Malaysiakini.com: Heinous vilification, persecutio of homosexuals (July 3)

Heinous vilification, persecution of homosexuals

Nellsen | Jul 3, 08 4:15pm

Malaysia's sodomy law is not applied equally. It has been selectively
and systematically enforced to vilify and persecute homosexuals. In
Malaysia's Penal Code Section 377, the sentence for conviction of
sodomy is flogging, plus up to twenty years in prison. Victims are
flogged with a section of bamboo that is split into several strips.
When bamboo is split, it has extremely sharp edges, which slice the
skin like knives. Flogging is quite bloody and leaves permanent
scars.

In addition to Section 337, just to prevent any homosexual from
escaping conviction, Section 337A provides for a male to receive up
to two years in prison for any act of 'gross indecency with another
male person.' This vague wording allows prosecution for any kind of
erotic interaction between two males. This law is explicitly applied
only to homosexual behavior among males, but lesbians also suffer
discrimination.

The US State Department 2006 Country Report on Malaysia concluded
that these anti-gay laws 'exist and were enforced. Religious and
cultural taboos against homosexuality were widespread'. There is much
other evidence that shows the particularly strong and heinous
vilification, discrimination and persecution that is happening to
homosexuals in Malaysia today.

In 1998, homophobia and Malaysian politics intertwined when deputy
prime minister Anwar Ibrahim made a major break with then premier Dr
Mahathir Mahathir due to his economic policies, and pressured him to
institute democratic reforms. The prime minister responded by
charging that Anwar had sex with two men.

Anwar refused to be intimidated by what he called an untrue smear,
and led protests against the dictatorial policies of the government.
Mahathir then used the existence of the sodomy law to have his major
political rival arrested.

The two men testified at the trial that Anwar had sex with them. But
both of them later recanted their stories, and admitted that they had
been pressured by government officials and police to make the
accusation of sodomy.

Mahathir obviously believed that the charge of homosexuality would be
so damning that most people in Malaysia would withdraw their support
for Anwar and his call for democratic reforms would be discredited.
While many Malaysians supported the deputy prime minister, and joined
protests on his behalf, most of them did so only because they believe
he did not really commit homosexual acts.

In response to mounting international criticism, the government
established a National Human Rights Commission. The commission
defines human rights solely as those provided for in the Malaysian
constitution, and this does not include rights for homosexuals. There
is no challenge to Malaysia's sodomy law, which criminalises all
those who engage in same-sex relationships.

Gay people have no one to speak up for them in Malaysia. Without any
public discourse on the subject of equal rights for homosexuals,
there is little opportunity for changing the attitudes of the public
or government authorities.

Therefore, since homosexuality is considered an affront to Islam, any
news relating to gay and lesbian rights, especially including calls
for ending discrimination against homosexuals, is suppressed.

Police raiding, aided and abetted by a scandal-hungry media,
continues. For example, at 7:30pm on Nov 4 last year, police raided a
gay party in Penang, and brought along reporters who took pictures of
the gay men at this party. The police claimed there was sex going on
at this party, though all of the photos that were made as soon as the
police burst into the scene showed the men all fully clothed. P

Participants said that it was a purely social gathering, and denied
there was any sex going on. Whether there was sexual behavior or not,
what is important is that this was a private gathering of consenting
adults in a closed private business.

The extensive publicity regarding government condemnation of
homosexuality has sent the message to the police and others that
persecution of homosexuals is acceptable. All my recent research
shows that conditions for homosexuals in Malaysia are quite
precarious. Things are getting worse rather than better, and there is
no evidence of any turnaround potential for the forseeable future.

The negative attitudes, discrimination and persecution being
experienced by Malaysian gay people today is a direct result of
religious attitudes and governmental policies. Defining homosexuality
as criminal 'sodomy,' imprisonment, censorship of media discussions
of the issue, and police oppression, together constitute a pattern of
government-sponsored persecution that is impossible to deny.

With this being the case, I think it is time to organise a massive
campaign to end unjust laws (Section 377) and discriminatory policies
in those nations that persecute sexual minorities.

Please spread the word, and let's begin a campaign to produce change
for homosexuals being persecuted in the Muslim world. I remain an
optimist, and having seen such dramatic change in China, as well as
in other countries, I feel that change is possible in the Islamic
world as well.

There are some Muslim nations that are not actively persecuting
homosexuals, and they can be the model for change by the homophobic
governments. But though I am ultimately optimistic I also know it
will be a long struggle.

In the meantime we owe it to the poor people who are being
discriminated against to do everything we can to help them escape
from the oppressive conditions under which they have to live.

I am proud to have made my contribution in this area, and call upon
all other rational people who oppose discrimination to do likewise.
Lives of millions depend on this. Please do your part. Repeal Section
377.

IGLHRC: Singapore: Religious Homophobia, Gay Activism & Repealing the Sodomy Law

SINGAPORE: RELIGIOUS HOMOPHOBIA, GAY ACTIVISM & REPEALING THE SODOMY LAW

Date: September 10, 2007

Asia & Pacific » Singapore » Documentation

BACKGROUND: In 2005, the Singapore government cancelled Nation Party, a mammoth gathering of queer people and their allies, held every August since 2001. One report indicates the first Nation Party had 1,500 people; by 2004, there were 8,000. In response to the
cancellation, some lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) activists organized Indignation, designed to be a series of events that would de-emphasize the "party" aspects of gay culture and instead provide a forum for LGBT creative expression and political commentary.

In August 2007, several public Indignation events were banned on the basis that they "promoted a gay lifestyle."

On the other hand, in November 2006, the government first announced that it might repeal Article 3771 . Unlike Article 377A2 which, specifically addressed sex between men, Article 377 criminalized what was considered unnatural sex acts between heterosexuals. LGBT activists argued that removing 377 and retaining 377A amounted to discrimination. This ramped up the public debates. At the forefront of public opposition to repealing 377A was the small but vocal population of Singaporean Christian fundamentalists. They vehemently supported retaining 377A and pushed the government to also criminalize lesbianism since the law was silent on this.

Three Singaporean activists spoke to IGLHRC about their efforts to dispel myths, shift attitudes, and change the minds of government and society so that Singapore's LGBT communities can live openly and with dignity. Each interview was conducted separately but similar questions were used and the responses are presented next to each other for this
article.

Eileena Lee: I am a lesbian activist, former president of People Like US, a gay advocacy group, and one of the founders of Pelangi Pride Centre that promotes positive self esteem among LGBT people and sexual health for the prevention of sexually transmitted infections and HIV/AIDS.

Alex Au: I am a gay activist, one of the organizers of Indignation Pride events, and a social commentator on my blog, Yawning Bread.

Rev. Yap Kim Hao: I am a former Methodist bishop and currently a pastoral counselor at Free Communities Churches, which is currently the only church in Singapore open to gays and lesbians and queer people.

Grace Poore: Eileena, what kinds of activities do you do at Pelangi Pride Center?

EL: We run monthly events about coming out. We expose gay people to positive information about themselves. We also have events for straight people to come to so they can understand LGBTQ issues and we put our information in libraries. We run activities for parents of gay
people. We talk about ourselves as Singaporeans who are part of a family unit.

GP: Singapore's Indignation is considered by local and international press as Singapore's Gay Pride season. In 2007, several events during the two-week Indignation were banned – including a talk by a Canadian law professor on sexual orientation in international law focusing on Asia and a photography exhibit of 80 posed shots of clothed gay couples kissing. This was your photo exhibit, Alex. Talk about the ban.

