Today: Keep our doors open to ideas (June 6)

Keep our door open to ideas

Dismissal of sincere views not helpful to engagement between a govt
and citizens

Friday • June 6, 2008

Letter from Siew Kum Hong

Member, Pro-Tem Committee

Maruah Singapore

I REFER to the report, "Politics, law and human rights `fanatics': AG
Walter Woon" (May 30).

The Attorney-General, Professor Walter Woon, reportedly said that
human rights has become a "religion among some people" for whom "it's
all hypocrisy and fanaticism", that we should not confuse public
law with politics, and that some people assume that their definition of
human rights is the decision of the rest of humanity.

As a group that seeks to work on issues related to the establishment
of the Association of South-east Nations (Asean) human rights body
from a Singapore perspective, Maruah finds the AG's reported
statements regrettable. Such a dismissal of sincerely-held views, even
those expressed immoderately, is not helpful to engagement between a
government and its citizens.

History tells us that ardent campaigners who were highly controversial
in their day must be thanked for much of today's social progress.

While controversial causes are not necessarily right, our progress as
a society depends on us keeping the door open to ideas, and not
peremptorily dismissing ideas and their proponents with pejorative
language.

Maruah also believes that no single group of persons — including
officials — has the right to conclusively define human rights for the
rest of society.

The definition of human rights evolves as society changes. This
evolution is stunted if dissentients are cast as troublemakers
pursuing their own causes under the guise of human rights.

Rather than criticising dissentients, we should see them as making a
positive contribution to our understanding and conceptualisation of
what human rights means to Singaporeans.

Finally, it is not helpful to view public law in complete isolation
from politics.

After all, politics must be conducted within the framework of the law,
and political decisions must be lawful.

Similarly, the law does not exist in a vacuum divorced from the
politics of the day.

ST: There are gays, and there are gays... (Nov 10)

Nov 10, 2007
IDENTITY POLITICS
There are gays, and there are gays...
By Andy Ho

PROFESSOR Thio Li-ann who spoke up in Parliament against the decriminalisation of homosexual sodomy has become the lightning rod that attracts the vilest attacks from the most militant gays here.

The Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) who teaches law at the National University of Singapore (NUS) just made her second police report in three months. The first was filed against a poet, Alfian Saat, who heaped abuse on her in an e-mail, the second after an anonymous letter-writer threatened her and her family members with bodily harm.

The fact that a fiery debate over the issue was held at all in Parliament might have been perceived by some as legitimising the identity politics of (homo)sexuality here.

Identity politics is made up of efforts to define and defend who you are, or hope to be, or hope to be seen to be. Gay identity politics means some citizens are mobilising as a group around their sexual orientation to shape or alter the exercise of power to benefit group members.

Since it is an enterprise motivated by the imagination of what is or ought to be mine or ours, some welcome it. After all, self-definition matters to everyone, they say.

Others counter that this is a bad development as it simply purveys differences rather than similarities and highlights grievances rather than bonds. As proof, they point to the gut-wrenching viciousness swirling around Prof Thio. Another NUS law professor, Yvonne Lee, has also made a police report after she was crudely flamed online, with threats made against her person after she wrote a column for these
pages that was not supportive of the gay cause.

In and of themselves, differences and grievances are fine for they drive political action among those who bear them. Contending with one's adversaries is not necessarily inconsistent with respect for one another. In a nation that is looking for its democratic legs, emotional interlocution that remains respectful can be woven into the patriotic fabric that binds us together.

But identity politics turns sick when grievances transmute into an all-consuming demonisation of one's opponents. For example, both law professors have been repeatedly asked online something to this effect: 'Are you stupid, a Christian, or both?' If 'conservatives' or 'Christians' are remorselessly assumed to be redneck hatemongers whom you can't respect as equals, then your politics has degenerated
into a pharisaic narcissism.

I don't know which is worse, this or those who lose in a confrontation claiming victimhood. Already, in the parliamentary debate, there were claims of 'minority' group status for homosexuals. I also have an e-mail - obviously from a legally trained mind - asserting that gays form a 'discrete, insular and disadvantaged
minority'.

By self-identifying as 'a minority', the claim is that his group will inevitably be ignored or victimised by the (demonised) majority. This would suggest that his group will never be part of a winning majority coalition.

Yet all political majorities are coalitions whose composition can change, so losers can become winners somewhere down the line - if they are willing to modulate their interests to form a winning coalition with others.

But the gay lobby finds it difficult to do so for it tends to reduce complex human beings to one trait - homoerotism. That is, it regards all individuals who have this orientation as being, in essence, the same in (all) other respects.

This 'essentialist' thinking is less than coherent. For example, people who share race or religion can differ in many other ways, including being able to hurt others of the same race or religion. For example, I may be Chinese but that does not necessarily mean I champion the need to be fluent in Mandarin.

Or: Every woman has a race, so how she experiences her womanhood is informed by her race, and what race means to her is also inflected by her gender. What about being of the same race and gender but not the same religion? What about age? Should we not accord minority status to, say, 'aged Indian lesbians'?

So group definitions are problematic. The Catholics may claim you, but do you claim them? Group identities are too narrow to encompass what we share in common as humans but too broad to capture our specificities as individuals. The simplistic gay versus straight opposition obscures the fact that each of us stands alone at our own
unique conjuncture of the different groupings like race, gender, age, profession or religion to which we belong.

Because we move from one grouping to another fluidly as the situation demands, our personal group borders are never fixed. Because we are affiliated to so many groups, we may be more 'multicultural' individuals than a multicultural nation. But this fact is that which allows for non-conflictual give-and-take since our interest might
differ on one dimension but map onto one another on a different one. However, identity politics ignores this. Instead, it balkanises, promoting an obstreperous, rancorous self-pity about the 'tyrannical majority'.

For good reason, we give the identity politics of race and religion a wide berth. Formal procedure requires that a parliamentary petition - like the public petition over homosexual sodomy that NMP Siew Kum Hong submitted - be vetted in committee first.

The House agreed to waive the requirement and an angry debate ensued.

If Prof Thio's travails are anything to go by, setting that procedure aside appears to have been a mistake that has, regrettably, fostered the identity politics of sexual orientation here.

andyho@sph.com.sg

Queery.com: Government Does Not Endorse Gay Lifestyle: Singapore Minister (Nov 5)

Government Does Not Endorse Gay Lifestyle: Singapore Minister

Singapore’s government does not want to endorse a homosexual lifestyle, a senior cabinet minister said Monday, as parliament debated a rare petition to repeal a law that criminalises gay sex.

A member of parliament filed the petition to repeal the relevant part of the Penal Code on the grounds that it is discriminatory and violates constitutional safeguards on equal rights.

It was the first time in more than two decades that parliament had heard a petition, local radio reported, and coincided with debate on the most extensive amendments to the city-state’s Penal Code in 22 years.

