TodayOnline.com: If Double Standards Can Apply to Gays, What about to HOTA? (Sept 10)

If double standards can apply to gays, what about to Hota?

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Tan Yen Ling

LAST year, there was campaigning by both the pro-repeal gay community
and the anti-repeal Christian camp.

As a result of this, Professor Ho Peng Kee, Senior Minister of State
for Law and Home Affairs, said that Singapore will keep the ban
although the authorities would continue to not actively enforce
the provision banning gay sex between ­consensual adults.

Such an arrangement would be akin to the authorities allowing
"consensual" organ trading while the Human Organ Transplant Act
explicitly forbids it. Surely, such an arrangement would make a
mockery of the Rule of Law.

And as it now stands, men who have same-sex sexual relations are
committing a crime but are "above the law" as they will not be
prosecuted — as ­assured by the authorities.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/275027print.asp

TodayOnline.com: There Is Simply No Need for Anti-Gay Law (Sept 10)

There is simply no need for anti-gay law

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Tang Li

I REFER to Mr Ho Kwon Ping's "Stop making a mockery of Rule of Law:
Let's accept gays" (Sept 8), and I would like to applaud him.

Like Mr Ho, I have to ask myself if there is any justification for
keeping a private act between consenting adults, criminal.

During last year's debate on the repealing of Section 377A, Nominated
Member of Parliament Thio Li-Ann argued passionately that repealing
the act was bad for public morality. In her address, she noted that
"Diversity is not license for perversity".

The majority of Parliament agreed with this and the result was the
retention of 377A, but with a promise from the Government that the law
would not be enforced.

Mr Ho rightly pointed out that the idea of having a law that the
Government has no intention of enforcing makes a mockery of the Rule
of Law, something which is central to the heart of Singapore's
rules-based society. The proponents of the ban on homosexual
intercourse spoke passionately about the need to defend public
morality, but they failed to provide a logically-sound reason for
their case.

At best, Professor Thio argued that private acts would have public
repercussions as in the area of public health. She pointed out that
HIV/Aids was spread most efficiently by anal sex.

What she failed to prove was how anal sex between two consenting men
was more conducive to the spread of HIV/Aids than anal sex between
heterosexuals.

The Ministry of Health's statistics on HIV found that in 2007 there
were 255 heterosexuals infected, versus 145 homosexual and bisexual
infections, something that nobody seemed to have taken note of.

Furthermore, the defenders of public morality didn't seem too troubled
by the fact that the greatest rise in HIV among women was from
loyally-married women who were infected by their husbands.

So, where is the premise for having a law against consensual
homosexualactivity? Singapore is socially-conservative, but does that
mean it is necessary to have laws — albeit non-enforced ones — that
discriminate against one group without protecting another?

Ministry of Health statistics on HIV show that anal sex between
consenting adult men is no less of a threat to public health than sex
between heterosexuals. So, why then do we need laws if there is no
threat to public health or security? Is it because the majority of
people disapprove of it? Surely, the people who disapprove of such
acts would continue to disapprove of them regardless of whether laws
against them exist or not?

There is no rational premise for laws against homosexuality, so why do
we need them? More importantly, why do we have such laws if we have no
intention of enforcing them? Is it because we know that such laws have
no benefit to society? I may not like homosexuals or homosexuality,
but I can see no reason for laws against what consenting adults do in
the privacy of their bedroom.

I salute Mr Ho for taking a stand against the current mockery of the
Rule of Law.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/275025print.asp

TodayOnline.com: Don't Send Mixed Signals (Sept 9)

Don't send mixed signals

Tuesday • September 9, 2008

Letter from Felicia Tan Ying Yi

I REFER to the commentary "Stop making a mockery of rule of law: Let's
accept gays" (Sept 8). I fully agree with Mr Ho Kwon Ping.

The Government's stand on homosexuality in Singapore seems to pander
to religious fundamentalists who are vocal.

Such an attempt to pacify those who believe that it is their place to
impose their value system on others should not happen in a country
that prides itself on openness, secularism and pluralism.