AA: I am not altogether surprised that it was disallowed. The very purpose of attempting an exhibit like this was to test the boundaries of the government because it is not something that's been done before. And the ban confirmed a pessimistic view of Singapore, not an optimistic view. Bans also raise the profile of the events. I did end up doing nine slide shows where I showed some of the images that were banned and gave talks with each show. So it was converted from a
static exhibit to a dynamic one.

GP: Were reasons given for the ban?

AA: Because it promoted a homosexual lifestyle. That's the language they used. So the censorship was not predicated on any law. It's usually because they don't want any positive portrayal of homosexuals; they are happy to allow negative portrayals. Like if there's a movie
where the homosexual person dies they will not ban it but if he or she lives happily ever after then it's considered promoting a lifestyle and they ban it. This kind of censorship is not only on gay men's work. It also affects work produced by lesbians even if the law itself does not criminalize lesbianism

GP: Eileena, you don't support Indignation. Why?

EL: I don't agree with the premise of the Indignation Campaign, which started in 2005 as a reaction to the government banning the Nation Party. Pride for me is being proud of who we are. Indignation tells people we are different from everybody else. I don't see this as empowering gay people. People need to come out but in order to come out we have to educate our own families, our own circles, and we have to educate the straight community. It's hard to educate people if we are telling them that we are different. Also, Indignation uses a negative forum to be Prideful. LGBTQ communities don't need to say we are Singaporean in an antagonistic way.

GP: Is there an advantage to taking the less antagonistic approach?

EL: Some gay people are not as out as me and for them to attend something like Indignation, it may not be safe because it is all so high profile.

GP: Alex, is the high profile of Indignation frightening off LGBT people from participating and isn't this having a negative impact on the very people you want to galvanize?

AA: My observation is that in the last 10 years in Singapore, there's been a massive coming out despite how much flak we get because, in Singapore, we are still quite safe, we are not arrested for participating in public Pride events, and most of us are accepted by our families. Some of our families speak up on our behalf. So more gay people are seeing Indignation as something positive. Also, the awareness about gays and lesbians in the general society has gone up. Six months ago, a young college person who was interviewed by the press said that if you ask college students, they all say they know at least one gay and lesbian person. In fact, Singapore Polytechnic did a survey recently of Singaporeans between the age of 15 and 29. And 50%
of people in this age group thought homosexuality was acceptable. This represents a massive change from the generation 10 years ago.

EL: How you go about organizing is crucial. When you organize things that you know are going be banned that's taking an antagonistic approach. Part of the process of Indignation is to test the waters with the government. Pelangi Pride Center has different goals. In the same week of the banned activities we organized a talk by Rev. Oyoung WenFang [the first openly gay Malaysian Chinese pastor ordained by Metropolitan Community Churches]. Over 80 people attended and the event wasn't banned. We reached out to our own communities and we publicized it in the mainstream press. The point of the publicity was about the book he wrote. A few years ago, we organized a coming out event with a local NGO (non-governmental organization) . Someone asked what is this about and we said it's about a mother's love for her child. So our approach is not to be antagonistic or on the offensive.

GP: Do you think the ban of your photo exhibit was because gay people were kissing or because public kissing between anyone, including heterosexuals is frowned on in a conservative Asian culture?

AA: But gay people jogging and having a picnic in the park were also banned events at Indignation. So this is not about Asian culture but about Bible belt homophobia from America transported to Singapore. The language used by the Media Authority for the ban was clearly cut and paste language from America. These were the same people in favor of keeping the sodomy law, who use references to Leviticus and the Christian god. So you get a sense that opposition to repealing the existing law is by church fundamentalists. Yet Christianity only makes up 15 percent of Singapore. Many high level civil servants are themselves Charismatic Christians. Very much like what's happened in the Bush administration.

GP: But Singapore is majority non-Christian. What is this majority doing about the homophobia from the fundamentalist Christians?

Rev YKH: The Buddhists are little bit divided on the Gay issue. They are not necessarily anti-Gay but because they have a different view on sexuality, they don't take a position on homosexuality. It's the fundamentalist Christians who are vocal so the debate tends to be
controlled and shaped by them. The religious climate shifted in Singapore around the 1970s. Charismatic influence from America came here and has penetrated most of the churches now. People who grew up in these charismatic movements are in the forefront of the anti-gay
movement in Singapore and they mobilized the Church of the Savior to be on a battle against gays. There's also the impact of Focus On The Family, which is from America, and uses the gay issue to win support for its mission. It emphasizes traditional family values. And they have set up an office in Singapore which is run by a former Methodist parishioner. Church of the Savior also set up a therapy program called Choices. It's an ex-gay program and a lot of gay people tried it out and left because it doesn't work for most people. Some of the gays who went through it came out and started organizing Indignation.

GP: Are there no progressive Christians in Singapore to counter the fundamentalists?

Rev YKH: Many open-minded people have just given up on churches. The more liberal are not becoming part of church leadership. They are finding more satisfaction in secular work and non-church work. When there's pastoral leadership it's gone into the charismatic movement.
And most of the church members have responded to the charismatic approach. So when there are liberal pastors who are gay supportive, they have to be closeted because their membership is not in favor of gay people.

GP: Of the 15 percent of Christians in Singapore, what portion is fundamentalist?

Rev YKH: They are in the majority, especially the younger people. The older Christians remain liberal because they have not joined the charismatic circles.

GP: Why does it appeal to the younger people?

Rev YKH: The appeal for the younger people is the music and theater, and with the uncertainties they face – the charismatic church, which is more prescriptive, gives them something they're looking for. These young people are not from poor families but from the middle class and more affluent families.

GP: It's ironic that the Singapore government has allowed Christian fundamentalism from the west to have such an influence while it has not been as open to rights of gays and lesbians, which is also often seen as the product of western influence.

AA: Singaporeans have been educated to be utilitarian. They may understand what you are saying about rights of gays and lesbians but the typical culture of people in Singapore is not to speak out. Also, ours is the kind of society that is not terribly interested in gay and lesbian history. If you look at the history of Asian societies, like that of the Javanese, and of the societies in Thailand and China, there is a recognition of homosexual relationships and the third gender. None of these societies has had a major clamp down on homosexuals or same-sex relationships. Homophobia came into this part of the world through colonizers and missionaries.

Rev YKH: By and large the majority in society are not concerned about the gay issue but the vocal minority have whipped up the anti gay sentiment. And the government is reluctant to push against public sentiment. Privately they [the government] will support MSM programs,
even financially, but they have to keep saying Singapore is a conservative society that's afraid to embrace gay people.

GP: What is your take on Article 377 and Article 377A of the Singapore Penal Code?

EL: The whole penal code argument is ridiculous. If they are going to decriminalize anal sex for straight people then why not also for gay people? Are they are only thinking that gay people commit sodomy?

GP: Isn't the problem with the use of the term, sodomy? Doesn't it convey crime? Shouldn't sodomy be used to refer to rape and sexual assault, not for consensual sex?

EL: People see anal sex between gay men as violent and non-consensual. So it's not same-sex love that people feel is wrong but anal sex. The idea of anal sex is taken as an affront. For instance, many people I have spoken to are a lot more accepting of gay women because they
believe lesbians don't perform anal sex and because there's no penis in a lesbian relationship. Hence, most straight people think that gay women don't have sex. At the same time, the image people have of all homosexuals is a villainous picture. They believe that gays are pedophiles and that gay relationships are predatory.

GP: The sodomy law in Singapore is silent on lesbianism. Where does that leave the lesbian community?

EL: Just because we are not included in the law doesn't mean we are accepted. We are invisible. It's like we don't exist. And because there are no anti-discrimination policies and no laws in place, anything can happen. There's nothing to protect us when something does happen. For
instance if a lesbian couple buys a house, one partner dies who does it go to – the other partner or the family because the family automatically inherits the property? If the will is written can the family contest it because same sex relationships are not accepted by the State? So the law may be silent on lesbians but gay women can also be discriminated against. Many lesbians are not aware of 377A…they should also get into 377A, they need to speak out against 377A.