The MP, Siew Kum Hong, who is not gay, said the government’s proposed changes would allow anal and oral sex between two consenting heterosexual adults.

However refusing to decriminalise the same acts between homosexual and bisexual men is discrimination, said Siew, who filed the petition after an online campaign to repeal the section.

Arguing for the section to be retained, Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, Ho Peng Kee, said Singapore remains a largely conservative society.

"While homosexuals have a place in society... repealing section 377A will be contentious and may send a wrong signal that the government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life," Ho said.

Public feedback on the issue had been "emotional, divided and strongly expressed," he said, but most people wanted to retain the section.

"The majority find homosexual behaviour offensive and unacceptable," Ho added," noting that police nevertheless have been lenient in implementing the law.

However, Siew said private, consensual sexual acts between adult males would "not impact on the safety and security of society."

"Now is the time, not to do the pragmatic or easy thing, but to do the right thing," he said.

Stuart Koe, chief executive of the Asian gay portal, Fridae.com, and one of the people behind the petition, said that for gays in Singapore, Section 377A has been like "a gun pointed to their heads."

Singapore celebrities joined the campaign to repeal the anti-gay sex section by appearing in a rap video posted on the YouTube website.

Siew Kum Hong: The great tragedy of Section 377A (Oct 30)

The great tragedy of Section 377A

That is the title I wish ST had used, for my piece last Friday 26 October. They had asked me to write something for them, on "take-aways" from the entire debate. I agreed to do so, on a few conditions:

- that there be only grammatical/formatting edits to what I submit
- that I have final approval
- that it not become a "me vs her" thing between myself and Thio Li-Ann, and that they convey this to her

ST agreed to the above, and suggested a couple of topics:

"What united nation? In the light of the 377A debate, is consensus possible, and if not what do we do about it"

and

"The lessons on engagement I've learnt from this debate"

I wasn't really interested in spending 800 words to explore either topic, mainly because I did not want it to be a "me vs her" thing. I felt that the media had tried to play up that angle a bit too much. While we disagree (and I guess we disagree very strongly), I have no wish to let it become a personal thing -- the only people to benefit from that would be the media.

So I deliberately chose not to proceed along those lines, as it would invariably have involved criticising or rebutting Thio's speech. I did not want to do that, because to me, our speeches speak, and have to speak, for themselves. There was no need for me to extend it further outside Parliament. As it turns out, many others, such as Janadas Devan and innumerous bloggers, have taken it upon themselves to do so anyway.

In any case, my "take-aways" from the entire experience were not really about all this stuff about "consensus" and "engagement". We (i.e. those who supported repeal) engaged with society and with Parliament, and we did so according to the rules, in a manner that I felt was highly principled and civil.

That was enough for me. That was the mark of democracy at work. We took the high road, and we came through with our heads held high. We didn't succeed in repealing Section 377A, but I think we succeeded in many other aspects. As Alex Au so astutely explains, there is a lot for repeal supporters to celebrate.

So I did not want to play ST's game. Instead, my real "take-aways" were about understanding gay people better, about what Section 377A really meant to so many of them and their families, and about the humbling effect of so many people -- all strangers -- showing so much support for such a difficult cause. How ironic, that my stand purely on principle, without really having been exposed to these aspects directly, had led to this as well.

That's why I wrote this piece the way I did. It was easy to write, because I wrote from the heart. And just like my speech, it speaks for itself. The truth always does.

ST Review: Debate an example of democracy at work by Siew Kum Hong (Oct 26)

Oct 26, 2007
Debate an example of democracy at work

They were the two Nominated MPs who stood out in Parliament this week. Lawyer Siew Kum Hong was instrumental in putting forward a citizens' petition to repeal Section 377A, a law that deems sex between men a crime. Law professor Thio Li-Ann spoke passionately against it. The two NMPs penned their thoughts after the debate, exclusively for Insight.

By Siew Kum Hong

MY SPEECH on Monday will probably be the speech of my career. I put my all into it, because I believe passionately in what I said.

That night, my overwhelming emotion was relief that it was over. But the relief was accompanied with sorrow, because it continues for so many others. That is the great tragedy of Section 377A.

I sat in Parliament on Tuesday, listening to the Prime Minister explain why Section 377A will be retained. Even though I continue to believe Section 377A should be repealed, I am heartened by his speech.

The Prime Minister took pains to acknowledge the contributions of the gay community, their need for private space, and the importance of not making things unnecessarily difficult for them. It was probably as much as anyone could have asked, short of a repeal.

His speech was fair, balanced and realistic. It will go a long way towards ensuring the debate - which will inevitably continue – remains on an even keel, and will hopefully temper the more extreme elements on each side.

The Prime Minister was probably right when he said most people were not seized by the issue. Certainly, as Mr Baey Yam Keng pointed out, many people did not really understand what it was about.

That is why it was important to have this debate. The parliamentary petition enabled the pro-repeal perspective to be put forward for people to consider. The undecided majority can hear both sides and make up their minds. Indeed, a friend who had previously opposed repeal told me that after reading the speeches, he had changed his mind and would actually sign the petition now.

And the petition allowed the voice of a politically disenfranchised group to be heard. In a democracy, surely that is important.

While homosexuality may not be in the mainstream (and I'm not so sure about that), it is indisputable that the pro-repeal argument is a firmly mainstream, albeit minority, view, not just one held by gays. The broad-based support for the petition demonstrated that.

For engagement to be civil, participants need to respect the common ground rules and the integrity of the process, while agreeing to disagree on the substantive issues. It is a critical part of a secular, democratic society.

Some repeal opponents have told me they appreciated the distinction between the substance and the process. All this shows that the vast majority of Singaporeans do believe in civil engagement, even on issues of morality where consensus is difficult.

That was in stark contrast to those suggesting that the issue has polarised society. I think the fault lines, if any, have always existed. It was more a question of their becoming apparent.

But such statements risk being self-fulfilling prophecies. The more people harp on polarisation, the more likely it becomes. Some journalists have been particularly guilty of such attempts to sensationalise the debate.

As we got closer to the parliamentary sitting, I began to decline media requests in that vein. While the media is and should be free to report stories as it deems appropriate, I was nevertheless disappointed at the apparent agenda of certain journalists.

Activists on both sides will continue to advocate their position. And that is proper, because that is also what democracy is about.

I have been immensely humbled in the past two weeks, both by the tremendous support shown by so many, and by my increased understanding of what gays go through.

I have gay acquaintances, but I do not have gay family members or close friends. I agreed to present the petition out of principle. But as the online open letter drew more and more signatures, as hateful comments started flying around, I understood so much better the human cost exacted by Section 377A.

I believe that, as society as a whole gains greater understanding of and familiarity with gays, its views will shift. And I am glad the Government's nuanced position allows for this possibility.

