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.

ST: The Penal Code (Dec 5)

Dec 5, 2007
THE PENAL CODE
Balancing evidence and rhetoric in law reform
By Kumaralingam Amirthalingam

ONE of the controversial issues arising from the recent Penal Code
reform exercise was the decision not to repeal Section 377A, which
criminalises acts of gross indecency between males.

The controversy was heightened by the fact that 377, which
criminalised unnatural offences, including anal and oral sex as well
as bestiality, was repealed.

The debate was emotional and occasionally went beyond the bounds of
propriety. As the dust settles, we have to deal with the post-reform
framework and see what lessons the experience offers for criminal law
reform.

Two points deserve attention: First, the need to focus on criminal law
principles and the law itself; and next, the need to rely on empirical
evidence and not be blindsided by rhetoric.

The background to the reform shows that Parliament was motivated by
public outrage that consensual oral sex between heterosexual couples
could be a crime. But by repealing 377, Parliament also decriminalised
consensual anal sex regardless of whether the partner is male or female.

Without specifically re-enacting an offence to deal with anal sex
between males, a lacuna in the law may have been created where
private, consensual anal sex between males is unregulated.

Previously, one of the arguments for 377 was that it was necessary to
protect males from non-consensual sodomy or male rape, as there was no
specific law governing such acts. But that argument is no longer
relevant, given the new Section 376(1), which specifically
criminalises non-consensual oral and anal sex.

There is an assumption that 377A includes anal sex as part of the
definition of gross indecency. However, the legislative history of the
two provisions, as well as the existing jurisprudence and
prosecutorial policy, suggests that 377A does not include anal sex.

Section 377A was not in the original Penal Code of the Straits
Settlements (the precursor to the Singapore Penal Code), but was
introduced in 1938 following reforms in England. During the
introduction of the Bill, it was explained that 377A 'makes punishable
acts of gross indecency between male persons which do not amount to an
unnatural offence within the meaning of 377 of the Code' (italics
added). Clearly, 377 and 377A were intended to be complementary but
mutually exclusive provisions.

The fact that the two provisions are aimed at different acts was
highlighted in a Singapore High Court decision, PP v Kwan Kwong Weng,
where the judge held that 377 was limited to anal sex and bestiality,
excluding oral sex, which properly belonged to 377A.

The decision was overturned on appeal, where it was held that 377
could include oral sex in certain serious cases where a higher
punishment was warranted. It should be noted that 377 carried a
maximum life sentence while 377A has a maximum sentence of two years.
While the prosecution had the discretion to prosecute oral sex cases
under either 377 or 377A, there is no local authority where anal sex
has been prosecuted under 377A.

The crucial question then is whether gross indecency in 377A can be
interpreted to include anal sex in the light of the repeal of 377.
Arguably, courts should not interpret 377A in this way, as one of the
principles of statutory interpretation, particularly in criminal law,
is that where there is ambiguity, the penal provision should be
interpreted in favour of the accused.

Had Parliament intended to retain the crime of anal sex between males,
it should have done so explicitly. Indeed, it did just that with the
offence of bestiality, which having existed in the repealed 377 was
re-enacted in a new 377B.

There was much rhetoric during the 377A debate about homosexuality
contributing to the spread of HIV/Aids and gay men being predisposed
to paedophilia. But the available evidence does not support the rhetoric.

It must be emphasised that HIV/Aids is not exclusively a gay disease.
According to official UN figures, globally, women account for half of
HIV infections and in sub-Saharan Africa, young women account for 75
per cent of such infections. In India, as in Singapore, the main means
of transmission is heterosexual intercourse.

While men who have sex with men are among the high-risk categories in
some countries, studies show that criminalisation of sex between men
increases the risk of HIV infection as it, among other things, drives
such activity underground and impedes access to health care, HIV
screening and safe sex campaigns.

That 377 and 377A impede the fight against the spread of HIV/Aids has
been affirmed locally in a recent paper by Dr Roy Chan, the director
of the National Skin Centre and an expert on sexually transmitted
diseases.