GP: Since there already is constitutional protection for other minorities in Singapore based on ethnicity, religion, and language, what is the government's resistance to repealing 377A and protecting LGBT people also as a minority community?

AA: The discussion is much wider than 377A. It is likely the government will draw a line between gays and lesbians and other minority groups because the Constitutional protection for other groups is not because of a rejected identity, there's no issue with not conforming with heteronormativity. At the same time, homosexuality is conflated with pedophilia. That's like conflating consensual sex with rape. There's a victim in the case of assault and pedophilia, which is very different from consensual relationships between people in gay relationships.

Rev YKH: Singapore doesn't approach the gay issue as a human rights issue but a globalization issue. It's a very pragmatic approach. If we are open, people will come here. More of the artistic element will come here. Tanjong Pagar [in the business district of Singapore and considered a historic area] will become a gay district and the government will project Singapore as an international city. So purely for economic reasons, things will change. After all, this is a
puritanical society that allows gambling. So we can be open to gay culture.

AA: 377A has to do with sodomy and it is as much a heterosexual issue as it is a homosexual issue. I am confident that the law will be repealed in about 5-10 years. But my concern is that even after repealing 377A there will be continued policies that discriminate against homosexuals. I mean, Lee Kuan Yew [former prime minister and currently the Minister Mentor] says that homosexuality should be allowed as long as it doesn't infect the heartland.3 What does that
mean – get away with the absolute minimum liberalization? Also, I fear it may take so long to repeal 377A that the cost that Singapore pays in terms of bad press internationally will accrue – turning away many talents and investments.

EL: I think what will happen in the near future is that 377 of the Penal Code which is about anal sex between straight couples will be repealed, and a few years after that Singaporeans will recognize how ridiculous it is to retain 377A, which targets MSM [men having sex with men], and the government will repeal it. So instead of having a big ceremony to repeal 377A, they will try to ease our society into this so that one day, sexuality won't matter anymore. That's how the
government works here – using a slow incremental process. For instance, after what the Minister Mentor said about the gay issue, there have been press interviews with two or three members of parliament [MPs], and they have been gay affirmative.

AA: But they [the two MPs] are nailed by other MPs who say they are not doing their job because they should be reflecting the views of the people, the assumption being that people's views are conservative.

GP: What is coming out like in Singapore? Is it difficult because of the conservatism?

AA: Generally gays and lesbians don't have a very hard time telling classmates. From anecdotal information that I've heard, people with the hardest time coming out are those whose families are Christian. Their parents tend to be the most homophobic. The Confucianist understanding of family is very patriarchal, and continuing the family line is critically important. When a family has no daughters, to keep the family name going, they happily adopt sons from other families to
continue preserve the surname. So the Chinese idea of family is very different from the usual nuclear idea of family, it's a very extended family, lots of adoptions. Traditional families were polygamous as recently as two generations ago. Men had many wives. But not any more.
So to use the word conservative to us does not apply. Singaporeans are not necessarily looking at family as self-procreating.

EL: I came out to my mother 10 years ago. At the start she was as homophobic as anyone I know but she has come a long way. With availability of information it's easier for me to help her understand. I have friends over to the house. I expose her to the work I do and give her the opportunity to interact with gay men and women in my life. She now gives talks at the Pelangi Pride Centre and also for SAFE, which is Singapore's version of PFLAG.

GP: What were some of the barriers your mother had about accepting you?

EL: Her barrier was needing to know that I'd be okay – because in her mind gay relationships can't be long term. There's a big barrier in our society to accepting us because the homosexual relationship is not seen as a loving relationship but a deviant and overtly sexual relationship.

GP: What's the LGBT movement doing in Singapore to change the social climate?

AA: There are those working on the HIV health front who I believe are building good bridges with the health ministry to persuade them that there are rising rates of HIV and AIDs in Singapore and they should stop the homophobia and repeal the sodomy laws and engage with gay people. There are people like me who write blogs and raise our opinions freely so that those who are monitoring the blogs see that people proposing the repeal of the sodomy law are outnumbering the anti-repeal people.

EL: Right now people think the gay issue is a separate issue. It is not. We are a part of the family unit. Those against us constantly keep invoking the phantom conservative majority. What gay people need to do is more grassroots lobbying and reach out to the heartlanders. And we all have to come out to people we love and they are the people who will lobby for us because their voices will be heard better and their voices will be louder.

Rev YKH: We are trying to mobilize the liberal Christians. On September 29, NGOs and churches together are holding an AIDS awareness program. The government is sending a key person. To avoid AIDS being associated with gays, we are looking at how AIDS affects women and children. We are also encouraging prominent gay people to come out so they can be role models. We are trying to encourage the Free Communities Church to have a public discussion about the issue. And we are asking gay people to project the positive aspects of gay life not
only the sorrows.

GP: You're a non-gay Christian pastor, and you support LGBT people. How do you respond to your fellow Christian critics?

Rev YKH: It's reinterpretation of the biblical teachings. Charismatics know from an intellectual standpoint that there are many different interpretations of the teachings [of Christ], Roman and Greek interpretations for example. Yet, they have to keep saying that there is only one interpretation, the literal one. They also like to say, hate the sin and love the sinner, yet they hate people who support gays. They feel anyone who supports gays people is trying to promote
the gay lifestyle, and they believe that gays can convert heterosexual people to become gay. That's their fear. And I say, why would heterosexuals convert to homosexuality? As for the non-Charismatics who oppose gays, I say, once upon a time, marrying a divorced person was an abomination to the Church. The Church has changed its position on this. So why not on the gay issue?

GP: What contributed to you not being homophobic?

YKH: It was a natural transition for me because I have always been interested in marginalized people and influenced by liberal missionaries. So when the gay issue came out five years ago, I was invited to be part of the movement.

NOTES
============ ========= ==

1- Article 377 of the Singapore Penal Act, 1871, states, "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine."

2- Article 377A of the Singapore Penal Act, states: "Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years."

3- In response to a caller on a CNN radio show on December 11, 1998, former prime minister and current Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew said: "Well, it's not a matter which I can decide or any government can decide. It's a question of what a society considers acceptable. And as
you know, Singaporeans are by and large a very conservative, orthodox society, a very, I would say, completely different from, say, the United States and I don't think an aggressive gay rights movement would help. But what we are doing as a government is to leave people to live their own lives so long as they don't impinge on other people. I mean, we don't harass anybody." In April 2007, Lee said in a Reuter's report: "If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors
this, that you are genetically born a homosexual -- because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes -- you can't help it. So why should we criminalize it? …Let's not go around like moral police ... barging into people's [bed] rooms. That's not our business… So you have to take a practical, pragmatic approach to what I see is an inevitable force of time and circumstances. " A month later, Lee said, "Eventually the law against homosexual sex would have to be repealed."

ST Online Forum: Not correct to say that majority of lawyers in Law Society favour retention of Section 377A (Aug 23)

Not correct to say that majority of lawyers in Law Society favour retention of Section 377A

I REFER to Mr Jason Wee Kheng Hoe's posting, 'Section 377A should be repealed - reputation in legal and multinational community at stake' (Online forum, Aug 16).

In the third paragraph of his posting, Mr Wee states (and in so doing, wrongly premises) that, apart from a minority view, 'Singapore's Law Society' (sic) favours the retention of Section 377A of the Penal Code in its present form. Not only is this incorrect, it is also grossly misleading. It is sincerely hoped that Mr Wee has made a careless but honest mistake.