Many surveys have consistently shown young people to be more accepting of homosexuals, and the acceptance level has increased over time. Last month, The Straits Times reported that only 30 per cent of youth surveyed felt homosexuality is wrong.

And Straits Times journalist Tessa Wong wrote about how she was brought up in a conservative background, but realised that homosexuality was not intrinsically wrong after knowing a gay friend better. Such stories give me hope.

It is now time to move on. I have presented the petition, and Parliament has debated and passed the Bill. While I disagree with the result, we live in a democracy, and that is how the democratic process works. There are other issues to raise, other goals to advance. The
Government has a country to run.

Section 377A will surely resurface at some point. My hope is that all participants will remain civil, and focus on the issue at hand as a secular democracy. That will ensure that even as people disagree on their moral positions, society remains a cohesive whole. And it will demonstrate, again, that there is democracy in Singapore, and it works.

TODAY: Gay debate takes ugly turn (Oct 25)

Gay debate takes ugly turn

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

Thursday • October 25, 2007

Ansley Ng
ansley@mediacorp.com.sg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TNP: Heated debate over gay law, if it's not enforced, why keep it? (Oct 24)

The Electric New Paper :
Heated debate over gay law
If it's not enforced, WHY KEEP IT?

THERE'S no question about it - it's illegal to have gay sex in
Singapore, whether in public or private.
By Low Ching Ling

24 October 2007

THERE'S no question about it - it's illegal to have gay sex in
Singapore, whether in public or private.

But how often has Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises
such acts, been used to punish two consenting men who have sex in
their own homes or in a private space?

Lawyers say it's unheard of.

The Government has said it would not actively prosecute people under
Section 377A.

Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, Senior Minister of State for Home
Affairs and Law, reiterated this point in Parliament yesterday when he
said the Government would keep the status quo.

But those who have called for the law to be abolished have asked: Why
keep it if it's not enforced?

Mr Siew Kum Hong, who tabled a petition asking for the law's repeal,
said the Law Society had noted that keeping the law is 'out of step
with legal norms in the modern law'.

He also quoted NUS law professor Michael Hor as saying: 'The moral
force of the criminal law is blunted if there are crimes which are,
the Government assures the public, never to be enforced.'

MP and lawyer Hri Kumar asked: 'If the intention is not to do anything
at all, then what is the purpose of having the law? Does it not hurt
our credibility that we have laws that are toothless?'

But is Section 377A purely symbolic?

Prof Ho disagreed. He said it has been used to prosecute grown men who
had sex with underaged boys.

Mr Kumar said that between 1988 and 2003, there were eight convictions
under Section 377A. Two convictions were for the same incident.

He added: 'It has not been invoked in respect of consensual sex since
1993. So this law is rarely applied, or if applied, it applies to
minors or to acts in public.'

MP Christopher De Souza pointed out that enforcement alone cannot test
how effective a law is. 'For example, to attempt suicide is an offence
in Singapore. Yet, how many people are prosecuted for it? I dare say a
negligible percentage of those who do attempt suicide,' he said.

'Yet, the offence remains on the books even after this amendment
because it conveys the message that we do not want people taking their
lives.

'Will that message become weaker if the offence is taken off the
books? Yes.'

HARM OR NO HARM?

Does repealing Section 377A harm society? This was also one of the
main points of the debate in Parliament.

Mr Siew pointed out that the Home Affairs Ministry had said the Penal
Code review was intended to make the Code 'more effective in
maintaining a safe and secure society in today's context'.

But, Mr Siew added, Section 377A criminalises gay sex even behind
closed doors.

'How does the private sexual conduct of consenting adults make
Singapore unsafe or less secure?' he asked.

He argued that criminal law should be used for activities that harm
others.

'Instead, (the Government's) reasons for retaining 377A are that the
majority of Singaporeans disapprove of homosexuality, and so 377A
should be retained to reflect, or 'sign-post', this majority view of
Singaporeans,

' he said.

'But reflecting the morality of the majority is not a stated aim of
the Penal Code. Nor is it an accepted objective of the criminal law.'

But MP Indranee Rajah had a retort.

'What about the distribution of pornographic material? You could, if
you wanted, to take the same argument, say the distribution of
pornographic material has nothing to do with a safe and secure
society,' she said.

'It's not a threat to a person or to property. But all of us recognise
or accept that the distribution of pornographic material should be
regarded as an offence.

'When we look at the safety and security of Singapore, we also look at
the question of public morals, public decency, public order.'

Mr De Souza said the repealing of Section 377A would have other
consequences on society such as the push for legal gay marriages,
adoption of children by gay couples, spousal rights and effects on the
education of the young.

Ms Indranee called for a compromise between the majority and minority
groups.

'Once you have different groups living in a society, you have to
accept there will be some restrictions on behaviour...

'One group says, 'I want this.' Another group says, 'No, I want that.'
How do you decide?

'You have to come down to a decision one way or another, and in most
cases, you will go with the majority view. Unless there is a reason to
protect the minority position.'

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

When ambiguity works, let it be

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

Wednesday • October 24, 2007

Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

IT may be untidy and ambiguous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ST: Let's move on, says NMP after 377A plea is rejected (Oct 24)

Oct 24, 2007
Let's move on, says NMP after 377A plea is rejected
By Li Xueying

THE citizens' petition to repeal Section 377A has been
rejected and the man behind it is moving on.

Nominated MP and lawyer Siew Kum Hong was
instrumental in putting together the petition, inked with
2,341 signatures. It called for the abolition of Section 377A,
a part of the Penal Code that deems sex between men
a crime.

The petition likely marked the first attempt by a local
interest group to use formal parliamentary procedures to
change the law.

Parliament discussed it on Monday and Tuesday as it sat to
debate the changes to the Penal Code.

Mr Siew told The Straits Times last night that he felt the
debate was a 'healthy sign of democracy', as disagreements
were aired respectfully as the law came under scrutiny.

Going by the rules, the Public Petitions Committee,
comprising seven MPs, would have met to consider the
petition, after which it would have submitted a report to
Parliament.

However, on Monday, Leader of the House Mah Bow
Tan moved to suspend the rule, or standing order,
requiring the petition to be referred to the committee.
Parliament agreed.

This was so that MPs could refer to the petition as they
debated Section 377A and the Penal Code. Otherwise, they
would not have been able to do so, as this could prejudice
the committee as it considered its report.

What this means is that with the end of the parliamentary
debate, the petition process also ended.

How did Mr Siew feel about it?

'The overwhelming response and feeling is a sense of
relief that it's over,' he said.

'But at the same time, it's not over for many people out
there, and that is the tragedy.'

He had not expected the Government to repeal the law,
he said, but it was not all in vain.

'This has been a useful and important debate in Parliament,
I don't recall 377A being debated in this manner before, and
that in itself is a significant and positive development,' he said.

