non-Muslim.

In earlier times Christianity had a very similar approach to renouncing religion. It was most evident during the bloody wars, forced conversions and burnings of heretics that accompanied the Christian Reformation and Counter Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church of my youth in Australia did not permit Protestants to marry in its churches. This was only 50 years ago. We have overcome this sectarian divide.

It is important for those who support the universality of human rights within Islam to realise that the primary source of Islamic principles, the Koran, expressly states that "there is no compulsion in religion". The foundation of human punishment for apostasy by Muslims is essentially found in an interpretation not of the Koran but of the hadith, or recorded sayings, of the prophet Muhammad.

In Australia the case of Lina Joy has come as a surprise. We are entitled to express our concern about it. We know the one universal principle that is shared by all the world's great religions is the Golden Rule. To do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you.

One of the foremost critics of the Lina Joy decision was Dr Thio Li-ann of the National University of Singapore. She observed: "There is a certain agony about this case, which at its heart concerns a woman who wishes to make a change in religious profession and to marry and have a family."

When I read this critique I applauded Dr Thio's views. Imagine my disappointment to read the Hansard record of remarks by the same Dr Thio, a couple of weeks ago, as a member of the Parliament of Singapore, opposing proposals to repeal the criminal laws of Singapore directed against homosexual men.

Speaking from a standpoint as a Christian believer, Dr Thio rallied the opposition to reform. She denounced "the sexual libertine ethos of the wild, wild West". She declared "you cannot make a human wrong a human right". She warned against "slouching back to Sodom". We have all heard all this type of language from religious zealots in Australia. Fortunately, recent evidence suggests that we are growing up.

My point is that it is not good enough for Christians, or people of the Christian tradition, to be selective about tolerance and acceptance. We cannot selectively denounce Islam for its views on apostasy but then do equally nasty and cruel things to others by invoking imperfect understandings of our own religious tradition.

Universal human rights are needed to permit each and every one of us to fulfil ourselves as our unique human natures, intelligence and moral sense demand. For Lina Joy and her fiance this means the freedom to worship God as they believe, and to marry and live, in their own country. For a homosexual man in Singapore, it means freedom from the fear of harassment and humiliation by outdated criminal laws.

Lina Joy should have our support because she is a human being standing up for the integrity of her basic rights. Those rights are not, as the majority judges in Malaysia said of her case, her "whims and fancies". They are precious manifestations of deep-seated human feelings that express part of the very essence of what it is to be a human being.

ST: A fiery NMP gets her baptism of fire (Nov 2)

Nov 2, 2007
PEOPLE & POLITICS
A fiery NMP gets her baptism of fire

She is the woman at the centre of a stormy debate over gay men and their sex lives. Nominated MP Thio Li-ann has made headlines for her stance against repealing Section 377A. Who is she? Why does she feel so strongly about this issue? LI XUEYING finds out

SHE was a 'very, very arrogant' atheist, who scored an A1 in Bible Knowledge for her O levels, and ripped apart the beliefs of her Christian friends when debating religion with them.

Then, at the age of 19, she converted to Christianity.

Professor Thio Li-ann smiles wryly as she casts her mind back to that day in October 1987.

Having just entered Oxford to study jurisprudence, she attended a Christian Union talk at a friend's invitation.

Wanting to leave halfway, she was 'stopped' by a voice.

'I basically had a sense that God was talking to me,' she recounts.

'I had stood up to walk out and I heard someone say, 'Stop'. And no one was around me. Everybody was busy doing their own thing. I was one of only one or two Chinese girls in this whole room of ang mohs.

'And then I just had the sense that I had encountered God, that he knew my name and I was shocked.'

Since then, Prof Thio's faith has underscored her values and beliefs.

And certainly, a certain messianic zeal is discernible in her mission to uphold Section 377A of the Penal Code in the recent parliamentary debate over whether gay sex should be decriminalised.

Homosexuality is immoral, she asserted. 'Repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties!' she said in a speech in Parliament last Monday that was widely disseminated and dissected, both in the mainstream media and the Internet.