In point of fact, in November last year, the Council of the Law Society appointed an ad hoc committee comprising legal practitioners and academics to review the proposed Penal Code amendments including the issue of whether Section 377A should be retained.

Members of the Law Society at large were asked for their feedback. Comments were received from various members and the ad hoc committee submitted its report to the council in March 2007. It is important to note that the society's members were not asked to vote on a referendum.

After due consideration of its members' feedback and the views of the ad hoc committee, the council submitted a report on March 30, 2007 ('Report').

On the issue of the retention of Section 377A, a majority of the council members considered that the retention of Section 377A in its present form cannot be justified. The Report was careful to add that the council recognised that this view does not necessarily represent the views of its members collectively. Indeed, a significant minority of council members as well as numerous members of the society at large took an opposing view, and strongly supported the retention of the section 377A in the Penal Code.

It is therefore clear that Mr Wee is wrong in stating that the Law Society is not in favour of the retention of Section 377A in its present form. It is all too convenient to generalise that the majority view of some 21 members of the council is one and the same as the majority view of the over 3,000 members of the Law Society. It is not.

Ong Chin Lee

Latest comments

Posts that contain racist, sexist, offensive or threatening language, personal attacks on the writer or other posters, and posts that are off topic will be removed. Any poster who repeatedly contravenes these guidelines will be banned from posting.

ST Online Forum: Section 377A should be repealed - reputation in legal and multinational community at stake (Aug 16)

Section 377A should be repealed - reputation in legal and multinational community at stake

IN RECENT months, significant debate has raged in the press on the 'gay' issue.

Many arguments favouring retention of section 377A appear to be religious dogma masquerading as universal truism, which it isn't.

When Singapore's Law Society urged the repealing of section 377A, it stated that those arguing for its retention were a 'minority'. Many in Singapore also hold belief systems fundamentally grounded on acceptance and tolerance.

Sometimes the arguments are clouded by excessive facts and figures. For example, Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang's contribution, 'Beware the high-risk 'gay lifestyle' ' (ST, Aug 8), highlighted the promiscuity of gay men with this statement: '28% of them have more than 1,000 partners'. Would he then suggest the unthinkable, that gay marriages be allowed so that overactive libidos can be contained?

Dr Chin further laments that 'not enough has been done to warn our youth that leading a gay lifestyle is not cool'. I disagree.

In a society where continuing of the family name is of utmost importance, gays are often threatened with being disowned, disinherited and ostracised by family, friends and colleagues. Indeed, I sometimes wonder why any sane person would choose to be gay.

Perhaps MM Lee is correct in suggesting that this is genetic. If so, then should we blame God for this genetic aberration, or blame it on the parents who conceived such a child?

Frankly, keeping section 377A and not enforcing it is an unnecessary burden.

First, it changes nothing. Second, as asserted by Singapore's Law Society, 'retention of unprosecuted offences on the statute book runs the risk of bringing the law into disrepute'.

Worse, if an openly-gay opportunistic expatriate sues his multinational company for posting him here, thereby knowingly endangering him given that his lifestyle is a criminal offence in Singapore, assertions that the law will not be pursued would prove a weak defence. Such a suit could prove financially lucrative for him, but detrimental to Singapore's standing with MNCs.

For the greater good, Singapore should repeal section 377A. Our reputation in the legal and multinational community is important. Retaining section 377A will just keep this albatross on Singapore's neck forever.

Repeal it and the gay community may celebrate, but it will prove a Pyrrhic victory. The moment will be consigned to forgotten history in months, if not weeks.

In the long run, our conservative majority that continues to frown on gays, the Aids epidemic, the promiscuous gay lifestyle and their inherent inability to procreate will conspire to keep this minority group a minority.

Jason Wee Kheng Hoe

ST Online Forum: Why is it to hard to repeal an archaic law? (Jul 21)

July 21, 2007

Why is it so hard to repeal an archaic law?

IN RESPONSE to Mr Kenneth Vaithilingam' s letter, 'MP should reflect people's
views on homosexuality (Online forum, July 20), not only his own' with
regard to Mr Baey Yam Keng's stand on homosexuality, let it be on the record
that I agree with my MP's view that Section S377A should be repealed.
British actor and gay man Ian McKellen was quoted in this newspaper on July
18 as saying: 'Well, I feel a little bit guilty because the law you have in
Singapore was one that was left behind by the British colonial forces and
it's taken us an awful long time to get rid of it in Britain. So I'm very
sympathetic to the situation here.'

What is it that keeps us from repealing an archaic law, one that Britain had
abolished 40 years ago in 1967 and Hong Kong in 1991?

As a woman, Section 377A will have no bearing on me. Nevertheless, I can't
see how not repealing the said law will make for a better society.

On the contrary, dragging this debate out as if we were in the dark ages is
in fact preventing us from spending our efforts and resources on more
worthwhile causes where there will be real beneficiaries.

Coming back to Mr Vaithilingam' s letter, I don't think it would be a sure
defeat for Mr Baey should he run for a single-constituency ward based on his
opposition to Section 377A despite the letter writer implying otherwise.

However, should that time come, I'm certain there would be other similarly
pertinent issues for voters to consider aside from Section 377A which I
believe should be dealt with without delay if indeed we are a First World
country.

After all, which other First World country has laws against private
consensual sexual activity between adults of any gender or sexual
orientation?

Tan Yen Ling

ST: MP Baey all for repealing anti-gay law (Jul 16)

July 16, 2007
MP Baey all for repealing anti-gay law
By Jeremy Au Yong

A PEOPLE'S Action Party MP yesterday spoke out against the
non-review of the law banning homosexual sex.

Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng said if it comes to a vote in Parliament,
he would say 'yes' to doing away with the law which makes it illegal for men
to have sex with other men.

He was joined by Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong who had previously made public
his opposition to Section 377A of the Penal Code which bans homosexual sex.

Both were members of a forum panel yesterday that included gay activist Alex
Au, founder of gay media company Fridae Stuart Koe, and Methodist church
leader Reverend Yap Kim Hao.

They were discussing the legislation with about 100 participants. When the
Home Affairs Ministry proposed changes to the Penal Code last year, it said
it would retain the ban on acts of 'gross indecency' between men.

One participant, academic Russell Heng, 56, asked Mr Baey for his position
if Parliament took a vote on this issue.

He said he would vote to repeal the law, a response which drew loud
applause.

Explaining his stand, Mr Baey drew an analogy between homosexual sex and
drinking or smoking.

'There should be a distinction between what the Government wants to
discourage, and what it wants to criminalise, ' he said.

'The Government can make it more difficult to access drinking and smoking,
but you are still allowed to drink and smoke. So, you can discourage
homosexual sex without criminalising it.'

He believed the Whip should be lifted if Parliament were to debate this
issue. But he conceded that - from his understanding - not many MPs would
share his views on decriminalising homosexual sex.

Lifting the Whip means MPs can vote according to their convictions, and do
not have to toe the party line.

But Mr Baey emphasised that he did not think this issue would be decided
through public consensus.

'From what I understand of how the Government works, I don't think the
Government will make a decision based on a survey...The Government would
want to make its own stand and position on issues like this,' he said.

Changing the law would require 'some progressive thinking and also people
who are able to influence the Cabinet's thinking'.

Thus, recent remarks by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew were welcome, he added.
'We should be happy he made those remarks, and that will pave the way for
some change in the thinking of the current Government.'

In an interview with Berita Harian published two weeks ago, MM Lee said the
Government should not act like moral policemen, 'prying on consenting
adults'.

He also reiterated his view that homosexuals 'were mostly born that way',
but also recognised that Singapore is a conservative society and cannot go
as far as some countries that recognise gay marriage.

Yesterday's forum also touched on issues about the gay community and what
the religious view on the matter was.