Asked if he will continue to represent the gay community,
Mr Siew said he had no such plans for now, as he had other
issues he wished to concentrate on.

'Now let us move on,' he said. 'The world does not begin and
end at 377A.'

ST: Why we should leave Section 377A alone: PM (Oct 24)

Oct 24, 2007
Why we should leave Section 377A alone: PM
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke yesterday on Section 377A,
which criminalises gay sex.

Here are edited excerpts from his remarks

'Mr Speaker Sir, this parliamentary debate is on the amendments
to the Penal Code, but the hottest debate is on one section which is
not being amended - Section 377A.

Both Mr Siew Kum Hong and Professor Thio Li-Ann quoted me with
approval in their speeches yesterday so I think I should state my
position, and the Government's position on this matter.

Because of the review of the Penal Code and the amendments, I think
the gay community and the activists have staged a push to get the
Government to open this subject and to abolish Section 377A.

They have written an open letter to me as PM. They've also
petitioned Parliament on this issue on the grounds of constitutional
validity and the constitutional argument was made by Mr Siew Kum
Hong yesterday in Parliament.

I don't have to go into the details. It was rebutted very cogently by
Indranee Rajah and very passionately by Prof Thio Li-Ann.

They are not my legal adviser. I take my legal advice from the
Attorney-General and his advice to the Government is quite clear:
The continued retention of Section 377A would not be a contravention
of the Constitution.

The Government has not taken this matter lightly. We had a
long discussion among the ministers; we had an extensive public
consultation on the Penal Code amendments; and we decided, on this
issue, to leave things be.

So let me today focus on the policy issue - what we want the law to
be - and explain our thinking, our considerations, why we came to this
conclusion.

I would ask these questions: What is our attitude towards
homosexuality? 'Our' meaning the Government's attitude and
Singaporeans' attitude, too; and how should these attitudes and these
values be reflected in our legislation.

Many Members have said this, but it's true and it's worth saying
again: Singapore is basically a conservative society. The family is
the basic building block of this society. It has been so and by
policy, we have reinforced this, and we want to keep it so.

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

And if you look at the way our Housing Board flats are, our
neighbourhoods, our new towns, that's by and large the way
Singaporeans live. It's not so in other countries, particularly in the
West anymore, but it is here.

I acknowledge that not everybody fits into this mould. Some are
single, some have more colourful lifestyles, some are gay. But a
heterosexual, stable family is a social norm. It's what we teach in
schools. It's what parents want to see, want their children to see as
their children grow up, to set their expectations and encourage them
to develop in this direction.

And I think the vast majority of Singaporeans want to keep it this
way, want to keep our society like this, and so does the Government.

But at the same time, we should recognise that homosexuals are part of
our society. They are our kith and kin.

This is not just in Singapore, this is so in every society, in every
period of history, back to prehistoric times - or at least as long as
there have been records, biblical times and probably before.

What makes a person gay or homosexual? Well, partly it could be the
social environment.

If we look at ancient Greece and Romans, it was quite normal for men
to have homosexual relationships - an older man with a young boy. And
it doesn't mean that that's all they do. They have wives, they have
children, but socially that's the practice. So I think the social
environment has something to do with it. But there is growing
scientific evidence that sexual orientation is something which is
substantially inborn. I know some will strongly disagree with this,
but the evidence is accumulating.

You can read the arguments and the debates on the Internet.

And just to take one provocative fact: Homosexual behaviour is not
observed only amongst human beings, but amongst many species of mammals.

So, so too in Singapore. There is a small percentage of people, both
male and female, who have homosexual orientations and they include
people 'who are often responsible, invaluable and highly respected
contributing members of society'. I quote from the open letter which
the petitioners have written to me.

And it is true. They include people who are responsible, invaluable,
highly respected contributing members of society. And I would add that
among them are some of our friends, our relatives, our colleagues, our
brothers and sisters, or some of our children.

They too must have a place in this society and they too are entitled
to their private lives. We shouldn't make it harder than it already is
for them to grow up and to live in a society where they are different
from most Singaporeans.

And we also don't want them to leave Singapore to go to more congenial
places to live.

But homosexuals should not set the tone for Singapore society.

Nor do we consider homosexuals a minority in the sense that we
consider, say, Malays and Indians as minorities, with minority rights
protected under the law - languages taught in schools, culture
celebrated by all races, representation guaranteed in Parliament
through GRCs and so on. And this is the point which Ms Indranee Rajah
made yesterday in a different way.

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

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

We've gradually been making progress towards achieving a closer
approximation to this balance over the years. I don't think we will
ever get the perfect balance, but I think that we have a better
arrangement now than was the case 10 or 20 years ago.

Homosexuals work in all sectors, all over the economy; in the public
sector as well, and in the civil service as well. They are free to
lead their lives, free to pursue their social activities.

But there are restraints and we do not approve of them actively
promoting their lifestyle to others or setting the tone for mainstream
society.

They live their lives, that's their personal life, it's their space.
But the tone of the overall society, I think it remains conventional,
it remains straight and we want it to remain so.

So, for example, the recent case of Mr Otto Fong, who is a teacher in
Raffles Institution. He's gay, he's a good teacher by all accounts. He
put up a blog which described his own sexual inclinations and
explained how he was gay. And he circulated it to his colleagues and
it became public.

So, (the) Ministry of Education looked at this, the school spoke to
the teacher. The teacher understood that this was beyond the limit,
because what you live is your own thing. But what you disseminate
comes very close to promoting a lifestyle. So spoke to him, he took
down his blog, he posted an explanation, he apologised for what he had
done and he continues teaching in RI today.

So there is space, there are limits.

De facto, gays have a lot of space in Singapore. Gay groups hold
public discussions, they publish websites, I've visited some of them.
There are films, plays on gay themes. In fact sometimes people ask
'Why are there so many? Aren't there other subjects in the world?' But
since we have allowed it the last few years, maybe this is a letting
off of pressure. Eventually, we will find a better balance.

There are gay bars and clubs. They exist. We know where they are.
Everybody knows where they are. They don't have to go underground. We
don't harass gays. The Government does not act as moral policeman. And
we don't proactively enforce Section 377A on them.

But this doesn't mean that we have reached a broad social consensus
that this is a happy state of affairs, because there are still very
different views among Singaporeans on whether homosexuality is
acceptable or morally right. And we heard these views aired in
Parliament over these last two days...

Some are convinced, passionately so, that homosexuality is an
abomination, to quote Prof Thio Li-Ann's words yesterday. Others,
probably many more, are uncomfortable with homosexuals, more so with
public display of homosexual behaviour. Yet others are more tolerant
and accepting.

There's a range of views.There's also a range of degrees to which
people are seized with this issue. Many people are not that seized
with this issue. And speaking candidly, I think the people who are
very seized with this issue are a minority. And (for) the majority of
Singaporeans, well, it is something which they are aware of, but it's
not at the top of their consciousness - including I would say, among
them, a significant number of gays themselves.

