The China Post: Taiwan gays blast Singapore over anti-gay law (Oct 25)

Thursday, October 25, 2007

TAIPEI, Taiwan -- Gay rights activists in Taiwan condemned Tuesday Singapore's retention of a law discriminating against homosexuals Tuesday.

"This shows how conservative Singapore or at least Prime Minister Lee Hsieng Loong is because he defines family only as made up by a heterosexual couple," Wang Ping, Secretary-General of the Taiwan Gender Sexuality Rights Association, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.

"Singapore's act is open discrimination against homosexuals because it says a sexual act is legal for certain people, but illegal for others. Taiwan homosexuals, as a member of the world gay community, expresses our strongest condemnation," she said.

Taiwan's gay rights activists Chi Chia-wei also blasted Singapore's retention of the penal code's Section 377A as a step backward.

"Singapore had the chance to keep up with the times, but it chose not to. It is a great pity," he said.

Chi refuted Singaporean Lee Hsien Loong's claim that Singapore cannot abolish Section 377A because it does not want homosexuals to set the tone of mainstream society.

"If one is a homosexual, one is. If one isn't, one isn't. Amending the law cannot turn heterosexuals into homosexuals," he said.

Wang and Chi were responding to Singapore's legalization of oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples on Tuesday while retaining a law criminalizing intercourse between gay men.

In its first major penal code amendment in 22 years, Singapore's parliament kept penal code's Section 377A which makes sex between men a criminal offense, despite calls from gay rights activists and supporters to abolish the law.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong supported the retention of Section 377A, saying Singapore remains a conservative society - with the traditional family as its main building bloc -- and homosexuals cannot set the tone for mainstream society.

Abolishing the law could "send the wrong signal" and encourage gay activists to seek more concessions, such as same-sex marriage and parenting, he said.

TODAY: Gay debate takes ugly turn (Oct 25)

Gay debate takes ugly turn

But a few black sheep in cyberspace do not mean S'poreans can't hold a mature dialogue: Analysts

Thursday • October 25, 2007

Ansley Ng
ansley@mediacorp.com.sg

THE Parliamentary debate on the law against gay sex will be remembered for its fiery, heart-felt spirit. But outside the House, passions — among both supporters and opponents of Section 377A — have, at times, degenerated into spite.

There were threatening, expletive-laced emails. One parliamentarian had his sexuality questioned. Another academic was flamed in blogs and had her phone number circulated.

And the employer of one gay professional was questioned about their hiring him.

The ugly turn of events, some may say, is only to be expected given the emotional nature of the subject matter — one that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had warned on Tuesday could polarise society.

But a bigger question being asked is: What do such instances say of Singaporeans' ability to debate issues maturely, and without hostility?

In Parliament on Monday, Nominated MP Thio Li-ann recounted how a colleague received threatening emails following the publication of an article in The Straits Times in May, after reforms to the Penal Code were mooted.

Assistant Professor Yvonne Lee had commented that it was wrong to decriminalise homosexual acts. For a month after, people, including young lawyers and students, wrote to the dean criticising her.

Her photo was posted on blogs and her phone number circulated. She received emails — "80 per cent of them abusive" — asking if she was a "fundamentalist" who would discriminate against homosexual students.

"It was a professional attack, intimidation and harassment," Asst Prof Lee told Today.

Professor Thio herself was "shell-shocked" and made a police report after receiving an abusive email in August from an unnamed stranger who threatened to defile her grave on the day Section 377A was repealed.

"If it was just a rude letter, I'd let it slip. But this really overstepped things," the law lecturer told Today.

In the opposing camp, fellow NMP Siew Kum Hong, who presented a public petition to scrap the law against gay sex, had his sexuality questioned.

"When you are a public figure taking a position on a public issue, you have to accept that some people will not be mature enough to refrain from such things," said Mr Siew, a lawyer.

"It bothers me but I just got past it and carried on. I don't want to dignify their comments."