Offering his view, Rev Yap said: 'Contrary to the majority of the Christian
views... I personally would call for it to be repealed on the basis that
this is God's purpose - the existence of the homosexual community... We know
there will always be a proportion of the population, generation after
generation, who will be homosexual, and they are created by the
heterosexuals. '

At the end of the forum, both Mr Baey and Mr Siew said it was good to have
open discussion to increase awareness of the issue, but the absence of a
different point of view meant the discussion lacked balance.

Said Mr Baey: 'We were talking to the converted.'

TODAY: On Section 377A (Jul 16)

On Section 377A ...

Forum on gay law well-attended, but change unlikely: MPs

Monday . July 16, 2007

Nazry Bahrawi
nazry@mediacorp. com.sg

THE room was packed, the panellists were passionate and the questions came
fast and furious.

This was the mood yesterday as over 200 people gathered to discuss a hot
issue - should homosexuality remain outlawed here?

Leading the discussion, organised by local theatre company W!ld Rice at the
National Library, were an eclectic mix of five individuals: MP (Tanjong
Pagar GRC) Baey Yam Keng; Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong; gay activist Alex Au;
CEO of gay community website Fridae.com, Dr Stuart Koe; and Reverend Dr Yap
Kim Hao, a former Methodist bishop who serves on the Inter-Religious
Organisation (IRO) council.

Although Section 377A, which criminalises homosexual acts, may come up for
debate in Parliament as part of the Penal Code changes, for two panellists
at least, the prospect that it would be repealed any time soon seems highly
unlikely.

Said Mr Baey: "Personally, I think the whip should be lifted for a very open
debate and open expression of opinion by the MPs. And if that was so, I
would vote for a repeal of the act. From my understanding of my
parliamentary colleagues, my guess is that I will be in the minority."

However, Mr Siew told the audience - most of whom indicated during the forum
that they wanted Section 377A repealed - that the battle was not to convince
the naysayers, but those who are undecided about whether homosexuality
should be decriminalised.

The NMP said change would only be possible "once you get that mass, enough
people in the middle, to agree with you", but added: "I don't think we're at
that point."

Mr Siew cited a heartland survey published in May by Today, in which 62.3
per cent of 300 respondents disagreed that homosexuality should be legal.
"That shows that a clear majority are saying that homosexuality of people is
not acceptable to them."

But even if more people were to support decriminalisation, that may not be
enough.

Said Mr Baey: "From what I understand about how the Government works, I
don't think the Government will be making a decision based on a survey ...
The Government will want to make its own stand and position on issues like
this, and for this it requires a mindset shift."

And to change mindsets, "you've got to frame it in a lingo that will
convince the Government", Mr Siew suggested.

"And what's that lingo? I think we all know. It's all about growth, jobs,
money. If you can make a convincing case that 377A is somehow affecting
that, I think you've got a really good chance."

He acknowledged that changing the laws on homosexuality would put
Malay/Muslim MPs in a difficult position with their community.

But it is not just the Muslims who feel strongly about the issue.

Reverend Dr Yap said that within the Christian faith in Singapore there was
a "minority which is vocal" which strongly opposes any move to repeal the
Act.

Mr Au, however, argued that the debate on Section 377A was not one of
religion, but civil rights.

In response, Mr Siew pointed out: "Pitching your arguments in terms of civil
rights ... will not take it very far."

His suggestion of linking the decriminalisation of homosexual acts to
economic benefits drew a range of responses from the audience - as well as
other panellists, including Mr Koe, who said he would feel insulted if the
decision were to depend on dollars and cents.

Whatever their stand, almost everyone present agreed that such a forum would
not have been possible five years ago - a sign that Singapore is now a lot
more open to different points of view.

TODAY: Main Society not ready, Minister says he is "not ready to move" on homosexuality

'Main society not ready'
Minister says he is 'not ready to move' on homosexuality

Wednesday . May 23, 2007
Derrick A Paulo
derrick@mediacorp. com.sg

If Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew has his way, there will be no changes to Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes homosexual acts a crime here. "I'm not ready to move, and I don't think a major section of society is ready to move," he said.

Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui gave his personal views yesterday at a dialogue session for the annual Pre-University Seminar at the Nanyang Technological University. The issue cropped up when a student asked RAdm Lui how the Government will reconcile "ideas and ideologies" that will be increasingly in conflict as Singapore "opens up to the world and becomes more liberal". She was referring to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's comments at a forum last month in which he said the Government is not the moral police on the homosexuality issue.

In response, RAdm Lui said: "Yes, there will be different tension points, maybe what some would characterise conservatives versus liberals. We can't be stiff-necked. We need to be open to ideas but we have to come to our conclusions through the framework in Singapore. That's why it's important to have our own deep convictions and beliefs.

"While acknowledging Mr Lee's comments on the possible genetics of homosexuality, RAdm Lui said he does not subscribe to the theory that it is a "medical condition".

"Do you excuse paedophiles or psychopaths because of a medical condition?" he asked.

He is also not swayed by arguments that homosexuality does not affect others in society, that it is just between two people. "There can be lots of relationships, like between a person and an animal, or a person and another person, but which is incestuous. There are norms in society.

"The Government will move at the pace at which society "allows us to move", RAdm Lui said.

TODAY Voices - Let's not get distracted by sex (May 22, 2007)

Let's not get distracted by sex

Tuesday . May 22, 2007
Letter from Terence Teo

Sex is always an interesting topic, and the debate about homosexuality is no exception. However, before we get too distracted by sex, let me make two clarifications:

There is no law against homosexuals. People who are homosexual per se are not criminals. What has been said so far seems to suggest that a person is a criminal just by being homosexual in orientation. This is not true. Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code do not appear to solely target homosexuals.

Section 377 is targeted at a specific sexual act, an act of "gross indecency" or an act "against the order of nature". These provisions will apply to anyone, regardless of sexual persuasion, if they commit such acts.

Section 377A singles out "male person" as the potential perpetrator but since females too are homosexual, it suggests this section is not specifically targeted against homosexuals but a male perpetrator of any sexual orientation.

Section 377 is even wider and applies to anyone having carnal intercourse with any man, woman or animal.

We could argue that male homosexuals are more at risk of violating either Section 377 or 377A, or both, because the nature of their preferred form of sexual activity is more likely to result in such a violation and this, therefore, is grossly unfair to them. This is an entirely different issue, which nevertheless underscores the point that Sections 377 and 377A do not criminalise homosexuals but rather certain sexual acts, which may be the preference of male homosexuals, but is not their exclusive preserve.

Homosexuality is not a crime, and the physical nature of the relationship is not the issue here. In my view, the real issue is about whether we are ready to legalise homosexuality and to understand the social implications and consequences of such a move - whether to allow them to marry, adopt children, apply for a flat, and so on.

Let us not get distracted by the provisions of the two sections in the Penal Code or other more lurid topics. Instead, we should discuss if society is ready to accept same sex marriages, same sex parents, and all that may result from legalising homosexuality.

ST Forum: Criminalisation of gay acts: need for equality before the law (May 22, 2007)

ST Forum

May 22, 2007
Criminalisation of gay acts: Need for equality before the law

I REFER to Ms Yvonne Lee's letter, 'Gay debate continues: Writer responds', (Online forum, May 17).

Ms Lee has quoted from the affidavit for a court case of one medical doctor, John R. Diggs, Jr, MD, that homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy.

A closer examination of the affidavit whose source is supplied by Ms Lee herself shows that Dr Diggs observed: 'People who engage in homosexuality have the same basic sexual equipment as people who do not.

'This meant that heterosexuals have the same sexual organs and some can also engage in what is regarded as 'homosexual acts' as well.