While supporters called her 'fiery' and 'passionate' , she also attracted a storm of negative comments from detractors - gay and straight.

She has been called a homophobe, a bigot, and not least of all, a fundamentalist.

Others viewed her tirade as a 'hate speech'.

So is she a right-wing Christian, you ask her straight out.

'I am a Christian,' says Prof Thio who attends an evangelical church in the eastern part of Singapore. She declines to give its name but says it is an 'independent non-denominational church'.

'I don't know what right wing is. This is funny because I was always considered a political leftie and now I'm a rightie.

'There's a proverb I like. It says: 'Examine the contents and not the label.''

'Innocence lost'

SITTING down with her for an interview that stretches beyond an hour, you soon realise that whether you agree with her views or not, the 39-year-old, who is single, is personable.

She is likeable. She is funny. She arms herself with self-deprecating wit.

During the photo shoot, you suggest jokingly that she strikes the thinker's pose.

'I'll look like a pretentious snot!' she responds in mock horror.

'I've been called so many names, I'm not going to give them more fuel!'

And while she is clearly very knowledgeable - she was 'very heavily into philosophy' and Friedrich Nietzsche, Herbert Marcuse and John Stuart Mill were part of her reading diet - she also tries very hard to come across as your everyday gal.

For instance, she confesses to how in her college years, she 'had a big, big weakness for very handsome men with brown hair'.

'It was the whole stupid Mel Gibson phase in my life, which all my friends know because they couldn't bear to watch Lethal Weapon with me because I'd shout stupid things,' she says with a laugh.

Musing on the events of the past month, she agrees she has 'lost her innocence'.

'This is my baptism of fire,' she says. 'Eight months ago, I was a happy, quiet academic, writing my little articles that no one ever knows (about) except the poor 200 students who must sit for my exams. And maybe three academics abroad.'

But with the hate mail she received since her Section 377A speech - at its peak, she was getting 25 to 30 a day - she clearly feels victimised.

'I am just cautioning self-restraint for myself. But I don't necessarily mean that you can go all your way out to provoke me because as a human being, you have limits.

'So I'm trying very, very hard to be gracious but I'm going to tell you it's not easy.'

But she fired the first salvo with her speech, you point out.

No, she declaims.

'I think that's a completely wrong conception. The other side pushed the issue. If they had not so aggressively petitioned, so aggressively debated it in the press and in cyberspace, most people wouldn't have cared.'

In fact, she 'would have preferred to stay out of it', she claims.

'But because of all the spurious arguments that were being put out over the airwaves, in the newspapers, how could I sit by and just let a whole lot of what I consider untruths and propaganda float?'

While her explicit description of anal sex - like 'shoving a straw up your nose to drink' - has elicited disapproval, she dismisses such sentiments as 'hypocritical' .

'You think about it. Why do you have an offence of gross indecency?

'Because it creates a sense of moral opprobrium or repugnance. It's shocking and we can't put it into words but the truth of the matter is we do instinctively feel certain things are repulsive. I could easily say, do you pour butter into a car. So straw up the nose.'

Meanwhile, she is frustrated her 'reasoned' arguments have been obscured by the 'colourful' bits. She is also uneasy by what she perceives as attempts to paint her as a distraught, emotional speaker.

'I was passionate but I speak that way,' she says. 'You may disagree with the premises but I would say look at my arguments, tell me that they are irrational, tell me that they're not legally sound and you want to contest it on a legal basis rather than saying, oh, you're so rude.

'I find it ironical that homosexual activists say it's a Victorian and archaic law and then when someone talks about straws, they become so coy and Victorian themselves.'

There's a choice

THROUGHOUT the interview, Prof Thio does not use the word 'gay', plumping instead for 'homosexual' .

The latter, when used as a noun, has pejorative overtones as it is a throwback to the era when homosexuality was seen as a mental illness.

Her choice of words is deliberate.

'I take the position that there is a degree of choice. Someone said you might have a genetic predisposition but we all know we don't act on our impulses,' she says.

'You could have the hiao gene, right? It doesn't mean you sleep with every man you come across. There is some degree of control, some degree of choice. And yes, the social environment will condition it.