It is all too convenient for the Government to "appease" the gay
community by not taking action against them, while at the same time
continue to pacify the conservatives by keeping the law in name.

However, this merely cheapens what the rule of law means. Laws should
not be made or retained to reflect the views of a vocal minority; in
fact, their purpose should not even be to reflect the views of the
majority.

Instead, they are there to protect the rights of the citizens. In this
way, section 377A of the Penal Code achieves nothing.

I feel that the Government should be courageous enough to finally
decide that everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race
or religion, has an equal right to privacy, and this right should
never be superseded by the moral posturing of any group, regardless of
how vocal or influential.

Or, if the Government should still choose to retain this archaic law,
then it should enforce it instead of sending mixed signals.

But it should also be ready to expect the exodus of not only the gay
community, but also of liberal, tolerant people like me, who refuse to
settle down and start families in such a country.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/274855print.asp

TodayOnline.com: Stop Making A Mockery of Rule of Law: Let's Accept Gays (Sept 8)

Stop making A mockery of rule of law: Let's accept gays

Why keep such an archaic statute when there's no intention to prosecute?
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/274653.asp

Monday • September 8, 2008

HO KWON PING

news@newstoday.com.sg

SINGAPORE is known to be economically liberal, but socially
conservative. It is a rules-governed society with clear parameters for
behaviour, whether political, economic, or social. And within the "OB
markers" (out-of-bounds markers) of these do's and don'ts, it is a
transparent and fair social order, with no favouritism for anyone
operating outside the parameters.

This state of affairs governed the issue of homosexuality in Singapore
for many years. Not only was gay sex illegal, but every manifestation
was openly discouraged — some would say suppressed — and
discrimination against gays in the public domain (the civil service,
the military, the police, schools, and so on) was commonly accepted.
Indeed, because it was public policy to promote heterosexual family
life as the only norm, any other lifestyle was considered deviant and
handled accordingly. Repressive though it certainly was to gays, it
was at least very predictable.

Today, official attitudes towards homosexuality in Singapore are quite
different. They are certainly ambivalent and ambiguous — some would
even say, schizophrenic. On the one hand, many gay Singaporeans are
feted and lauded for their creative contributions to Singapore, and
warmly accepted by even senior figures of the establishment. On the
other hand, gay sex remains a criminal activity, even after much
public debate on the issue, and any kind of activity which is seen to
promote a gay lifestyle remains off-limits.

To those who believe that the non-persecution of gays is already
something to be grateful for, one could argue that allowing a black
person to sit in the front of the bus while legally forbidding it, is
something to be grateful for. Or, in an analogy closer to home for the
supposedly homophobic heartlanders, should a Chinese person be
grateful if the edict forbidding Chinese and dogs to enter parks in
Shanghai in the '20s were relaxed in reality, but maintained in the
law?

At another level, my gay friends argue cogently that non-prosecution
(or non-persecution, for that matter) signals, at the most, simple
tolerance of them, and nothing more. There is a difference between
being tolerated because gays are seen to be at the leading edge of the
"creative class" — which Singapore is trying to develop as part of its
new knowledge-based, creativity-oriented economy — and being accepted
because of the recognition that fundamental human rights and the
dignity of the individual extends to gays as much as to anyone else.

The somewhat schizophrenic decision to not prosecute an illegal
activity has ramifications beyond the gay community, and has disturbed
some sections of the larger community, which is not particularly
interested in gay issues.

To many thoughtful citizens, Singapore has always openly claimed that
the Rule of Law, possibly even more than the formal mechanisms of
democracy, is a vital component of good governance. Yet, to
criminalise gay sex and, in the same breath, state that anyone
breaching this law will not be prosecuted, makes a mockery of the Rule
of Law.