Also I would say amongst the Chinese-speaking community in Singapore.
Chinese-speaking Singaporeans, they are not as strongly engaged either
for removing 377A or against removing 377A. Their attitude is live and
let live.

And so even in this debate, these two days, you will have noticed
there have been very few speeches made in Parliament in Mandarin on
this subject. I know Mr Baey Yam Keng made one this afternoon, but Mr
Low Thia Khiang did not. And it reflects the focus of the
Chinese-speaking ground and their mindsets. So for the majority of
Singaporeans, the attitude is a pragmatic one - we live and let live.

The current legal position in Singapore reflects these social norms
and attitudes, as Miss Indranee Rajah and Mr Hri Kumar explained
yesterday.

It is not legally neat and tidy. Mr Hri Kumar gave a very professional
explanation of how untidy it is. But it is a practical arrangement
that has evolved out of our historical circumstances.We are not
starting from a blank slate, trying to design an ideal arrangement.
Neither are we proposing new laws against homosexuality.

We have what we have inherited and what we have adapted to our
circumstances. And as Mr Hri Kumar pointed out, we inherited Section
377A from the British - imported from the English Victorian law, from
the period of Queen Victoria in the 19th century, via the Indian Penal
Code, via by the Straits Settlement Penal Code into Spore law.

Asian societies don't have such laws: not in Japan, not in China, not
in Taiwan.

But it's part of our landscape. We have retained it over the years. So
the question is, what do we want to do about it now? Do we want to do
anything about it now?

If we retain it, we are not enforcing it proactively. Nobody has
argued for it to be enforced very vigorously in this House.

If we abolish it, we may be sending the wrong signal that our stance
has changed and the rules have shifted.

But because of the Penal Code amendments, Section 337A has become a
symbolic issue - the point for both opponents and proponents to tussle
around.

The gay activists want it removed. Those who are against gay values
and lifestyle argue strongly to retain it. And both sides have
mobilised to campaign for their causes.

There was a petition to remove Section 377A. It accumulated a couple
of thousand signatures and was presented in this House. Therefore
there was a counter-petition to retain it which collected 15,000
signatures, at least according to the newspapers I haven't counted the
signatures - 16,000, 15560 signatures. Probably gone up since last we
started speaking.

Also with an open letter to me. And the ministers and I, we have
received many e-mails and letters on this subject. And I have received
e-mails too in my mailbox. Very well written, all following a certain
model answer style. So it's a very well organised campaign.

And not only writing letters but people, constituents have visited MPs
at Meet-the-People Sessions to see the MP, not because there's
anything they want done, but to congratulate the MP on what a good
Government this is that we are keeping Section 377A, and 'please stay
a good Government and please don't change it'.

So I don't doubt the depth of the sentiments and the breadth of the
support. But it's also a very well organised pressure campaign.

But I'm not surprised that this issue is still contentious because
even in the West, even when they have liberalised, homosexuality still
remains a very contentious issue.

They decriminalised homosexual acts decades ago, in the 1960s, '70s.
And they have gone a long way towards accepting gays in society. They
not only have gays in prominent places - if you want to have a
complete Cabinet or a complete line-up when you go for elections, you
must have some on your list so that you're seen to have been
inclusive. Certainly so in Europe. Also true in America.

But still, the issue is bitterly disputed. So in America, there are
fierce debates over gay rights and same-sex marriages. And the
conservatives in America are pushing back. President George Bush has
been calling for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a
union between a man and a woman, and not between a man and a man or a
woman and a woman. This is in America.

So the issue is still joint.

Even within the churches, it's a hot subject. The Anglican Church,
Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, he had
liberal views on gay issues. He became the Archbishop. He's moderated
his views because he has to reflect the church as a whole.

And even within the church - the church in England, the church in
America - have a very serious disagreement with the Anglican churches
in Asia and in Africa, who almost split away on this issue of
ordination of gay people as bishops.

And they've patched up and compromised recently in America. And the
Archbishop of Canterbury, who's head of the church, had to plead with
the community to come to some understanding so that they maintain the
Anglican communion.

So this is not an issue where we can reach happy consensus.

And abolishing Section 377A, were we to do this, is not going to end
the argument in Singapore.

Among the conservative Singaporeans, the deep concerns over the moral
values of society will remain.

And among the gay rights activists, abolition isn't going to give them
what they want because what they want is not just to be free from
Section 377A, but more space and full acceptance by other
Singaporeans. And they said so.

So supposing we move on 377A, I think the gay activists will push for
more, following the examples of other avant garde countries in

Europe and America - to change what is taught in the schools, to
advocate same-sex marriages and parenting, to ask for 'exactly the
same rights as a straight man or woman'. This is quoting from the open
letter which the petitioners wrote to me.

And when it comes to these issues, the majority of Singaporeans will
strenuously oppose these follow-up moves by the gay campaigners. And
many who are not anti-gay will be against this agenda. And I think for
good reason.

Therefore, we've decided to keep the status quo on Section 377A. It's
better to accept the legal untidiness and the ambiguity. It works,
don't disturb it.

Mr Stuart Koe, who is one of the petitioners, was interviewed
yesterday and he said he wanted the Government to remove the ambiguity
and clarify matters.

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

First of all, I don't think it's like that. Secondly, I don't think
it's wise to try to force the issue. If you try and force the issue
and settle the matter definitively one way or the other, we are never
going to reach an agreement within Singapore society.

People on both sides hold strong views. People who are presently
willing to live and let live will get polarised and no views will
change because many of the people who oppose it do so on very deeply
held religious convictions, particularly the Christians and the
Muslims; and those who propose it on the other side, they also want
this as a matter of deeply felt fundamental principle.

So discussion and debate is not going to bring them closer together.
And instead of forging a consensus, we will divide and polarise our
society.

I should therefore say that as a matter of reality, that the more gay
activists push this agenda, the stronger will be the push-back from
conservative forces in our society, as we are beginning to see already
in this debate and over the last few weeks and months. And the result
will be counter-productive because it's going to lead to less space
for the gay community in Singapore. So it's better to let the
situation evolve gradually.

We are a completely open society. Members have talked about it, the
Internet, travel, full exposure. We cannot be impervious to what's
happening elsewhere. As attitudes around the world change, this will
influence the attitudes of Singaporeans.

As events, developments around the world happen, we must watch
carefully and decide what we do about it.

When it comes to issues like the economy, technology, education, we'd
better stay ahead of the game... moving and adapt faster than others;
ahead of the curve, leading the pack.

And when necessary in such issues, we will move even if the issue is
unpopular or controversial. So we are moving on CPF changes; we are
moving on so many economic restructuring changes, we move on
integrated resorts. It's a difficult subject. Not everybody supports
the Government, but we decide this is right, we move.