In terms of the alleged link between homosexuality and paedophilia,
the American Psychological Association points to a study of child sex
abuse cases which shows that under 1 per cent of the molesters
identify themselves as gay, and that almost 90 per cent of the
molesters have had documented heterosexual relationships.

A court in Texas, in rejecting the testimony of an expert who argued
that homosexuals were more likely to be paedophiles, found that the
data had been distorted, and described the testimony as fraudulent and
misleading.

Following a review of available empirical evidence, a research fellow
at the Australian Institute of Family Studies has concluded that the
link between paedophilia and homosexuality is 'more a societal myth
than a reality'.

Criminal law reform on the basis of ideology and rhetoric, rather than
evidence and reality, is fraught with danger. In the case of 377A,
there is now an ambiguity that is unlikely to be resolved. Parliament
will have no desire to clarify the law by enacting specific laws and,
given that 377A will not be proactively enforced, courts may not have
the opportunity to interpret 377A in the post-reform era.

We are left with a criminal law that makes no sense and which may in
fact be harmful to our efforts to contain the spread of Aids as well
as to combat child sex abuse.

This predicament is largely due to the fact that we took our eyes off
the ball during the debate: Instead of focusing on the proper function
and ambit of criminal law, we focused on homosexuality. In sports
parlance, we played the man rather than the ball.

The writer teaches criminal law and torts at the Faculty of Law,
National University of Singapore. The views here are his own.

ST: My Space (Youth Ink) (Nov 29)

Nov 26, 2007
MY SPACE
We are free to love and hate - and not afraid to say it out loud
Five of YouthInk's top writers talk about living in and liking
Singapore. This week, Edward Choy contemplates personal happiness
THE Section 377A debate was really what defined this year for me.

As an actor, theatre student and writer, I have many friends and
acquaintances who stand firmly against Section 377A and believe it to
be a gross violation of human dignity and freedom.

Because of my faith, I have many friends and acquaintances who firmly
support 377A and believe it to be a vital pillar of our nation's moral
values.

But as a Singaporean, I am delighted at the amount of interest and
discourse generated by the issue.

For now, the dismissive cries of apathy from the pockets of civil
society that exist in Singapore have been silenced. They have been
replaced by heartfelt and often well-considered calls for the people
of this island to rally to their side of this issue.

Even the supposedly silent majority has been spoken for - with
Professor Thio Li-ann bravely wandering into a minefield of passionate
opinions.

Still, I believe that as the majority, there was never a real need for
those in favour of keeping 377A to take action, not least in the
manner that those opposed to 377A felt they needed to in order for
their opinions to be heard.

The debate has been vital to Singapore, but it remains to be seen
whether the momentum generated will energise future issues of contention.

Take the reaction to the goods and services tax rise this year and the
hike in transport fares. Or rather, the lack of reaction.

It seems as if Singaporeans have come to accept that the Government
knows best when it comes to handling our money.

This is exemplified in the simmering discontent over the pay of
ministers, evident in the discussions of many Singaporean netizens,
coffee-shop uncles and taxi drivers.

To the leaders of Singapore: It is hard for the people to hear or read
that you earn a million dollars a year when they are struggling to get
by on $50 a day.

Let us face it, statistics show there is a widening income gap in
Singapore. People get annoyed when they see fellow citizens driving
cars that cost more than their flats. They cannot help it, it is human
nature to be jealous. So please, do something about it.

On a more personal note, I made a conscious decision not to take sides
on the 377A debate.

I must confess, before I discovered my faith, I used to be homophobic
and bigoted. Now I have learnt to love and accept and cherish those
who are different from me.

This has really been a watershed year for me in terms of personal
growth. I look back on my hate-fuelled years and recognise now how I
was free to make decisions for myself every step of the way. I was
free to choose what to see, what to believe. I was free to hate, and
now I am free to love.

In comparison, I think of the indoctrination that creates cults of
personality for the leaders in countries like North Korea and Cuba.

I think of how the state-imposed religious rule of law makes life
difficult for women and religious minorities in many countries.

I think of people scrambling and fighting for scraps of rotten food in
slums all over the world, who cannot think past the piercing hunger
that haunts their every breath.