Unsafe sex by heterosexuals and homosexuals can result in the same medical and health risks like those listed by Ms Lee - promiscuity, multiple sexual partners, assault and battery and anal intercourse.

Homosexuals do not have the monopoly of such risks. In reality heterosexuals carry higher risks and spread sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/Aids to their sexual partners and unborn children.

In the discussion on natural drives, Dr Diggs wrote: 'We discourage heterosexual promiscuity, cigarette smoking, and intoxication of various sorts, even though there may be a natural inclination to do these things. Some claim a natural inclination, as adults, to sexually exploit children. This society discourages to the point of making it criminal.

'Dr Diggs is right that we should discourage heterosexuals from expressing such inclinations. At the same time I agree with him that we should do the same with homosexuals.

But homosexual orientation is not an inclination or a tendency that we must curb. It is just as natural an orientation as the heterosexual to engage in heterosexual and for some homosexual acts as well.

Sexuality is common and the health risks of sexual acts are the same. The distinctive difference is that of same-sex and opposite-sex acts.

Why do we criminalise one and not the other? This is where there is a need for equality before the law and justice needs to be seen to be served.

Dr Yap Kim Hao

CNA: Analysis: The gay debate and the breakthrough we need

Analysis: The gay debate and the breakthrough we need

No amount of print or pressure, or even persuasion, is going to change the Government’s stand on what is being described by some as an archaic and discriminatory law: A law that makes overt homosexuality a crime in Singapore. That is the only black-and-white certainty in the on-going debate on gays. The rest, as they say, is all grey. So why bother even talking about it, asked a friend exasperated with the glacial pace in the politics of change here. Over lunch, we tried to jog our collective memories on the number of occasions when the Government introduced a new law or changed a stand because of overt influence from the outside. Two stick out like sore thumbs: Former Nominated Member of Parliament Walter Woon’s push in 1995 for a law to force children to pay for their parents’ maintenance — the only Act passed by Parliament since 1965 not initiated by the Government — and the official embrace in 2001 of a group of nature lovers who wanted to save Chek Jawa from reclamation.

There have been instances of Government reversal (such as on the graduate mothers policy) and tweaking (to allow the restricted viewing of certain movies). But these have all originated from within, with no overt pressure or persuasion from without. The Jeremys of this world, as quoted in TODAY’s weekend report, need to know that this is a government that guards jealously its self-imposed change-from-within mandate. For every Jeremy and partner who want to pack up and go because of the legal discrimination against gays here, there is a Dennis and partner, who swear by Singapore’s enlightened attitude — covert though it may be — towards gay couples like them. I met Dennis, his partner and two other gays at a 31-year-old lady’s birthday a month ago. They led me into a world of highly-intelligent, highly-articulate and highly-successful people.

They have an opinion – a penetrating and alternative one, mind you — on nearly everything that is happening in Singapore and around the world. That is definitely refreshing in a place where debate and discussion, even in a dinner setting, is lacking. Even more refreshing was to see how the four gays took care of the two straight women at the table. They fussed over the women, talking about the latest fashion trends and bitching about nearly everything and everybody under the sun. The dinner ended with one of the women whispering into her husband’s ear: “They are God’s gift to women!” I am sure many of the 62.3 per cent of the heartlanders who said, in a TODAY survey, that they are against legalising homosexuality would have a different view if they got to mingle with these people more often. That is what happened with Britain’s Ministry of Defence which allowed gays to serve in the armed forces.

Today, seven years later, the ministry’s verdict: None of its fears of harassment, discord, blackmail and bullying have come to hot news newscomment pass, according to an International Herald Tribune report. If it can happen in a macho and tightly-regulated environment like the armed forces, then Singapore society in general should pose no great barrier. Singapore needs gays, not just because of the pink dollar and the economic value they bring, but also because they add a colourful and intellectual vibrancy to our city. With the law and the politics on gays unlikely to change for sometime, the next best thing is for us all to get to know them better.

They have the same emotions we have. A teacher friend once told me, misty- eyed and all, about the pain he suffered after breaking up with his partner. Another, a doctor, spoke of how he is consumed by guilt every time his parents ask him why he is not getting married. Yes, gays are normal people and they should be treated normally. That is the breakthrough we need to achieve in this gay debate.

TODAY: What price, the pink dollar?

What price, the pink dollar?

WHAT HEARTLANDERS SAY What it means for the hunt for talent how businesses strike a balance

Weekend . May 19, 2007

Jasmine Yin and Gracia Chiang
jasmine@mediacorp. com.sg

HE IS your typical high-flyer - head of corporate finance at a major investment firm here. But 40-year-old Jeremy (not his real name) may soon bid farewell to his life in Singapore.

His partner of seven years, a scholar with a master's degree, is eyeing a home in cities that are "more open" to gays, such as New York, London and Hong Kong, where he can "be himself" - without a law against homosexual activity hanging over their heads.

"I just want to live my life quietly and be who I am, without having to constantly worry if one day the Government will decide to enforce this law." said Jeremy.

The law in question, Section 377A of the Penal Code, may rankle with those such as Jeremy who think it an archaic, discriminatory piece of legislature that should be repealed, since the authorities have said they do not proactively enforce it in the case of private consensual acts between adults.

But many others believe it is a necessary moral safeguard, a signal of society's still-mostly conservative and wholesome family values. And as a poll commissioned by Today showed (see table), a majority of Singaporean heartlanders share this view.

Asked if homosexuality should be made legal, 62.3 per cent of the 300 respondents disagreed - 25.3 per cent strongly so. Only 11.6 per cent thought it should be legalised while, interestingly, 26 per cent had no views either way.

The issue cropped up for debate recently, when Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew flagged the need for a "practical, pragmatic approach" at a forum.

While the conservative majority's views on homosexuality should be respected, he had said, "they tell me, and anyway it is probably half-true, that homosexuals are creative writers, dancers, et cetera. If we want creative people, then we've got to put up with their idiosyncrasies so long as they don't infect the heartland".

While it is unlikely that Section 377A will be repealed any time soon, Mr Lee noted: "If this is the way the world is going and Singapore is part of that interconnected world - and I think it is - then I see no option for Singapore but to be part of it.

"Some have long argued that a law criminalising homosexuality can only work against the Republic's push to lure foreign talent here and to grow an ideas-driven, creative economy. But equally, such pundits have failed to convince a large segment of heartlanders of the economic value that homosexuals might bring.

In the Today telephone survey, 41 per cent of respondents disagreed with the statement that gay people had much to contribute to the national economy. In contrast, 32.7 per cent thought they did.

Political scientist Kenneth Paul Tan is one of those who frames the debate in the context of Singapore's aspirations to become a global city. He feels the law will be another reason for talent not to come here.

It will be seen as a culturally intolerant and sterile place and that is the image it presents to the world by persisting with Section 377A, said the Assistant Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

He cited a study published in 2002 by Carnegie Mellon academic Richard Florida, who coined the term "creative class" - comprising talented and innovative people who can choose to work anywhere in the world. They are likely to be drawn to cities that show a tolerance for differences, and in turn, these cities perform well economically, Prof Florida argues.

Places that welcome the gay community are seen to welcome all kinds of people, he notes. San Francisco and San Diego - two cities in California - rank on his list of most diverse and creative in the United States.

Others have pointed out that mobile gay professionals with spending power can contribute to a nation's economy in other ways. Indeed, some businesses in Singapore are eyeing the "pink dollar".

One example is four-year-old fashion chain NewUrbanMale, which recorded $6 million in revenue last year. Said founder-director Shenzi Chua: "We are perfectly cool that we are known as a gay brand even though our target group is much wider and includes straight men and women." Half his design team is gay.