'So my fear is if you've an increasingly permissive society, which we are seeing, then people will just continue with sexual experimentation and it's going to harm people.'

But why spend time waging war on homosexuality and not on another 'sexual morality' issue that affects far more people, say, prostitution?

While saying that she is not a 'one-issue person', Prof Thio adds:
'Because it's been so weakly rebutted.

'I really have done a lot of research and I really do think that the homosexual agenda is very dangerous.

'The agenda will not stop at repealing 377A. It will go on because first and foremost, the online petition said so - we don't just want to be tolerated, we want to be endorsed.

'When you cross the line from tolerance - which means I disagree with you, keep your distance butlive and let live - to endorsement and celebration, it becomes coercion, it becomes tyrannical.'

In other countries for instance, there are 'homosexuality training workshops', and same-sex unions, she says. 'People are being forced to rent out apartments to homosexuals whether or not you are a conservative Muslim or Christian or Jew and you don't want to.'

She says that she is 'not against homosexual people'. In fact, she has two gay friends, both American. One has 'left' the community, and the other 'never came out and struggles with it', she says.

Spark of defiance

IT IS almost a certainty that Prof Thio will henceforth be largely defined by the public as the 'anti-gay NMP'.

This despite that as an academic and as a parliamentarian, she has contributed incisive articles and comments on a wide range of subjects - from constitutional law to civil liberties and human rights, from the elected presidency to ministerial pay.

While perturbed by this, a spark of defiance remains.

She says: 'My students know what I'm like as a person. They know the risks I took, stood up in the past and being critical of Government.. .I've always spoken my mind. Why do you expect me to shut up now and be excessively polite?

'If people want to define me in some way, that's fine, because at the end of the day, this public thing will end soon enough. You want to remember me that way, it's fine, but at the end of the day, it's people who love you that matter, people who know you.

'So people who have a certain perception of me, well - God bless them.'

Methodist Message: Importance of our Connectionalism shines through issues (Nov 07)

Importance of our Connectionalism shines through issues
By Peter Teo

METHODIST connectionalism – that important link which is inherent in our tradition – was pushed to the forefront in the last few months by several international conferences held in Singapore and the region.

There was plenty of sharing of ideas and experiences and a time of close fellowship at each of these conferences, beginning with the Asian Christian Women’s Leadership Training and Dialogue held here from July 27 to Aug 3, which was attended by some 80 participants from the region and the United States.

The event was hosted by the General Conference-Women’s Society of Christian Service and co-sponsored by the Singapore women, the Women’s Division of the General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church in the US, and the Global Women’s Leadership Centre-Korea.

The women were taught leadership skills and discussed a wide range of subjects, including societal issues and the role of Christian women in missions today.

The focus shifted to the region when the Annual Meeting of The Methodist Mission in Cambodia was held in Phnom Penh on Sept 7 and 8.

A high point of that meeting was the ordination of 10 local pastors – one as an Elder and nine as Deacons. The ordination was conducted by Bishop Dr Robert Solomon, Bishop Roy I. Sano of The United Methodist Church, and Bishop Han Chung Suk of Korea Methodist Church.

Then came the Regular Meeting of the Fellowship of Asian Methodist Bishops (FAMB) in Manila on Sept 10, followed immediately the next day by the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Asian Methodist Council (AMC), also held in the Philippines capital.

At the FAMB meeting, the challenge of providing proper care to Filipino workers abroad was discussed at length.

In a report to the FAMB, The United Methodist Church, Philippines Central Conference College of Bishops disclosed that some 3,000 Filipinos were leaving the country for jobs abroad every day.

Consequently, Filipino pastors based in South Korea, Japan, Singapore and the Middle East have been asked to provide spiritual needs to the Filipinos working in those countries.

The Philippines Bishops have also appealed to their brother bishops in the region to “help look after” the Filipinos working in their respective countries.

“The economic nuances of corporate globalisation and the war on terror are also affecting our people,” they said.

In his country report on Singapore, Bishop Dr Robert Solomon mentioned the Singapore Government’s emphasis on strengthening inter-racial and inter-religious harmony within the community in order to minimise tension should a terrorist incident occur.