Now when I think of the fierce debate that raged across the media
barely a month ago on the 377A issue, I cannot help but smile.

Today, we are free to believe what we want, and not only that, to say
it boldly in a country where the rules exist to keep the hate out of
speech. Some might see that as a restriction on freedom of speech.

I honestly think it is good that we are not allowed to shoot our
mouths off and spread hate and intolerance.

Despite what anyone thinks about the education system, laws governing
speech and the media, there is a large number of Singa-

poreans who can think for themselves and are not afraid to say what
they think.

I am honoured to be part of a group of young Singaporeans who prove
this point every week in these pages.

We are freer than we think we are. The trick is whether you want to
concentrate on the few things you cannot do or the many things you can do.

The writer, 27, recently completed a master's in theatre studies at
the National University of Singapore

FREEDOM NEEDS RULES

Today, we are free to believe what we want... to say it boldly in a
country where the rules exist to keep the hate out of speech.

Some might see that as a restriction on freedom of speech.

I honestly think it is good that we are not allowed to shoot our
mouths off and spread hate and intolerance.

Today Voices: Why an anti-gay law?

May 21, 2007

Today Voices: Why an anti-gay law?

Section 377A not key reason why gays stay or leave S’pore

Letter from JOHN TAN

I REFER to the report “What price, the pink dollar?” (May 19) by Jasmine Yin and Gracia Chiang.

There is no doubt that Section 377A of the Penal Code, a law criminalising homosexual activity between men, should be tossed out of Singapore’s law books. We should not have to compare ourselves with other countries, but it may be good to know that Indonesia, China, Cambodia, Laos,
Vietnam, the Philippines and many of our other Asian neighbours have no such law discriminating against gay men.

I would think that some of these countries have societies that would be as, if not more, conservative than Singapore is.

As to whether we would be able to retain Jeremy and his scholarly partner, I doubt the “law” has any real impact on their decision. New York, London and Hong Kong may be “more open” to gays, but there is still a sizeable chunk of the mainstream population who will not tolerate any public display of affection between two men.

My point is, while the outdated law may still be around, it is not a real push factor that’s chasing the gay men out of Singapore. Neither is it stopping gay men, who can contribute greatly to the economy, from coming to Singapore. Maybe some gay activists might refuse to step in or stay in Singapore as a matter of principle, but a majority of gay men, like straight people, take into consideration a low crime rate, clean living environment, a vibrant economy, language, and many other factors as the reasons for a stay-or-leave decision.

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

AP - Former Bishop Calls for Greater Respect for Homosexuals in Singapore

Former Bishop Calls for Greater Respect for Homosexuals in Singapore
By The Associated Press

SINGAPORE (AP) - A former Methodist bishop has called for greater understanding and respect for gays in Singapore, where recent public debate has questioned whether homosexuality should be decriminalized.

"We know that the differences will exist, we only ... plead for mutual respect and not for ondemnation, " Rev. Dr. Yap Kim Hao, who in 1968 became the first Asian bishop of The Methodist Church in Singapore and Malaysia, said at a Thursday night dialogue on homosexuality and the church.

The dialogue, believed to be the first between the mainstream Christian church and the gay community in Singapore, was organized by the gay social outreach arm of the nondenominational Free Community Church. It was attended by more than 350 people, including representatives from major Christian denominations and members of the general public.

The dialogue follows rare public debate about homosexuality in Singapore. Earlier this month, the city-state's founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, questioned the country's longtime ban on gay sex, saying the government should not act as moral police. His comments set off debates in newspapers and online forums.

Yap, who is now the Free Community Church's pastoral adviser, has said he believes he has been called by God to minister to gays, and is aware his views conflict with the conservative mainstream church in Singapore.

"Even though we disagree, we need to respect the humanity," Yap told The Associated Press.

Participants in the forum also discussed interpretations of Biblical references to homosexuality, and how the church can pastor homosexuals. Panelists stressed that the church and policymakers in Singapore must realize there are real people behind the issue.