On moral values, on issues of moral values, with consequences to the
wider society, first we should also decide what is right for ourselves.

But secondly, before we are carried away by what other societies do. I
think it's wiser for us to observe the impact of radical departures
from traditional norms on early movers. These are changes which have
very long lead times before the impact works through, before you see
whether it's wise, unwise, is this positive? Does it help you to adapt
better? Does it lead to a more successful, happier, more harmonious
society? So we will let others take the lead. We will stay one step
behind the frontline of change; watch how things work out elsewhere
before we make any irrevocable moves.

We were right to uphold the family unit when Western countries went
for experimental lifestyles in the 1960s - the hippies, free love, all
the rage. We tried to keep it out. It was easier then. All you had was
LPs and 45 RPM records, not this Cable Vision and the Internet and
travel today.

But I'm glad we did that because today, if you look at Western Europe,
where marriage as an institution is dead, families have broken down,
the majority of children are born out of wedlock and live in families
where the father and the mother are not the husband and wife living
together, bringing them up. And we've kept the way we are. I think
that has been right.

I think we have also been right to adapt, to accommodate homosexuals
in our society, but not to allow or encourage activists to champion
gay rights (as) they do in the West.

So I suggest, Mr Speaker, and I suggest to the Members of the House,
we keep this balance, leave Section 377A alone. I think there is space
in Singapore and room for us to live harmoniously and practically all
as Singapore citizens together.'

ST: Decriminalising Gay Sex (Oct 23)

Oct 23, 2007
DECRIMINALISING GAY SEX

Take views of majority into account, say four MPs
Most S'poreans do not condone homosexual acts, so Section 377A should
be retained

By Keith Lin

FOUR MPs of the People's Action Party yesterday spoke out against
repealing a law that makes gay sex a crime.

Their main point is that the majority of Singaporeans do not condone
homosexual acts.

MPs like Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC) also argued
that scientific studies that tried to prove a genetic basis for
homosexuality are now called in question.

He also warned that repealing the law will have damaging implications
on society.

'How will we cope in Singapore where traditional definitions of
'family and marriage' have been the bedrock of HDB policies?' he asked.

The PAP MPs were attacking a citizens' petition read in Parliament by
Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong.

The petition called on the Government to repeal Section 377A, which
makes it a crime for men to have sex with each other, whether in
public or private.

In opposing it, Mr de Souza said such a move will be seen as an
endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle.

'As a result, homosexual lifestyles no longer remain private, but
travel into spheres traditionally reserved for heterosexual couples.'

This, he warned, will have far-reaching consequences, such as rocking
the institution of marriage and paving the way for same-sex couples to
adopt children.

'Do we want our family-centric culture and the traditional definition
of 'family' to be threatened?' he said.

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar GRC) noted that most Singaporeans
still view homosexual acts as wrong.

She noted that Mr Siew had made the point that such acts as slavery
and discrimination against racial and religious minorities are often
legitimised by prevailing notions of public morality.

This, said Ms Indranee, 'exactly proves the point' that societies
evolve with time.

For instance, racial and religious discrimination are regarded as
wrong in Singapore. But there are societies that continue to view them
as correct practices.

'The point is, what does our society want for itself? In this case,
the public reaction has shown that the majority of Singaporeans do not
agree with or accept homosexual behaviour.'

For every person who had supported the petition, there were many
others who had thanked her and other MPs for keeping the law intact,
she said. Hence, laws in a secular state like Singapore have to
reflect the majority's view, she added.

Expressing similar views, Mr Alvin Yeo (Hong Kah GRC) pointed to a
recent Straits Times report on a Nanyang Technological University
survey. It shows seven in 10 people here frown on homosexuality.

'The law stands not just as a boundary line of what conduct will or
will not be prosecuted, but as a moral compass of what we stand for,'
he said.

'It is a benchmark of our values and our beliefs, not just a reference
book to determine when we can sue and when we can be sued.'

To Mr Siew's point that repealing Section 377A is a sign of equality,
Mr Yeo argued that equality 'cannot be looked at in vacuum'.

One's rights must be measured against the values and beliefs held in
society, he said.

Mr Yeo urged gay lobbyists to be patient and give the issue more time,
instead of letting it divide society.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah GRC), who spoke in Malay and English, warned
against allowing the debate on Section 377A to overshadow the 360
offences covered by the Penal Code review.

He urged MPs to spend more time examining other issues related to the
Code's review, so that most Singaporeans may stand to benefit from the
entire package of proposals.

klin@sph.com.sg

ST: Mr Siew Kum Hong (Oct 23)

Oct 23, 2007
Mr Siew Kum Hong

Two Nominated MPs gave impassioned speeches yesterday, arguing from
opposite corners. Mr Siew Kum Hong called for Section 377A to be
removed. Gay sex, he argued, does not cause any harm and hence has no
purpose in the Penal Code.

He also challenged the use of the law as a moral signpost, pointing to other
morally deplorable acts that are not criminalised. Earlier, he had submitted
a parliamentary petition for a group campaigning for the repeal. Rising to
press the counter-argument, Professor Thio Li-Ann accused the pro-repeal
camp of hijacking the human rights argument to make its case. She warned
that it is the first step in a radical political agenda to subvert social morality
and the common good. Excerpts from the two speeches: 'Private, consensual
sexual acts between adult males do not impact on the safety and security
of society.

Furthermore, it is accepted that the criminal law addresses activities
that harm others, but the Government seems to accept that 377A does
not cause harm. So how can 377A possibly be linked to a legitimate
purpose of the Penal Code? The answer is that it does not and it cannot.

And the Government has effectively admitted this. It does not seek to
justify the retention of 377A on grounds of societal safety and
security, or of harm to others from the conduct contemplated by 377A.

Instead, its reasons for retaining 377A are that the majority of
Singaporeans disapprove of homosexuality, and so 377A should be
retained to reflect, or 'signpost', this majority view of
Singaporeans. But reflecting the morality of the majority is not a
stated aim of the Penal Code...

The amendment of Section 377 permits heterosexual adults to engage in
private, consensual oral and anal sex. By definition, then, we are
saying there is no harm arising from such private and consensual acts
between heterosexual adults.

Why should it be any different when those acts are performed between
adult men?

It is not harm that results from such acts being performed between
adult men, but the moral disgust the majority says it feels.

The 'signposting' argument is fundamentally flawed. It is couched in
the language of 'the majority'. But let us not forget another phrase
involving the majority: the tyranny of the majority.

Even if we accept the 'signposting' argument, the amendment Bill seems
to reflect public morality in a selective and discriminatory manner.
It is surely undisputed that society views extramarital sex as
immoral. And surely, most Singaporeans disapprove of prostitution, and
all types of discrimination, such as age, racial and gender
discrimination. But we have not criminalised any of these.