The organisers of the Repeal377A.com campaign — who, in a statement yesterday, said they were "deeply disappointed" by the decision to keep the law — told Today that hate messages were posted on their website. "That's what the gay community experiences as part of their lives — derogatory slurs," a spokesman said.

Indeed, one employee at a large government-linked company learnt, a few months ago, that an anonymous letter had been sent to senior management, asking why they employed a gay person.

"I was really shocked. I'm not a closet gay but I don't show off my sexuality at work. I'm there to work, not advocate gay rights; I'm a professional. Honestly, I felt very violated," he said.

To him, the incident suggests there is "a lot of fear" that legalising consensual gay sex would cause societal disintegration. "When there is fear, it can lead to viciousness."

MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC Baey Yam Keng, however, said that while some were not pleased at his speaking up for homosexuals, no one had been outright abusive so far.

One email sender vowed not to vote for him in the next election. Another asked if he was "naive or blind".

Said Mr Baey: "For these kind of emotional issues, there will be skewed positions taken. But it's healthy to have these two opposing views — albeit some being extreme about it — rather than not talk about the issue."

He feels such debates raise awareness among the uninformed, which feeds into an even more robust discussion.

But Prof Thio asked: "Can we promise ourselves that we will not resort to deception or shouting at each other, but focus on facts and issue? Even if we disagreed, can we disagree in a civil fashion?"

On Sunday, Dr Balaji Sadasivan, Senior Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Information, Communications and the Arts), had called for tolerance of differences on Section 377A. The challenge, he had warned, was in preventing diversity from descending into "divisive antagonism", as it has in the United States.

Such polarisation was unlikely to happen in Singapore, said Dr Terence Chong, a fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Citizens by and large have shown that they are capable of civil and passionate debate – both in and outside of parliament – despite the actions of a few anonymous "black sheep" in cyberspace, he noted.

"The overall tone of the debate has been civil. It would be naïve for anyone to want passionate debate without any name-calling at all. And it would be very unfair to point to a small group of people who send hate mail and say we are not capable of a mature debate," said Dr Chong.

TNP: Live proud, not loud (Oct 25)

Live proud, not loud

HOMOSEXUALS should not actively promote their lifestyles. 25 October 2007

HOMOSEXUALS should not actively promote their lifestyles.

Using the case of gay teacher Otto Fong, PM Lee said Singapore should strive to maintain a balance, to uphold a stable society with traditional heterosexual family values, but with space for homosexuals to live their lives and to contribute to society.

He said in Parliament yesterday: 'The recent case of Mr Otto Fong who is a teacher in Raffles Institution.

'He's gay, he's a good teacher by all accounts. He put up a blog which outed, described his own sexual inclinations and... explained how he was gay.

'And he circulated it to his colleagues and it became public.'

The New Paper broke this story last month, and reported that the teacher had revealed himself to be gay in a blog. We also reported that he had meant the blog to be read by his friends and colleagues, not his students.

But, because students were also reading the blog, he had taken it down and apologised.

PM said of the teacher: 'He continues teaching in RI today. So there is space. There are limits.'

TNP: PM: Let's keep 377A in shades of grey (Oct 25)

PM: Let's keep 377A in shades of grey

by Low Ching Ling

ON one side of the fence, you have those who want Section 377A abolished.

On the other side stands the 'conservative majority' - people who want the status quo to remain.

Both sides will not budge.

What should the Government do?

Live and let live. Don't force the issue. Better to keep the law grey.

That is the view of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who wrapped up the two-day Parliament debate on Section 377A yesterday.

Let's say the Government scraps Section 377A. What next? What if gay activists push for more issues such as same-sex marriages and equal rights as straight people?

'The majority of Singaporeans will strenuously oppose these follow-up moves by the gay campaigners,' PM Lee pointed out.

'And many who are not anti-gay will be against this agenda...