"At the end of the day, we need to know that there is a human face to all this and then we learn to adapt our strategy differently, " said Tan Kim Huat, dean of studies at Singapore's Trinity Theological College.

But some audience members remained skeptical or indifferent to the calls for greater tolerance. One man took the microphone to compare homosexuality to bestiality.

Still, Yap was pleased that so many from the mainstream church had attended the dialogue.

"They came in some significant numbers to hear an alternative point of view. We have heard them condemning, but this is the first time they're coming to hear the other partisan view," he said.

Under Singapore law, gay sex is deemed "an act of gross indecency," punishable by a maximum of two years in jail. Authorities have banned gay festivals and censored gay films, saying homosexuality should not be advocated as a lifestyle choice.

Despite the official ban on gay sex, there have been few prosecutions.

Penal Code amendments proposed last year would decriminalize oral and anal sex for adult heterosexuals, but retain the ban on gay sex. That decision was applauded by the National Council of Churches in Singapore. The amendments are scheduled to be debated in Parliament later this year.

The issue returned to the spotlight earlier this month when Lee questioned the gay ban, prompting a flurry of responses by lawmakers and the public.

"Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's recent comments about liberalizing laws regarding homosexuality have got my family and me very concerned," citizen Jonathan Cheng wrote to the Straits Times Forum pages. "Homosexuals lead a promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyle. What else can you expect when you do not have children to live for or be in a loving and committed relationship? "

Most of Singapore's 4.5 million people are Buddhist, followed by Christians. The nation's other main religion, Islam, also forbids homosexuality.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Public Dialogue on Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality and Pastoral Care

10 May 2007

Public Dialogue on Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality and Pastoral Care
organised by Safehaven, a ministry of the Free Community Church
By Yap Kim Hao

Let me at the outset indicate the rationale for my perspective on homosexuality.

I can do no better than to quote from an official statement of The United Methodist Church in the United States that considers homosexuality as incompatible with Christian teachings and I am a Methodist. Yet it is this same Church that recognizes its "limited understanding of this complex gift and encourages the medical, theological, and social science disciplines to combine in a determined effort to understand human sexuality more completely. We call the Church to take the leadership role in bringing together these disciplines to address this most complex issue."

My approach is therefore a multi-disciplinary one.

Firstly, I will raise some general observations about the teaching of the Bible itself.

I quote a former colleague of mine when I was teaching at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Victor Paul Furnish, a distinguished Professor of New Testament who wrote: "Homosexuality is not a prominent Biblical concern. The earliest ethical codes of the Hebrews makes no mention of homosexual behavior. There is nothing about it in the Ten Commandments. The four Gospels record no saying of Jesus on the subject. The texts that are discussed are few and far between and not even all of these are pertinent."

But what do we see in many Churches in different parts of the world today? Homosexuality has become a major issue, much more serious than doctrine or church order. It is projected to split the Episcopal Church in the United States as well as the world-wide Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury who is personally gay-affirming, has to recognize the current teaching of the Anglican Communion which is against homosexuality.

As Christians refer to this common source of the Bible, those who are anti-gay are quick to say that the Bible says so and then close the Book. And the controversial issue of homosexuality is no longer discussed. The teaching of the Bible leads to the teaching of the Church which then becomes official, and obedience is demanded. The different perspectives arise from the differing interpretation of the words of the Bible and the teachings of the Church and its pronouncements change as we gain more knowledge and insights.

My view is that the different books of the Bible are time bound, historically related, culturally conditioned and contextually based. They are related to the time and place of the recorded events. They reflect the society and the culture at the time the books of the Bible were written. The revelation of God is mediated and translated by inspired human beings who are not infallible. We have to account for the relevancy of the teaching to our contemporary context.

The various books of the Bible are the products of writers who claim to have received the revelation from God, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, put it in writing. Their different interpretations resulted in the changing official teaching of the Church and the varying perspectives of Biblical scholars and theologians. This process continues and we have today come together to share our different perspectives and though we differ, we are expected to respect our differences.

The teaching of the Church must necessarily be continuously changing. Take for instance human relationships, we have moved from the predominantly patriarchal to more equality between men and women. In reference to health we are attributing disease not to spirit possession but to bacteria and viruses. In terms of geography even the flat earth has been rounded into a spherical one. Our world-view is ever changing.