Dialogue and engagement with people of other faiths were encouraged through community programmes where the various communities could meet and interact to build confidence, friendship and trust with each other.

He said: “The Methodist Church in Singapore supports the need for religious harmony. Together with the National Council of Churches of Singapore, we have been educating Christians on how they should conduct themselves and maintain their Christian values in inter-religious relations.”

One of the outcomes of the FAMB and AMC meetings was the issuance of a statement on the issue of homosexuality.

The Asian Bishops unanimously decided to send a letter to the Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church (UMC) stating that:

“Our Asian Methodist Churches and communities have held, and continue to hold to the teachings of Scripture and our historic Christian faith on the issues of marriage and sexuality. Sexual relationships outside marriage are against the teachings of Scripture. The marital relationship is also between a man and a woman. We have also held that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings. We expect our clergy and lay to abide by these teachings and standards. We appreciate that the United Methodist Church has taken a position similar to that of the Asian Methodist churches and pray that the UMC will continue to make a clear stand. The unity of the global Methodist family will be seriously affected if any member of this family moves away from the biblical and historical position on the issues of marriage and sexuality. We therefore pray that together, we will be committed to maintain the teaching of Scripture and the historical and unanimous tradition of our global Methodist, and wider Christian, family.”

The letter was sent in the light of the UMC’s upcoming General Conference in April next year at which the homosexuality issue is expected to be raised again.

Following the FAMB and AMC meetings, about 200 leaders from all over the world converged in Sydney from Sept 15 to 20 for the World Methodist Council (WMC) Executive Committee meeting.

It was decided that the next World Methodist Conference will be held in Durban, South Africa in 2011. It is expected to be held from Aug 2 to 9.

It was also decided that the next WMC Executive Committee meeting will be held in Santiago, Chile in 2009.

The World Methodist Conference meets once in five years. The last conference was held in Seoul from July 20 to 24, 2006 amidst heightened tension on the divided Korean peninsula and the unrest in the Middle East.

Durban was a runner-up to Seoul when the location of the 2006 World Methodist Conference was selected. With more than 3 million residents, it is South Africa’s second largest city.

The Rev Dr George Freeman, General Secretary of the WMC, said that South African Methodists wanted their global counterparts to meet in Durban “so they could experience the changes that have taken place in southern Africa since apartheid ended”.

The Sydney meeting centred on strategic planning of the WMC and the proposed changes to the WMC Constitution.

Reports on subjects such as Family Life, Theological Education, Worship and Liturgy, Ecumenics and Dialogue, and Evangelism were also tabled by the various committees for discussion.

The Ecumenics and Dialogue Committee reported that the dialogue between the WMC and the Roman Catholic Church was continuing with an emphasis on “the Sacramental Nature of the Church.” The dialogue with the Salvation Army will continue with an emphasis on “Mission and Evangelism”.

A recommendation from the Division of World Evangelism that member churches of the WMC dedicate the first Sunday in Advent as a “Day of Prayer for Peace” was enthusiastically approved.

The WMC has also sent word to The Methodist Church of Lower Myanmar and The Methodist Church of Upper Myanmar reminding them of the prayers of the WMC family for their country and for the witness of their Church during the current political crisis.

Peter Teo is the Editor of Methodist Message.

ST Forum: Writer's article unfair and undermines civil debate (Nov 1)

Nov 1, 2007
Writer's article unfair and undermines civil debate

I REFER to Mr Janadas Devan's article, '377A debate and the rewriting of pluralism' (ST, Oct 27).

It is unfortunate that Mr Janadas Devan was 'exceedingly' depressed by the parliamentary debate on S377A of the Penal Code. However, one's personal feelings and sentiments such as 'was left looking stupid, speechless, confused, sour-faced and uncivil' is neither a rational nor relevant argument.

The use of expressions such as 'she tore to shreds so many of our cherished beliefs' obfuscates real concerns of what such beliefs may be and whether they ought to be so cherished in the first place. This emotional appeal insidiously draws attention away from the validity of opposing arguments.

Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann validly used the phrase 'chronological snobbery' in her parliamentary speech to counter the argument that S377A was 'archaic' and therefore should be repealed. Mr Devan's observation that 'chronological snobbery' was first coined by Owen Barfield and C.S. Lewis, is irrelevant. First, his observation fails to justify the 'labelling' of S377A as 'archaic'. Second, parliamentarians do not assert originality in their speeches, but
instead seek to express views relevant to law and policy making.

Mr Devan alluded to Professor Thio's use of uncivil and unkind phrases such as 'shoving a straw up your nose to drink' and 'Mundur Singapura' ('backward' in Malay).

He observed that the first phrase has been used in 'American anti-gay pamphlets'. A cursory sweep of gay activists' propaganda will reveal the convenient labelling of all contrary viewpoints including reasoned arguments, as 'anti-gay'. Such labelling avoids a substantive debate of the real concerns. S377A prohibits acts of gross indecency between two male adults. Any argument for or against its retention must
necessarily consider the repugnancy of anal sex or sodomy justifying its classification as 'gross indecency'.

He further observed that 'Mundur means 'backward' in Malay, and 'backward' here alludes to that 'straw' and another orifice'. If Mr Devan had read Professor Thio's speech carefully, he would have noticed that the phrase 'Mundur Singapura' was spoken in the context of not allowing our society to 'regress' to early civilisations where
indiscriminate sex was prevalent and there was no laws governing sexual behaviour. This is hardly uncivil or unkind. It is inappropriate and unconscionable for anyone to suggest otherwise.

Parliamentarians speak to the population at large. To use colloquial language at times to illustrate a point is perfectly permissible.

For Mr Devan to declare and wax lyrical about his depression, is at best highly self-indulgent.

Yvonne Lee Ching Ling (Ms)

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

ST Forum: NMP overstepped role in championing gay cause (Oct 17)

Oct 17, 2007

NMP overstepped role in championing gay cause

I AM writing in response to the article, 'NMP to submit Parliamentary Petition to repeal gay sex law' (ST, Oct 12). As a Nominated MP, Mr Siew Kum Hong is supposed to be non-partisan and should not be affiliated with any particular political group. However, he has chosen to be the sponsor of a parliamentary petition to present the homosexual agenda. While he is free to present his personal views on any issue, Mr Siew has overstepped the boundary as an NMP when he chose to represent the homosexual interest group. MPs in Parliament have to run for election, look after their constituents' interests and represent their views. As an NMP, Mr Siew bears no such burden. He should not adulterate the NMP role further by becoming the proxy representative of the homosexual interest group. This is especially so as the Government has already taken one y ear to review the Penal Code, with input from various consultation channels, and taken into consideration the views of the majority of Singaporeans who are for maintaining family values and preserving Section 377A of the Penal Code. Jenica Chua Chor Ping (Ms)

ST Forum: Removing Section 377A threatens family unit (Oct 16)

Oct 16, 2007

Removing Section 377A threatens family unit

I SUPPORT the retention of Section 377A of the Penal Code - a law criminalising gay sex - to uphold our moral and family values. The petition by Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong does not serve the interests of Singapore as a whole but only of one small sector. In fact, the removal of this law will lead to the disintegration of our social fabric, the family unit, which the Government has been establishing pro-actively. I believe that strong families will lead to a strong nation. I fully support the Government in keeping Section 377A. Gross indecencies must be penalised. For the survival of our nation and the welfare of the future generation, the petition by NMP Siew should be ignored. Lim Poh Suan (Ms)

Voices: Leave gay law unchanged

Tuesday • October 16, 2007

Letter from RON CHONG KER CHUEN

I WRITE regarding the recent online campaign urging the Government to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, under which it is a crime for men to have sex with other men.

My wife and I have always tried to educate our children well. Morality and values are definitely two of the most important issues that we, as parents impart.

One good way for the children to take the cue from is the Singapore law and we teach them to abide by these.

We recognise that it is very much the responsibility of parents to educate our younger generation, and the Government's decision to maintain the status quo for Section 377A will greatly assist us in this.