ST Online Forum: Gays: Be careful of double standards (April 3)

Straits Times Online Forum, April 3, 2008

Gays: Be careful of double standards

I REFER to last Saturday's Science section article by
Ms Chang Ai-Lien, 'MM's reassuring comments seal
researcher's move here'. The article reports that
Professor Kerry Sieh, who is gay, has recently
accepted to work at the region's biggest earth
observatory because of the increased tolerance of gay
people in Singapore. Also cited are Minister Mentor
Lee Kuan Yew's views in an interview last year, which
state that while homosexuality is genetic, the lives
of gays should not be interfered.

While this is symbolic of tolerance of sexual
minorities in Singapore, we must exercise caution at
how egalitarianism is strategically practised in
Singapore. Tolerance and acceptance of diversity
should not be expressed primarily in terms of economic
progress and development. It should extend beyond the
mere inclusion of non-Singaporeans.

If the increased tolerance of sexual minorities is
purely symbolic and articulated for the economic
imperative, for example, the attraction of foreign
talent, I worry for the local sexual minority
community, for little will be actually done to improve
public education and the social integration of people
of other sexual orientation. I hope this does not
result in a double-standard treatment of local and
foreign sexual minorities.

As Singaporeans so ingrained with the values and
rhetoric of economic pragmatism, we should be aware of
how we accept diversity. People should not be accepted
based solely on what we perceive them to be worth.
They should be accepted fundamentally for who they
are.

Ho Chi Sam

ST Forum: Beware loose use of term 'sexual minorities' (Aug 10)

Aug 10, 2007

Beware loose use of term 'sexual minorities'

I REFER to Mr Ho Chi Sam's letter, 'Why is gay forum against public interest?' (ST, Aug 8).

Apparently, this forum was not banned in its entirety, as Mr Ho claimed. Its organisers, a self-professed homosexual lobby group, reported on their website that 'the event will still go on. The topic may be altered slightly, but will still focus on the law and sexual orientation'.

Regretfully, the organisers had not posted the forum's programme on their website. However, Fridae.com, an Internet portal providing services aimed at homosexuals, posted an article attributed to the foreign speaker concerned, which presumably contains the gist of what he intended to convey.

This article argues for the repeal of criminal laws against unnatural sex by using foreign precedents and international law in certain ways, noting that decriminalisation paves the way for the next step in the agenda, i.e., to redefine marriage.

It presupposes that the repeal of such laws benefits our society, and, in so doing, sidesteps the very issue that we are trying to work out for ourselves, i.e., whether decriminalising homosexual conduct serves or undermines Singapore's interests and well-being.

Mr Ho introduced the expression 'sexual minorities', a term coined by political groups in countries like Canada and the United States to lobby for special (rather than equal) rights for self-professed homosexuals.

Attempts had been made to extend such special rights, to the point of banning religious texts like the Quran and Bible as 'hate literature' for 'incit(ing) hatred against sexual minorities' because these texts categorically reject homosexual behaviour.

An uncritical importation of such politically charged and legally loaded terminology not only confuses but also endangers the racial and religious harmony that Singapore has laboured to enjoy and keep.

While a group of people may be a numerical minority as a social fact, that cannot be the sole or conclusive criterion for conferring legal recognition as a minority at law, so as to merit the enjoyment of additional protection or privileges.

Under Singapore law, the only legally recognised minority groups are racial and religious groups. Sexual preferences do not qualify as a marker for special legal protection.

Lastly, I fail to see the relevance of Mr Ho's confession of being 'straight' in the context of a rational and informed debate in matters of public interest. What matters is the substance and veracity of what is being said, not the identity of the speaker.

Angela Thiang Pei Yun (Ms)