With this as background, the Biblical view of sexual relationships is that heterosexuals who engage in same-sex acts are sinful. The Biblical writers regard all men as heterosexual and in condemning same-sex acts, they see it as men exchanging their male role to that of an inferior role of women. At that time, they were not able to distinguish between those whom we now identify as homosexual, from the heterosexual. Their view was that of heterosexuals engaging in same-sex sexual acts.

The Biblical texts that explicitly talk about same-sex acts are few in number. The brief references are related to laws of purity, holiness, temple rituals and to the Greco-Roman culture and pagan worship. There were temple prostitutes, male prostitution and pederasty (mentoring and sex with young call-boys). Jesus did not deal with same-sex relations in His teaching although he had much to say about sex, love, marriage and divorce. Homosexuality in terms of sexual orientation and long-term committed relationships as we understand them today was not discussed and not even a term used at that time.

It was much later that the term "homosexual" was used. Homosexuality as a term was introduced in 1869. It first appeared in newer translations of the Bible � Revised Standard Version in 1946 and in New International Version in 1978. Homosexuality is not originally a Biblical word.

Other terms like 'heterosexual, ' 'bisexual,' and �transgendered� presuppose an understanding of human sexuality that was possible only with modern psychology and sociological analysis. The ancient writers were operating without the faintest idea of what we have learned to call 'sexual orientation' .

Let us look more closely at some of the Biblical records related to sexuality and how they show varying perspectives.

The law of Moses allowed for man to divorce his wife on account of some "indecency" in her. (Deuteronomy 24:1); Jesus categorically forbids it and will not man "put asunder" those united in marriage. (Mark 10:1-12); Jesus was also said to have sanctioned divorce on the condition of "unchastity. " (Matthew 9:9). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus are divorced and for other reasons.

Divorced people are allowed baptism, church membership, communion, ordination and re-marriage but this has not always been the case for homosexuals. What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?

Take the issue of sex itself. It began with sex only for procreation which the early Christian theologians agree. When it serves to satisfy lust it is regarded as venial sin. Augustine in the fifth century said that we should mature as early as possible to the point when we can dispense with sexual intercourse.

However, the Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal and we are to be fruitful and multiply. And 1 Timothy 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made celibacy mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian anti-gay demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. Some anti-gay people condone sexual orientation but condemn homosexual acts. Some gay and lesbians like heterosexuals have chosen to live a life of single blessedness.

Leviticus 21 discussed how priests need to be morally, and even physically unblemished and must meet the requirements of the purity laws at that time. Today most of these purity laws are being ignored.

Far from being a Book full of bad news for gays and lesbians, I believe the Bible is indeed full of good news of God's love for all of creation - gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and straight alike. The Bible has no clear and consistent sex ethic and only knows a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores, moral codes or church teachings are dominant in any given country, culture, or period. There is also the emphasis on grace rather than on law.

The medical sciences today acknowledge homosexuality as a sexual orientation, not a medical, psychological or psychiatric condition that can be changed therapeutically.

It is on record that the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973. In 1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1994, two decades later, the APA categorically said, "... homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality".

The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and other major groups of medical, educational, and counseling professionals have concluded that there exists, as yet, no scientific basis for the contention that so-called reparative, reorientation, or conversion therapies can successfully change a person�s orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The prevailing view among therapists is that gay and lesbian patients should be helped to improve their self-esteem and to overcome the continuing stigmatization of homosexuality in many societies. However reparative therapies are being endorsed by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which represents a minority of psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, psychologists, and other practitioners, and by some religions.

Recently MM Lee Kuan Yew was widely quoted on this issue: "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," he said in remarks published by The Straits Times.

"So why should we criminalize it?" Lee asked.

"But there is such a strong inhibition, in all societies -- Christianity, Islam, even the Hindu (and) Chinese societies. And we are now confronted with a persisting aberration. But is it an aberration? It's a genetic variation."