'It's better to accept the legal untidiness and ambiguity. It works, don't disturb it.'

Mr Stuart Koe, CEO of Asian Internet portal Fridae.com for gays, had said he wanted the Government to remove the ambiguity of Section 377A.

PM Lee said: 'He said the current situation is like having a 'gun put to your head and not pulling the trigger. Either put the gun down, or pull the trigger'.'

DON'T FORCE IT

But forcing the issue will divide our society, PM Lee argued.

'The more gay activists push this agenda, the stronger will be the push-back from conservative forces in our society...

And the result will be counter-productive because it's going to lead to less space for the gay community in Singapore. So it's better to let the situation evolve gradually.'

Why did the Government decide to keep Section 377A?

PM Lee explained: 'Singapore is basically a conservative society. The family is the basic building block of this society...

And by family in Singapore, we mean one man, one woman marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit.

'I think the vast majority of Singaporeans want to keep it this way... and so does the Government.'

Yes, we have to accept homosexuals as part of our society, PM Lee said, but they should not set the tone for Singapore society or be considered a minority like Malays and Indians.

'This is the way Singapore society is today, this is the way the majority of Singaporeans want it to be.

So we should strive to maintain a balance, to uphold a stable society with traditional heterosexual family values but with space for homosexuals to live their lives and to contribute to the society.'

And the gays already have a lot of space in Singapore, PM Lee noted.

They work in all sectors of the economy, including the civil service. They hold public discussions and publish websites. There are films and plays with gay themes, and gay bars and clubs.

PM Lee said: 'They exist, we know where they are. Everybody knows where they are. They don't have to go underground,' PMLee said.

'We don't harass gays. The Government does not act as moral policeman. And we don't proactively enforce 377A on them.'

Live and let live, PM Lee said.

'(The gays) live their lives. That's their personal life, it's their space. But the tone of the overall society... remains conventional, it remains straight and we want it to remain so.'

Even in the more liberal West, PM Lee pointed out, homosexuality remains a contentious issue.

'They decriminalised homosexual acts decades ago... and they have gone a long way towards accepting gays in society.

'But still, the issue is bitterly disputed.

'So in America, there are fierce debates over gay rights and same-sex marriages.

'And the conservatives in America are pushing back.'

ST: Gay community looks ahead as it signals a new focus (Oct 24)

Oct 24, 2007
Gay community looks ahead as it signals a new focus
By Li Xueying

THE dialogue has been started, and it will continue.

While disappointed that Section 377A - which criminialises sex between
men - has not been repealed after two days of parliamentary debate,
Singapore's gay community is determined to keep the conversation going.

As media company executive Stuart Koe put it: 'We've started a
dialogue which we don't intend to stop.'

His group, which collected 2,341 signatures for a petition to
Parliament to repeal the law, also issued a statement On Wednesday:
'The beginning of the end of the discrimination of one group of
Singaporeans has begun and there is no turning back.'

Reaction from the gay community a day after the end of the Parliament
debate, also indicate a new focus.

For now, petitions and active lobbying are not on the table, said six
gay activists interviewed on Wednesday.

Instead, they will look towards heightening the visibility of the gay
community through efforts such as volunteer work, support groups and
events like IndigNation which hosts, for instance, arts exhibitions
and poetry readings.

This will help Singaporeans understand gays better, and be more
comfortable among them, they said.

Said former teacher Dominic Chua, who runs a support group for gay
teachers: 'What makes this so divisive is that many of those who are
against gays, do not have gay friends, and do not understand them.'

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who joined the parliamentary debate on
Tuesday, said Singapore had to maintain a balance between upholding a
stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values and giving
gays space to live their lives.

He also cautioned that 'as a matter of reality, the more gay activists
push this agenda, the stronger will be the push-back from conservative
forces in our society'.

Mr Koe said on Wednesday: 'We're taking that to heart. I don't think
we're going to be knocking our heads against the wall this way.