And taking the 'signposting' argument to its logical conclusion, if we
repeal Section 498, are we then telling the world that seducing a
married woman, and hence adultery, are acceptable activities? By
lifting the marital rape defence in limited circumstances, are we
endorsing marital rape in the other circumstances?

'Signposting' is all or nothing. We cannot 'signpost' selectively; it
does not work that way.

Some have said that Singapore is not ready, that this is not the right
time to repeal 377A, that the petitioners should not have petitioned
Parliament and I should not have agreed to present the petition.

I disagree. I say there is no wrong time to do the right thing.'

ST: Petition to repeal gay sex law sparks heated debate (Oct 23)

Oct 23, 2007 Petition to repeal gay sex law sparks heated debate NMP's stand that Section 377A is discriminatory elicits rebuttals from MPs By Peh Shing Huei PARLIAMENT yesterday felt the intensity of public sentiments over gay sex when it sat to discuss changes to the Penal Code. Senior Minister of State for Law Ho Peng Kee announced wide-ranging amendments, including tougher laws against paedophilia and racial and religious slurs. But the House's attention turned very quickly to Section 377A. This section deems sex between men a crime. The Government has decided to retain it, even as it removes Section 377, the law banning oral and anal sex between men and women. At the start of the sitting, Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong presented a citizens' petition to repeal Section 377A. Said the lawyer in an impassioned speech: 'Why should it be any different when those acts are performed between adult men? What is the differential factor that leads to harm? There is none. There is no harm that would be recognised by the criminal law. But other parliamentarians of all persuasions - from the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) to the opposition Workers' Party (WP) and a fellow NMP - disagreed, with varying degrees of forcefulness. Five PAP backbenchers, four of them lawyers, supported the retention of the law on grounds that society was not ready for a change. Said Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar GRC): 'I can tell you that for every one of those (people who signed the petition), there was someone who e-mailed us as Members of Parliament to say, 'Do not repeal. Keep it. We thank the MPs, we thank the Government for keeping this law'.' Taking up the point on the wishes of the majority, Mr Alvin Yeo (Hong Kah GRC) said that the laws must reflect their position, as he cited a recent survey which showed that seven in 10 Singaporeans frowned on homosexuality. Both he and Ms Rajah also argued that the petition's call for equality had to be put in context. It did not mean that homosexuals would be discriminated against before the law, but just that this particular law was as a result of society's choices. Said Ms Rajah: 'I don't think we want to have a situation where we demonise homosexuals. We certainly do not want to regard them as anything less than Singaporeans. 'But the point is, what does our society want for itself?...Once you have different groups that live in a society, you have to accept that there will be some restrictions on behaviour.' While agreeing that a majority want the law to stay, Mr Hri Kumar (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) took issue over the lack of clarity and inconsistency of Section 377A. Even though gay sex was banned, he noted the Government's position that it would not actively enforce the law and that it allowed gays in the civil service. He asked: 'So what is the message we are sending? Are we for or against it?' WP chairman Sylvia Lim said that her party could not reach a consensus after lengthy discussions, and thus opted for the status quo. Amid the nays to the repeal, a visibly distraught NMP Thio Li-Ann got many thumping their seats as she launched a fiery rebuttal of the pro-repeal arguments. Warning the House that the repeal call was the typical first step to other demands such as for same sex marriage, the law professor said that the law should remain as homosexuality is immoral. Making her disdain plain, she described homosexuality as a 'gender identity disorder' and anal sex as akin to 'shoving a straw up your nose to drink'. While Mr Siew argued that the repeal was about 'fairness, justice and non-discrimination', Professor Thio argued that Section 377A did not breach the constitutional guarantee of equality for citizens. 'While all human persons are of equal worth, not all human behaviour is equally worthy... In criminalising acts, we consider the wrongfulness of the act, the harm caused and how it affects the good of society,' she said. The debate continues today. shpeh@sph.com.sg

365Gay.com: Singapore Law Maintaining Anti-Gay Provision Passes (Oct 23)

(Singapore) Singapore's Parliament on Tuesday passed a sweeping revision of its penal law, eliminating sodomy as a crime for heterosexual couples but leaving in place provisions that could send gays to jail.

It was the first revision of the city state's penal code in 22-years and LGBT activists mounted an intensive campaign to have sodomy laws, dating back to British rule, repealed.

During debate on the bill Monday a member of Parliament introduced a petition signed by 2,341 people calling for repeal of the law. (story)

The names were gathered online in just three days Siew Kum Hong told Parliament.

"In times past and in other countries, public morality has been used to justify slavery, discrimination against racial and religious minorities and discrimination against women," Siew said.

"Let us not perpetuate or repeat the mistakes of others in the past."

Under the law anyone engaging in same-sex sodomy could face two years in prison, although police say no one has been charged in recent times.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called for retention of the law saying that if it were abolished it could "send the wrong signal" and encourage LGBT activists to ask for more concessions, such as same-sex marriage and parenting.

Lee told Parliament just prior to the vote that gays "are free to lead their lives and pursue their social activities."

Lee's position puts him at odds with his own father. In April, Lee Kuan Yew, the former prime minister and the man regarded as the father of modern Singapore, called for the decriminalization of gay sex laws. (story)

But other amendments to the penal code would tend to dispel the younger Lee's assertion that gays are able to "lead their own lives."

Among the changes is a broadening of laws against "unlawful assembly." The provision also has raised concerns among gay activists.

In August Singapore banned gay events held in public parks. The move came as gays were attempting to celebrate LGBT pride. (story)

Police lifted a permit to hold a picnic and fun run at a park saying politics were not welcome in green spaces.

Censors refused to allow an LGBT book reading event that was to have been part of the pride celebration. A human rights forum was blocked. And a photography exhibit of of gays and lesbians was closed by police hours before it was to officially open.

The Media Development Authority balked at a book by author Ng Yi-Sheng about a young man's fictional sexual adventures with older men including military officers and government officials. (story)

The authority said that the book went beyond good taste and decency and disparaged public officers.

The human rights forum was to have featured Douglas Sanders, a professor emeritus in law at the University of British Columbia, Canada, and Thailand's Chulalongkorn University.

The forum, titled "Sexual Orientation in International Law: The Case of Asia," was deemed contrary to public interest.

The censorship board ordered the photo exhibition closed because it showed photos of gay men and women kissing. (story)

The board said that the show violated Singapore law because it promoted "a homosexual lifestyle".

Pinknews.org.uk: Singapore rejects decriminalisation of gay sex (Oct 23)

23rd October 2007 17:10
PinkNews.co.uk writer

Gay people have a place in Singaporean society but they cannot be part of the "mainstream way of life," a senior government minister told the country's Parliament yesterday.