Homosexuality is not an aberration, tendency, or inclination. It is a genetic or biological variation. It is an orientation.

We must admit that we do not know for certain the causes of homosexuality. This concluding statement in an article of causes best summarizes the situation:

"Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age."

Given this medical perspective on homosexuality how do I minister to GLBT people? Within the larger framework of my understanding of the love of God for all of God�s people and my reading of Christian ethics relating to justice and concern for the marginalized and minorities, I can only affirm and accept the GLBT community and render my service to them in whatever way that is helpful.

From my perspective, homosexuality is within the purpose of God in creation. There is a continuum of sexual relationships from heterosexualilty to homosexuality. God has made it possible for each individual to be unique and different and I affirm the diversity in God�s creation. Homosexuality is a given and not a choice.

In my experience of pastoral care to the gay community, I feel their pain and agony when they first became aware of their attraction to people of the same sex. Their experience is that it is not a phase that will go away. In the solitariness of their closets they struggle and pray. Most gay people know from painful personal experience that their homosexual inclination is definitely not a deliberate choice. Who would in their right mind choose to be gay when they know they will be relegated to a despised minority. On the contrary, they choose to wear masks and pretend to be straight. Yet opponents of gay rights choose to disregard these personal experiences and continue to portray homosexuality as a sinful choice that should be criminalised.

We are aware that the gay community has the responsibility to change the perception that the gay lifestyle is hedonistic and promiscuous. The straights have the problem of pursuing a hedonistic and promiscuous lifestyle as well. The distinctive difference rests on having sexual intercourse with the same or opposite sex.

As I come alongside them, I sense their silent pain, I see their falling tears, I hear their aching hearts. Today I feel their rising hope for they are receiving affirmation, recovering dignity and restoring pride to be gay.

They are hearing and believing what Victor Paul Furnish said: "It accords with the most fundamental witness of Scripture that one's sexuality is to be received as a good gift of God. Moreover, this gift is to be expressed in ways that manifest the grace of God - for there is not variance in the reality of God's love, which graces and claims us, whatever the particularities of our own time and place. As for sexual relationships, God's love can find clear expression only where the partners are fully committed and faithful to one another."

Homosexuality is therefore a gift from God to be accepted. It is not a result of human sin or the fallen nature because of Adam. We all have, by the grace of God, to live out the purposes of God, straight or gay, for we are all created by God.

ST Insight: Society ready to move forward on gay sex debate?

May 11, 2007
Society ready to move forward on gay sex debate?

By Lynn Lee

RECENT remarks by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew about homosexuality, and whether Singapore might have to change its stance on its criminalisation at some point, have resurfaced a debate among conservatives and others here.

Those at one end of the spectrum argue that the ban on homosexual sex is outdated and archaic. Those at the other end see any easing of laws as a move down a slippery slope.

Mr Lee said at a Young PAP event that while the authorities are not the moral police on the issue, they could not ignore the concerns of conservative citizens.

What was needed was a practical and pragmatic approach.

In an interview with the Reuters news agency just days later, he was asked about those comments and whether homosexual sex should be decriminalised eventually.

He replied: 'Eventually I cannot put a finger on it.

'But I would say 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.'

The remarks came several months after the Home Affairs Ministry, in looking at changes to the Penal Code, said it would retain a ban on acts of 'gross indecency' between men.

The ministry said homosexuality was not widely accepted here, but added that it would not be 'proactive' in enforcing this law against consensual acts that take place in private.

A website run by Washington-based gay activist Bob Summersgill, which tracks sodomy laws worldwide, lists Singapore among a clutch of Asian and African countries which deem sodomy to be illegal. This is unlike most developed countries which have done away with such laws.

Adding fuel to the recent debate, was a commentary in The Straits Times last week by National University of Singapore law academic Yvonne Lee, who argued that decriminalising homosexual sex would be an error, with far-reaching legal and social implications.

Insight contacted five MPs, all lawyers, for their take on the issue, on the question of decriminalisation, and how the debate can move forward.

There were, not surprisingly, divided views. But they took heart from the fact that such issues are being aired.