There is, however, a catch: Some enterprises worry about what conservative customers would think of a gay-friendly business.

Gays account for up to 20 per cent of takings at Hotel 1929 near Chinatown. Said its sales manager Charmaine Wee: "We see that business increasing if the law changes, but we won't say that we are going to pursue the pink dollar enthusiastically.

"The hotel is aware that a large number of corporate clients are uncomfortable with the idea of targeting the pink dollar.

But is the promise of economic gains enough to sway naysayers - which include the religious groups - that the Government has often described as the "traditional" majority?

Notwithstanding the survey results, Dr Tan called the idea of a conservative majority that is actively against homosexuality a "myth".

Said the political scientist: "There are certainly conservative Singaporeans whose views any open society must also take into account. Most, however, don't really have a view on homosexuality either way, but may feel compelled to offer a 'safe', meaning 'conservative' , response when polled.

"But when it comes to elections, no government would want to take a chance."

Certainly, such voices have been vocal in the media. These range from those who lament the erosion of social and religious values, and what they see as harm to the public good, to those who say they are "okay" with gays as long as they keep their distance and are "discreet".

Some pundits say these attitudes will change as society gets more cosmopolitan and connected globally. Yet, there are some in the gay and lesbian community who pooh-pooh the economic argument for decriminalising homosexuality.

Said Dr Ethan Lim, a 29-year-old doctor who is gay: "I would rather people see me as a person. But our society places heavy valuation on economic success.

"Touting economic benefits can "help sell most things" - but Dr Russell Heng, senior fellow at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies, says he would rather "believe that the driving forces here should be principles of equality in citizenship, doing what is right, and not just what may be profitable".

A better reason for repealing Section 377A, said Dr Lim, would be how it would help national health efforts in tackling sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and HIV/Aids. Groups like Action for Aids would then have more leeway to reach out to such groups with its message of safe sex. "It's not so much about homosexuality but unsafe sex practices that increase the risk of getting STDs," he added.

The divisions are clear. At the core of the debate is the question of what kind of society Singapore is.

Accommodating alternative lifestyles, yes. Welcoming such lifestyles with open arms, not yet.

Is there a place for God in public morals debate?

May 18, 2007

FRIDAY MATTERS

Is there a place for God in public morals debate?
By Chua Mui Hoong, Senior Writer

GOD often enters the picture when there is debate on issues of morality and values.When it comes to gay issues, for example, some Christians may say that homosexuality is a 'sin' - not just any old sin but a particularly grievous one that harms individuals and children and families and indeed puts the entire bedrock of society at risk - and should thus be criminalised.

Back in 2003, when the Government liberalised its hiring policy and said being homosexual was no longer a bar to holding a sensitive government position, the gay issue erupted into the national consciousness.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's recent remarks have caused the issue to be raised again. He said that if homosexuality is genetically determined, 'why should we criminalise it?' But he also said Singapore is a conservative society, and the Government did not wish to upset citizens' sense of propriety.

So the situation in Singapore remains: homosexual sex acts remain a crime, but the state won't act like a moral police and go around barging into bedrooms.

Once again, the battle lines are drawn clearly, with the notion of homosexual sex acts as a 'sin' cropping up.

But 'sin' is a theological concept, defined by some religions as an offence against God. Should it have a place in a public discussion on morals?

Or to frame the question in another way, should religion have a place in public discussions on morality? To what extent? And are there ground rules for such debate, so people of different or no faiths can engage in meaningful dialogue?

One solution is to give up and say that people of different beliefs can never engage since they start off with different a priori positions.

Nominated MP and lawyer Siew Kum Hong noted: 'How do you convince, through argument, a Christian who is convinced that homosexuality is evil and immoral, a sin that needs to be outlawed? I don't think you can.

'I am more sanguine. I not only believe Singapore can evolve ground rules for discussing moral issues among people of diverse or no faiths, but I also believe it is essential that we do so, given the increasing sway of religious teachings, and the rise in values-related issues Singapore will confront.

The gay issue is just one example. Others include recent debates on casinos and stem-cell research, and sexuality education (abstention or contraception? ), and one day, perhaps, euthanasia.

With moral debate a certainty in public discourse, it behoves Singaporeans to develop an understanding of how to engage in such discussions fruitfully.

Some people may respond by saying that religion and private morals have no place in public debate.

The thinking here is that Singapore is a secular state made up of people of many or no faiths, so God should be kept out of policy discussions.

But this position ignores the psychological reality that people's values are shaped by their religion, so religion will slip into the picture anyway.

As the 1989 White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act states: 'It is neither possible nor desirable to compartmentalise completely the minds of voters into secular and religious halves, and to ensure that only the secular mind influences voting behaviour.'

In Singapore, 85 per cent of the population profess a faith, such as Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Christianity or Hinduism and others, with diverse teachings on ethics.

It may be more realistic to acknowledge that religion affects an individual's private morality, and hence shapes his view on public issues.

Should the line then be drawn here, to let citizens practise their private morality, but curtail their ability to use religiously motivated views to influence the public agenda?

In 2004, I wrote a commentary arguing this point of view, saying that religious groups should limit their influence to their own flock, and not try to organise to get others round to their point of view.

I have since come to see the limits of such a position, which curtails individuals' and organisations' right to influence the policy process.

So, should people of faith be allowed to use religious justifications for their views and influence others accordingly? For example, can the argument to keep homosexual acts a crime be based on religion?

Prescribing this would be foolish in a multi-faith society with people who adhere to different religious teachings.

Those who want to advance public discussion must make use of public reason, and put up public justifications for what they believe in.

In other words, religion may influence your view on an issue. But when arguing your case in the political arena, you need to present arguments understandable and acceptable to those of different faiths.

Influential moral thinker John Rawls' The Law Of Peoples is devoted to the issue of whether religious doctrine is compatible with democracy.

He sets out to distinguish a person's value system or 'comprehensive doctrine, religious or non-religious' as one which 'we do not expect others to share'.

In political discussions on an issue, however, 'each of us shows how, from our own doctrines, we can and do endorse a reasonable public political conception of justice...The aim of doing this is to declare to others who affirm different comprehensive doctrines that we also each endorse a reasonable political conception'.

For example, Christians may cite the Good Samaritan story to say that Jesus taught that we should care for our neighbours.

But to convince non-Christians, they have to 'go on to give a public justification for this parable's conclusions in terms of political values', notes Rawls.

How can they do so? Well, they may argue that we owe a duty of care even to strangers, using the principles of proximity and reciprocity: You were there, and can help, so you should, because you would want others to do so if you were in such a situation.

Such use of 'public reason' is accessible to all regardless of religious faith.

This way, individuals may hold fundamentalist religious views that are non-negotiable, yet are able to take part meaningfully in discussions on morality using 'public reason', appealing to common values held by those of different faiths.

But this requires mutual respect, a spirit of civil tolerance and a willingness to bracket one's own religious beliefs to hear others out.

Most important of all, it requires a willingness to consider that one's private morality, based on one's own religious beliefs, need not be the basis of public law.

muihoong@sph. com.sg

ST Online Forum: Gay debate continues: Writer responds (May 17 2007)

ST Online Forum

May 17, 2007

Gay debate continues: Writer responds

I REFER to Mr Brian Selby's letter, 'Why is male homosexuality a crime but not lesbianism?' (Online forum, May 15), written in response to my three-point rebuttal (ST, May 10) of his first letter, 'Professor's views on gays prejudiced' (Online forum, May 8), which he wrote in reaction to my op ed, 'Decriminalising homosexuality would be an error' (ST, May 4).

I thank Mr Selby for his unreserved apology, in relation to the personal and professional allegations made against me in his letter of May 8.