'Rather, to foster understanding, we will work with the community to
be more visible such as through volunteer work, so they are
comfortable with us.'

Added Mr Kelvin Wong, who heads a support group for Buddhist gays: 'We
will move on. We will do what we have been doing - IndigNation, the
support groups, increase our visibility and get people to understand us.'

But, academic Russell Heng said, the gay community must be given its
right to 'try to change minds' and educate Singaporeans on gay issues.

'I expect the Government to be fair and not obstruct those
organisations that might invite me to speak, while my opponents have
every right to spread their anti-gay message.'

As for whether the debate polarises society, Mr Chua said: 'It is, if
the debate is one-sided and couched in uncivil terms. Otherwise,
genuine dialogue is a sign of a mature society.'

Even as the gay community look upon that as a silver lining, groups
that opposed repealing 377A applauded the Government's decision.

In a statement, Muslim organisation Pergas said that whatever the
reason for homosexuality, 'Islam clearly states that Man can assert
his power of reasoning over his negative desires if he so wishes'.

Executive director Martin Tan, 30, who co-organised a counter-petition
to keep the law, said: 'The feedback we got supporting the retention
of 377A has been overwhelming, and I'm sure most Singaporeans are
happy with the decision.'

Overall, the gay activists interviewed hailed the two days of debate
as a 'milestone'. A community, hitherto 'kept in the shadows', had
been heard, they said.

Ms Eileena Lee, who runs a resource centre on gay, lesbian, bisexual
and transgender issues, added: 'As a gay woman, I felt affirmed and
acknowledged, especially with the Prime Minister's speech.''

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

When ambiguity works, let it be

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

Wednesday • October 24, 2007

Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

IT may be untidy and ambiguous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ST: Gays born that way? Jury's still out on that one, says MP (Oct 24)

Oct 24, 2007
Gays born that way? Jury's still out on that one, says MP
Mr Lim Biow Chuan one of nine PAP backbenchers to speak on
Section 377A

By Goh Chin Lian

WHILE he is all for respecting homosexuals, MP Lim Biow Chuan
(Marine Parade GRC) does not believe gays are born that way.

Rising to speak immediately after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,
Mr Lim yesterday took a different view from that of the PM, who
said there is a growing body of scientific evidence that sexual
orientation is substantially inborn.

Said Mr Lim: 'With the greatest respect to the prime minister,
I must state that I do not think there is conclusive evidence that
homosexual behaviour is inborn.

'The jury is out on this issue and different scientists would have
different views on the matter.'

PM Lee had joined the debate on a citizens' petition to repeal the
law criminalising sex between men.

Urging the various groups to leave Section 377A alone, PM Lee
said there is space in Singapore for all, including homosexuals, to
live together.

Acknowledging their place in Singapore, Mr Lim said that while
he disagreed with homosexual practice, he was not against gays.

'I have friends who are gay and my approach to them is simply
that I do not agree with your lifestyle, but I would respect you for
who you are.

'If you are a decent chap, an honest and hardworking person,
your sexual orientation or preference does not affect the way I see
you. I would treat you and respect you as another fellow citizen.'

Mr Lim was one of nine PAP backbenchers who devoted at least
part of their speech yesterday on the amendments to the Penal Code,
to the law against sex between men.

MPs who favoured retaining the law such as Mr Lim, Mr Ong Kian
Min (Tampines GRC) and Dr Muhammad Faishal (Marine Parade
GRC), argued that most Singaporeans are not ready to accept
homosexual acts as a way of life.

They also said the petition to repeal the law has prompted
residents in their wards to contact them to express their disapproval
and even outrage with it, as well as unease with how the issue
might evolve.

The Malay community gave similar feedback, said Dr Faishal.

Mr Ong said the bulk of Singaporeans are not prepared to
compromise their family values.

They want to preserve the traditional family unit of a father, a
mother and children, at a time when it is threatened by rising
divorce rates, single-parent households and work pressure.