Said Hong Kah GRC MP Alvin Yeo: 'What is helpful is that debate actually takes place, rather than the silent harbouring of prejudice; and that it takes place in an objective environment which is tolerant of different viewpoints.

'That itself is the mark of civil society.'

It would also take time for the wider Singapore society to change its stance on the question of decriminalisation, said Sembawang GRC MP Ellen Lee.

'You move at the pace of the most conservative members of society. We do not have a homogenous society and we are a multiracial, multi-religious society. We have to respect their concerns and anxieties. I do not think Singapore will lose out in any way in this respect just because the world is moving faster than Singapore.'

lynnlee@sph. com.sg

ST Insight: Three MPs weigh in

May 11, 2007
Three MPs weigh in

MS INDRANEE RAJAH, 44, is a Senior Counsel. She is single and has been an MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC since 2001.

a.. Your response to MM Lee's comments?
He's right. I think decriminalisation is inevitable. It's not a question of 'if' but 'when'. The 'when' depends on whether our society as a whole is ready to accept homosexuality. That is a judgment call that our Government is going to have to make.

a.. What do you think of the current situation, where homosexual sex is banned but the ban is not proactively enforced?
It is an anomaly. Something is either a crime or it is not. If it's a crime, you enforce compliance, and if it's not a crime, you don't. The only reason why we have this anomaly is that the Government is trying to maintain balance between those who have strong religious beliefs or conservative
views on homosexuality, and those who feel that homosexuality is acceptable.

a.. On what basis should laws be made? Should they reflect values and morality? What about pragmatism?
Laws are a combination of values, morality, pragmatism and social and political objectives. You can't pigeonhole these factors into neat slots and give equal weightage. You have to go with a sense of what is generally acceptable and enforceable. These evolve over time.

a.. How do we advance the debate on decriminalising homosexual sex, beyond the fixed standpoints that have been presented?
I don't think you can.

a.. There has always been a sense that societal norms here should evolve at the pace of the most conservative members of society. Do you agree? What sort of pace should society proceed at in terms of discussing this issue?
I don't agree. There are many things where we have moved quickly when we had to. When the Women's Charter was passed, it removed polygamy at one stroke. That was a radical change when it was passed. Think of all those men who were overnight restricted to one wife only!

But society was ready to accept that law when it was passed. So the pace at which we can proceed is the pace that we think the majority of society can accept, without too much upheaval.

MR SIEW KUM HONG, 32, senior counsel for CA, an IT management software company. He is single and has been a Nominated Member of Parliament since January.

a.. Your response to MM Lee's comments?
My first thought was that his view was premised on pragmatism, not principle. It might result in what I believe to be the right conclusion (ie decriminalisation of gay sex), but I do not agree with the reasoning process. In the end, it rests entirely on homosexuality being genetic but if there is subsequently any evidence that homosexuality is not genetic, then does it mean we should change positions again?

My own belief is that homosexual sex should be decriminalised regardless of whether homosexuality is genetic. It is fundamental to respecting people's dignity and their freedom to lead their private lives as they decide to the extent it does not harm others, regardless of why they would want to lead their lives that way.

a.. What do you think of the current situation, where homosexual sex is banned but is not proactively enforced?
Having a provision in the books that the Government has explicitly stated it will not proactively enforce, risks bringing the law into disrepute. And here's another question: What if a homosexual is jilted and makes a complaint against his former partner? Should the police take enforcement
action then? But should enforcement be based solely on whether a complaint is made? If so, is that a rational and justifiable basis for deciding whether to enforce?

a.. On what basis should laws be made? Should they reflect values and morality? What about pragmatism?
I do not think that laws should reflect values and morality per se. Instead, I believe that laws should deter and prevent harm to people. And if that coincides with morality, then great.

But they are conceptually separate and distinct concepts, and we need to bear that in mind. There is a great danger when laws are used to enforce values and morality, because they do change. Women previously could not vote, and this was enforced by law. Obviously, values and morality have changed since those times, and I think rightly so. They are also not universal, and so could potentially oppress those who do not share such values and morality.

a.. How do we advance the debate on decriminalising homosexual sex, beyond the fixed standpoints that have been presented?
I'm not sure if you can. The starting points are so fundamentally different that they are essentially arguing at cross-purposes. 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.