Minor though this violation of the principle may be, the proponents of
the concept that the Rule of Law is a sacrosanct pillar of the
Singapore ethos lament that the Government did not take the bold step
to simply decriminalise something which the rest of the developed
world has long decriminalised; which most Singaporeans (except,
perhaps, the most fervently fundamentalist Christians or Muslims)
don't care that much about one way or the other; which the police,
courts, and legal community would welcome simply to remove an archaic,
Victorian-era statute; and finally, which the gay community would
embrace as an important signal that their right to privacy — a
fundamental human right — is considered to be more important than the
right of anti-gay groups to proselytise about morality.

Optimists hope that the decriminalisation of gay sex — a yawn to
anyone except the homophobic and the gays themselves — will eventually
occur. In reality, rather than in law, gays in Singapore today have
never had it so good, and should within a short time, become
fully-accepted — not just tolerated — members of an increasingly
diverse, and therefore vibrant, Singapore community.

But if we pat ourselves on the back for being so "bold" as to accept
casinos and Formula 1 events into staid Singapore, why can't the
boldness extend to a simple act to enable gays to realise their dream
— indeed, their simple right — to be normal Singaporeans like anyone
else, no more and no less.



The writer is chairman of Singapore Management University,executive
chairman of Banyan Tree Holdings and chairman of MediaCorp.

ST: NUS don warns of 377A fallout (Oct 30)

Oct 30, 2007
NUS don warns of 377A fallout‏
By K. C. Vijayan

IF THE police, on a tip-off, raid a flat for suspected drug offenders and discover no drugs but gay sex instead, would they prosecute?

NUS law don Michael Hor says this scenario could arise from the government's stand that it would not be proactive in enforcing S377A.

'Does the non-enforcement policy cover this, for it might be argued that the police were not 'pro-active'?' he wrote in a new book of essays launched on Tuesday.

He cites a similar example in Texas, the United States, where the US Supreme Court had struck down a sodomy statute.

The book, titled ' Lives in the Law ', honours three luminaries in Singapore's legal academia - Mr Peter Ellinger, Ms Koh Kheng Lian and Mrs Tan Sook Yee -who recently retired from full-time appointments at the National University of Singapore's Law Faculty.

Jointly published by Academy Publishing and the NUS, the trio are described as 'Singapore's foremost experts in their specialised fields of study and teaching,'' by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong in his foreword to the book.

In his essay on the recent changes to the Penal Code, Professor Hor further argues there is also no indication that the policy of not prosecuting under the 377A will not change overnight and without prior notice.

After heated debate in and out of Parliament over changes to the Penal Code last week, Parliament retained 377A which outlaws homosexuality.

The government also indicated then it will not proactively enforce the section.

But Professor Hor notes that it is 'impossible to tell' if the courts are willing to hold the government from prosecuting against this declared policy.

Separately, another NUS law don has called for the courts to review aspects of entrapment in an essay on the issue of consent as interpreted under the Penal Code.

Professor Stanley Yeo plumbed for a practical approach to the issue of consent in cases involving entrapment, citing Professor Koh Kheng Lian, one of the three honorees of the book.

Prof Koh had said the law should be guided by 'what is fair or unfair conduct on the part of the entrapper in his efforts to entrap the defendant.'

Prof Yeo said it would be unfair to prosecute a homosexual, for example, if he was enticed by a police officer posing as a gay, since it was the latter who freely gave his consent to the former's advances.

'Instead of imposing a blanket rule that consent is irrelevant whenever it is secured by entrapment, fairness to the accused requires the courts' to study the facts of a particular case to see if consent had been freely given, he said.

DPA: Tolerance on the rise for Asia's gays, but laws lag

Bangkok, Oct 8 (DPA) Thailand's tolerance towards gays and transgender people is legendary in Asia.

Entire streets in Bangkok are dedicated to gay bars, the hospitals have become international centres for sex-change surgeries, and Thailand's TV and film scenes abound with "katoey" or transvestite comic characters, and gay love stories to the point of tedium.

Thailand's Pattaya beach resort is famed for its annual Miss Transvestite Pageant, and the island of Phuket has been hosting a gay pride parade since 1999 with the full support of local authorities.