'By condoning homosexuality, we are effectively initiating a
shift in the definition of the family unit... Singaporeans
are simply not ready to change their family values and endorse
homosexuality as normal,'' he said.

Madam Cynthia Phua (Aljunied GRC) made a similar call to
uphold the traditional family unit and values.

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC) disagreed with
Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong, who had presented the petition,
that retaining the law constituted the tyranny of a majority.

'I would be the first to stand up for a gay man's right to be treated
as an equal under the law.

'Yet, I am an MP who believes that as a nation, our families
are not ready to have an open acceptance of the gay lifestyle,
including same-sex marriages and gay adoption of young children.'

This, he said, is 'a matter of principle, not of numbers'.

Gay Singaporeans continue to have their private space here,
noted Dr Faishal. 'I do not think the community's rights are
being put under the microscope.'

Madam Ho Geok Choo (West Coast GRC), noting an undercurrent
of hostility surrounding the discussion, called for cool heads.

She said: 'I appeal to all interest groups and interested individuals
to discuss the issue in a calm and peaceful manner befitting a civil
and civilised society.'

chinlian@sph.com.sg

FESTIVE TIME, FIERCE DEBATE

'In addition to the delicious rendang and ketupat, Section 377A
became a hot topic of discussion during my Hari Raya visits and
gathering.'

DR MUHAMMAD FAISHAL (Marine Parade GRC), on feedback
that he received from the Malay community

MOVED BY STORIES

'I have heard the many stories and quotes that Mr Siew Kum
Hong has related about homosexuals living in Singapore. It is
difficult not to be moved by them.'

MR SEAH KIAN PENG (Marine Parade GRC), on stories that the
Nominated MP had recounted in Parliament on Monday

KEEP VALUES INTACT

'Let the family unit not be compromised.

MR ONG KIAN MIN (Tampines GRC), on how encouraging
homosexuality will undermine the traditional family of a father,
mother and child.

LET'S HAVE SOME CALM

'I understand that there are disturbing undercurrents of
violent hostility surrounding this discussion.'

MADAM HO GEOK CHOO (West Coast GRC), on the need for all
parties to discuss the law on sex between men in a calm and
peaceful manner

AP: Singapore reforms sex laws - but not for homosexuals (Oct 24)

Associated Press
Wednesday October 24, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

MPs in Singapore have legalised oral and anal sex for adult heterosexuals but kept the ban on gay sex, saying that the bill was what citizens in the conservative island state wanted.

The reforms, which were passed on Tuesday, represent the most extensive revision of the conservative city state's penal code in more than two decades.

The changes mean oral and anal sex between consenting heterosexual adults is no longer an offense but section 377A, which deals with oral and anal sex between consenting men, remains in force.

The "gross indecency" offence carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail although it is rarely punished in Singapore, which has a thriving gay community.

"Singapore is basically a conservative society," the prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, told MPs before the vote. "The family is the basic building block of this society. And by family in Singapore we mean one man, one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit."

Mr Lee also warned gay rights activists against forcing the issue, which he said had become an emotional and divisive matter that was best left to evolve gradually.

"The more gay activists push this agenda, the stronger will be the push-back from conservative forces," Mr Lee said. "The result will be counterproductive because it's going to lead to less space for the gay community in Singapore."

A petition for homosexual sex to be legalised was signed by 2,341 people over three days. Supporters said the government's plan to legalise only oral and anal sex for heterosexual adults was unjust.

Stuart Koe, one of the petitioners and chief executive of the Hong Kong-based group Fridae.com, an online community of gays and lesbians in Asia, said: "We're obviously very disappointed ... but the petitioners feel that the way moving forward probably would not be to continue politicising or lobbying directly for a repeal, but working with society and within the community to try to foster a greater understanding."

Other amendments included a ban on necrophilia, tougher penalties for sex with minors under 14, and penalties for men who rape their wives, in some instances.