Clearly, the decriminalisation of homosexuality as one aspect of a broader homosexual rights agenda raises politically controversial issues. This has provoked polarised responses and have caused deep social rifts in countries like the US and Canada.

My op ed sought to inform the debate by highlighting relevant legal social and policy issues which will need to be considered in the context of Singapore's multi-racial and multi-religious society by the Government.

I reject Mr Selby's suggestion that my op ed and rebuttal have been deliberately 'vague'. The first was intended for general readership and the intent of the second was not to provide a substantive discourse of these controversial issues of law and social policy, given the restraints of this forum. One might equally ask Mr Selby to substantiate his own views to prove his case.

However, as Mr Selby has in his latest letter highlighted certain issues for my response in a civil fashion, I make the following observations:

First, I agree that my op ed has attracted a substantial amount of debate generated by websites and blogs written by certain individuals of a self-declared 'liberal' or homosexualist persuasion.

However, I do not share Mr Selby's delight in what he calls the 'muddle scrum of public debate'. The right to free speech which the Constitution safeguards for Singapore citizens is not absolute but subject to express limitations.

Not all types of 'speech' will help 'Singapore become a better civil society' as certain types of 'speech' seek to prevent the articulation of differing viewpoints through intimidatory and hateful tactics.

''Speech' which attacks my character or professional ability seeks to chill my rights of free conscience and speech as a concerned Singaporean as well as to violate the principle of academic freedom.

Further, 'speech' which demonises and labels the views expressed in my op ed as 'religious' or 'bigoted' opinions, in an attempt to paint them as irrelevant to an important public policy debate within the context of a multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore, may well be an insidious cover-up for subjective prejudices and biases. This undermines pluralism and constructive debate.

Some comments thrown up in this debate seem to indicate that arguments based on or inspired by 'religious' values should be excluded from public debate. This rests on a certain assumption about what a secular state requires.

The assumption seems to be influenced by one school of constitutional thought that 'Church' (or Mosque or Temple) and 'State' be strictly separated. This version of 'secularism' rests on an unspoken anti-theism and is not universally endorsed.

There is a broad spectrum of positions which countries have adopted in relation to the role of views inspired by religious convictions in public debate.

This ranges from anti-theistic separationists (for example, Stalinist regimes or radical liberals/'secular fundamentalists' ) who seek a 'religious cleansing' of the public square, to those who seek a genuine pluralism by protecting the expression of all moral viewpoints whether based on 'religious' or 'secular' convictions (assuming these can even be separated). All viewpoints are subject to public scrutiny and debate, rather than being censored by law or social pressures.

Indeed, Singapore's version of secularism is not benighted or anti-religion; Singapore is secular but not atheistic, as a minister once stated. Singapore's model of secularism is more appropriately characterised as agnostic or accommodative as defined by the Singapore Court of Appeal, which is committed to freedom of religion and the role of the state in removing restrictions to one's choice of religious belief.

Therefore, in our aspirations towards democracy, no view should be gagged just because it is identified as a 'religious' one. Otherwise, secular humanism and its morally relativist viewpoint, which forms part of its comprehensive world view, would by default be privileged and foisted on society as a new sort of 'secularised religion'.

Second, there are medical opinions that homosexual sex (that is, anal sex) is inherently unhealthy.One may argue that this is a 'private' matter, affecting only individuals who contract diseases such as 'gay bowel syndrome'.

However, this is a narrow view of what amounts to 'public health' concerns, given that the activities and diseases of individuals may affect the public at large.

Further, the possibilities of allocating public funds to resolve these sorts of health problems make this a matter of public concern as it could mean that funding for research into other illnesses like cancer and diabetes is reduced.

Concerned citizens who would like to be informed on this matter may usefully refer to the medical opinion of one Dr John R. Diggs, Jr's (August 16, 2000), which was set out in his affidavit in relation to a Massachusetts lawsuit (concerning homosexual activists' legal claims against parents who opposed sexual 'orientation' education in schools):

'There are a variety of significant medical and health risks associated with homosexuality and the gay 'lifestyle'. These include promiscuity, multiple sexual partners, assault and battery and anal intercourse. The sexual practices of male homosexuality consist primarily of oral-genital contact and anal intercourse. These practices are inherently dangerous because of the proclivity to produce occult and overt physical trauma, often spreading sexually transmitted disease. The rectum is particularly vulnerable to sexual trauma, where breaks in the protective membrane barrier facilitate blood exchange and, in turn, the transfer of infectious agents. Furthermore, certain male homosexual practices, such as 'fisting', that is, the insertion of the entire hand into the recipient's anal canal, are likely to cause more serious injuries... Studies have repeatedly shown that lesbians and gay men are at increased risk for mental health problems, including depression, substance abuse, and suicidal behaviour, compared to heterosexuals. .. Homosexuals perpetrate child sex crimes at a rate many times their number in the population.. .

'Full text available at http://www.massnews .com/past_ issues/2000/ 9_Sept/900fist3. htm

Third, my observations on the development of the homosexual rights agenda in countries like the US, Canada and Europe and how this seeks to coerce changes in moral and social attitudes towards a broad range of issues are factually based.

Mr Selby should consider the effects of decriminalising homosexuality in other jurisdictions, and how it affects the community, as documented in news reports and case law.

For example, if homosexuality is decriminalised, this will require changes in other aspects of law and life such as changes in insurance and tax benefits laws; schools may have to teach that a range of family set-ups (for example, having two fathers instead of a father and mother) is possible or that homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally equivalent.

This will violate the conscience of certain teachers and also can violate parental rights in the moral education of their children. This is not fictional nor can it be brushed aside as a 'slippery slope' argument. This would obfuscate matters which are of real concern to the majority of Singaporeans. Indeed, perhaps this is the intent of those deriding 'slippery slopes'.

Fourth, as stated in my op ed, the Singapore Constitution does not prohibit all types of differentiating classifications. In layman words, classifications which are not rational and do not serve a legitimate policy, are unconstitutional.

The critical issue is whether the criminalisation of homosexual acts has a rational basis.

The views in my op ed show the broader legal social and policy issues forming the rational basis for S377A of the Penal Code which criminalises homosexual acts by male.

To argue that S377A is not rational because the laws do not criminalise lesbianism assumes that the law must achieve a technically 'perfect classification' which includes all homosexual acts under its ambit.

There is no such requirement. Broader social objectives may be served by S377A, so as to validate it and its classification, under Singapore equality jurisprudence.

Fifth, Mr Selby has assumed that laws do not and should not affect our 'private activity'.

However, human beings while desiring a sphere of autonomy are also social beings and live in community. Laws do reflect community standards which place limits on 'private activity' - that is the basis for laws against incest, paedophilia or even surfing and downloading Internet porn, for example.

The critical question is what constitutes 'private' activity and when does 'private activity' have repercussions for the public, so as to be subject to legal regulation and sanction?

No law is morally neutral and it is intellectually dishonest to assert that there are moral values which are objective, and some which are subjective.

To call for the decriminalisation of homosexual acts, on grounds of non-discrimination on the basis of 'sexual orientation' is to assert a moral or amoral position which cannot claim 'neutrality' . No one is neutral in this debate.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has stated that 'ur enforcement approach also remains the same' as Section 377A will not be proactively enforced 'against adult males engaging in consensual sex with each other in private.'

This is the current practice and reflects a pragmatic compromise. This does not mean the law will not be enforced but one can take the government at its word to continue the current practice.

Thus, under the proposed Penal Code amendment, homosexuals wishing to lead 'private' lives may do so 'peacefully' in Singapore, provided they do not foist their homosexual acts on the public or seek to mainstream homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.

Yvonne C. L. Lee
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law Deputy Director, The Asian Law Institute (ASLI)
National University of Singapore