Yet when Thai gay-rights activists earlier this year pushed for a mention in the country's
just-drafted constitution, the 18th to date, legislators baulked at a clause guaranteeing equal rights for the "third sex" along with other downtrodden folk - women, children, the poor and disabled.

"It was the first time in Thai history for the topic to be discussed legislatively, which was great, but finally it was a big abortion" said Viroj Tangwanit, a known Thai gay activist."It never came to life."

"Thai society is the most open in the world" Viroj added, "but officially, it is closed and narrow."

That contradiction - more tolerant societies versus still conservative laws - broadly characterizes the gay-transgender scene throughout the region, though there are signs of slow progress even on the legal level.

Increasingly open economies have exposed Asian societies to global trends, such the HIV/AIDS pandemic and access to the Internet, which have pressured governments into new, liberal terrain.

In communist China, where homosexuality was once described as a"Western illness" the government stopped punishing gays under "hooligan" laws in 1997 and removed homosexuality from its list of mental diseases in 2001.

While it still bans gay-rights activities, China recently allowed the establishment of NGO to help fight HIV/AIDS and has turned a blind eye to gay websites like Chinesegay.net.

There are limits, however. Chinese state censors have denied distribution of several recent Western films with gay themes, including Ang Lee's award-winning "Brokeback Mountain".

Taiwan has surpassed the mainland in its tolerance toward homosexuality. Since the 1980s, more than 100 gay-rights groups have sprung up across the island, and Taipei's former mayor Ma Ying-jeou and President Chen Shui-bian have both voiced support for greater rights for gays.

In 2002, Taipei began subsidizing an annual Gay Carnival, which attracted 10,000 people last year. Taiwan has also taken a step toward legalizing gay marriage by expanding the definition of the domestic-violence bill to cover gay couples.

If it passes, a Human Rights Basic Law drafted in 2003 would allow for legalized gay marriages, which would make Taiwan the first place in Asia to legalize gay unions. Only a few countries in the world have so far have done the same thing: the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa.

In Japan, the government agreed to allow transgender people to change their birth sex on their national identity cards in 2004, a bureaucratic breakthrough that thousands of transgender people in Thailand are now fighting for, partly to exclude themselves from conscription into the army.

Singapore sends mixed signals on homosexuality. While consensual sex between men is still outlawed and punishable by a jail term, the government allows movies with gay themes "as long as the gay life is not depicted as desirable".

Punishments of homosexual acts are practically unheard of unless a minor or rape is involved, but many gay public events are banned. A gay picnic and a five-kilometre dash were prohibited to prevent participants from "politicising their cause", authorities said.

In Asia's predominantly Islamic countries such as Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia, gay relations are still taboo, at least for Muslims, as was highlighted by the much-politicised 2000 sentencing for sodomy of Malaysia's former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim.

But for non-Muslims, who make up 40 percent of Malaysia's population, there are small glimmers of legal leniency.

In Feb 2005, for instance, a Malaysian court allowed a non-Muslim male transsexual to change the gender on his identity card after he showed medical proof of a sex change by surgery.

In spite of that small milestone, the Malaysian government still refuses to acknowledge marriages in which one of the partners has undergone a sex-change surgery, saying they are same-sex unions and, therefore, illegal.

Similar laws apply in Indonesia, the country with the world's largest Muslim population, which is remarkably more tolerant toward the gay and transgender community than one might suspect.

"The only legal discrimination against gays is they can't legally get married, because Indonesian marriage law only recognizes a man and woman as able to get married," said Dede Utomo, a sociology lecturer from Airlangga University in Surabaya. Utomo, who is openly gay, is the founder of the gay support group GAYa Nusantara.

Indonesian gays were admittedly targeted by Islamic fundamentalists from 1997-2005 but Utomo looked back at the discrimination philosophically.

"These are the same groups who attacked nightclubs and bars, etcetera, such as in Yogyakarta, Solo and South Sulawesi, but funny enough, they would take bribes and cancel their attack if we gave them enough money" he said.