But policy- and law-makers have a different responsibility. I would hope and expect policy- and law-makers to acknowledge that their own values and moral beliefs are personal to them, and that policy- and law-making requires them to adopt more objective approaches.

Some will and have argued that the approach embodied in the Wolfenden Report (a 1960s document that sets the basis for the decriminalisation of homosexual sex in the United Kingdom) itself represents a value statement about the importance of personal liberty. But I would argue that that is a universal value, and is irrelevant.

The question is the extent to which personal liberty should be limited by the law, and so it falls on those who argue for criminalising homosexuality to demonstrate convincingly that private consensual homosexual sex results in external harm that merits it being criminalised.

a.. There has always been a sense that societal norms here should evolve at the pace of the most conservative members of society. Do you agree? What sort of pace should society proceed at in terms of discussing this issue?Actually, that's not the case. I think Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has previously stated that we should not move at the fastest (most liberal) or the slowest (most conservative) , but with the mass in the middle. So far, the Government has identified the mass in the middle to be against the decriminalisation of homosexual sex.

But should that be the sole consideration? Surely the moral sensibilities of the mass in the middle should be balanced against the implications of the continued criminalisation of homosexual sex: the intolerant message sent by society, the lack of dignity or respect shown to a segment of our society (estimated at maybe 4 to 6 per cent), the inexorable exodus of homosexual Singaporeans overseas never to return, and the unquantifiable number of foreign talent who are homosexual and so simply decline to come to work in Singapore.

Law-making is a balancing act, to balance the different interests at play. I am not convinced that the continued criminalisation of homosexual sex strikes a balance that is most beneficial to Singapore and Singaporeans.

MR LIM BIOW CHUAN, 44, sole proprietor of his law firm, Lim BC & Co. He is married with two daughters, and has been an MP for Marine Parade GRC since last year.

a.. Your response to MM Lee's comments?
I have my reservations that homosexuality is genetic. There are studies which suggest that homosexuality could be due to a combination of biological, psychological and social factors.

Even if homosexuality is genetic, but if the social norms suggest that it is still not acceptable to most people, I feel that we should proceed with caution rather than move straight towards decriminalisation of the act.

If a person says that he is polygamous by nature because of some genetic factors, does that mean that I should accept that it should be made legal for him to be polygamous? I would be slow to adopt that approach as currently, most people in Singapore are still not prepared to accept that
homosexuality is acceptable in this society.

a.. What do you think of the current situation, where homosexual sex is banned but is not proactively enforced?
I believe that we should discourage homosexual practice as an alternative lifestyle as it goes against the basic family values that Singapore is promoting. But yet, we should recognise that there are people who, for whatever reasons, be it genetic or psychological or social, are still
homosexuals. Should we prosecute them and make them criminals? I think the position of the Church is correct, which is that we should hate the sin (homosexuality) but embrace the sinner. Homosexuals are also people who should be entitled to basic human dignity and entitled to health care, education and employment.

a.. On what basis should laws be made? Should they reflect values and morality? What about pragmatism?
Laws should be made by legislators to reflect the current social norms and values which are acceptable by the general population.

a.. How do we advance the debate on decriminalising homosexual sex, beyond the fixed standpoints that have been presented?
I ask myself, what do I want to see in my home country? Do I want a place where the values are still based on the family being the most important to the average Singaporean? Or do I accept that it is okay where you can co-habit and have children without the need for marriage; where you can
bring up a child without being married. In a homosexual relationship, there would be no children and there would be no wife and no mother. My belief still is that the family is important for every Singaporean and we should encourage as many Singaporeans as possible to marry and procreate within the family setting.

a.. There has always been a sense that societal norms here should evolve at the pace of the most conservative members of society. Do you agree? What sort of pace should society proceed at in terms of discussing this issue?
I am still a conservative by nature and I would prefer to stay at the pace which Singaporeans are comfortable with. We do not have to follow the rest of the world when it comes to such societal norms as each country should evolve at its own pace.