Ho Peng Kee, a Law and Home Affairs minister, was responding to a motion tabled by MP Siew Kum Hong calling for the repeal of laws that make gay sex a crime.

Last week Mr Siew told The New Paper that the issue was larger than gay rights.

"I truly do believe that Section 377A (gross indecency) is unfair, unjust, and plain wrong," he said.

"It is contrary to principles of equality and non-discrimination, and it seeks to use the criminal law to enforce a specific moral view which is contrary to accepted fundamental precepts of criminal law."

A bill before the Singaporean parliament will legalise oral and anal sex in private between consenting straight adults in the first changes to the penal codes in more than two decades.

The new legislation will also create new offences relating to sex tourism and child prostitution.

However, Mr Ho said yesterday that the ban on "gross indecency" will remain in place and male homosexuals still face up to two years in prison for gay sex.

"Repealing section 377A will be contentious and may send a wrong signal that the government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life," he said, according to AFP.

He added that the push for decriminalisation of homosexual acts in the city state of nearly five million people had been contentious and that the majority find them "offensive and distasteful."

Thousands of Singaporeans have signed an online petition calling for the government to decriminalise and local celebrities created a YouTube "propaganda rap" to get voters to get involved to help repeal 377A.

Last week group calling itself "The Majority" set up a website asking the government of Singapore to "do what is right and retain Section 377A for the future of our children and our nation."

The authorities have not brought anyone up on charges of gross indecency for several years and the country has an active gay scene.

During the summer a gay poetry reading during Pride celebrations was banned as was a picnic and fun run from the Singapore Botanic Gardens.

The authorities also banned an exhibition of 80 shots of fully clothed, same-sex couples which they said "promote a homosexual lifestyle."

Singaporean authorities have previously banned gay films and public displays of homosexuality.

In July veteran actor Sir Ian McKellen urged the country's government to ditch the colonial-era laws on gay sex while touring the country with the Royal Shakespeare Company.

In a promotional interview with a local radio station, he said:

"Just treat us with respect like we treat everybody else and the world will be a better place, I think.

"Coming to Singapore where unfortunately you've still got those dreadful laws that we British left behind... it's about time Singapore grew up, I think, and realised that gay people are here to stay."

From the Gallery: When the Govt chooses to follow, not lead (Oct 23)

Oct 23, 2007
FROM THE GALLERY
When the Govt chooses to follow, not lead
By Chua Mui Hoong

The clock ticked past 7pm, but MPs sat, riveted, eyes intent on the Speaker.

And when Nominated MP Thio Li-ann concluded her fiery oratory against the 'radical political agenda' of gay rights activists, many Members of the House thumped their seats in approval.

Yesterday's parliamentary sitting was unusual for the amount of interest generated. In the public gallery sat academics, law students and gay activists.

In the House, which tends to thin after 5pm, many MPs remained, including Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who listened soberly and attentively to all, but did not join in the thumping of chairs after Dr Thio's speech.

The hot topic yesterday was gay sex, arising from a petition filed by NMP Siew Kum Hong on behalf of a group of activists to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes it a crime for men to have sex with men.

It was the most passionate Parliament session since the casino debate in 2005, and striking for the eloquence and quality of arguments on both sides.

On one side was Mr Siew, who used up the full 30 minutes allotted to him with a moving appeal for equal treatment under the law.

Allowing anal and oral sex between a man and woman, but criminalising them between men, discriminates against gay men and is unconstitutional, argued the lawyer.

Presenting a diametrically opposite view was Dr Thio, an academic specialising in constitutional law.

She also used up the full 30 minutes allotted to her, to argue why Section 377A had to remain on the books, to protect society from the moral ills of homosexuality.

As for the equality argument, she countered that all people are equal before the law, but the state has every constitutional right to differentiate and prohibit some behaviours.

NMPs freed from any party discipline could argue their personal point of view with conviction.

In contrast, Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim adopted a moderate stance, saying the party had not developed a consensus on the issue and 'as such, we will not be calling for its abolition'.

The People's Action Party MPs who spoke essentially defended the status quo of keeping the law on the books to signal society's disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle, while not enforcing it
actively so as not to oppress gays.

Ms Indranee Rajah said this was simply a practical approach, Mr Alvin Yeo said MPs had to represent the views of the silent majority.

Mr Hri Kumar presented a nuanced view, arguing that Section 377A was riddled with inconsistencies.

The debate was thus noteworthy for having had six lawyer MPs from different political persuasions and personal convictions argue passionately and cogently for two opposite points of view - proof, if proof were needed, of just how contentious the gay sex issue, and indeed any issue of values, can be.

What's the state to do, faced with heated points of view from both camps?

The answer is straightforward: weigh the costs and benefits.

In this calculus, the political cost of removing a law has to be balanced against the possible benefit of scrapping it.

Scrapping the law may cheer gay activists and their supporters. But it will annoy many more, including well-organised religious groups.

Keeping the law may thus appear to be a less costly option - although Mr Siew tried to argue that it exacts a cost to Singapore, in terms of a brain drain of gay people, and in the suffering of those so criminalised and stigmatised. By keeping the law, the Government is taking sides in the debate - a point made by Mr Siew, who urged it to 'lead, not follow' public opinion on this issue.

After all, majority opinion alone cannot be the basis on which to make policy or laws.

In Singapore, majority opinion is no bar to change.

The PAP Government has not shied away from leading opinion on public sector pay, or casinos, or immigration policy. Indeed, it prides itself on changing mindsets to get Singaporeans to accept unpopular measures.

But the Government is choosing to follow, not lead opinion on the gay issue - which, given the intensity of feeling and clout of the social conservatives, is perfectly understandable from a political point of view.

What's next on this issue?

Yesterday's sitting advances the debate somewhat, drawing out honest, even visceral, points of view from opposing camps.

Some Singaporeans are uncomfortable with the high-profile petition, warning of a backlash. Mr Yeo for one urged activists to be more patient and not let the issue divide society.

Pro-gay lobbyists may want to learn from another amendment to the Penal Code passed yesterday.

This criminalises sex with minors overseas. As recently as May 2005, when MPs pressed for such a law, the Home Affairs Ministry stressed how hard it would be to enforce, pronouncements that were viewed then as ruling out a change for some time.

As NMP Eunice Olsen alluded, the change now may or may not have been motivated by a desire to get Singapore a better rating in the next United States Department of State's Trafficking in Persons Report.

Singapore was downgraded to a Tier 2 country this year, partly because it did not criminalise citizens' sex exploits with children overseas.

This being a pragmatic government, arguments that hold most sway will be those that can point to clear benefits from a change.

This Government is unlikely to act ahead of public opinion on the gay issue, unless there are strong economic imperatives to do so. If it hinders the Republic's ability to attract talent for example, there may be a rethink.

Until then, despite this stirring debate, the issue is likely to return to the back burner.

muihoong@sph.com.sg

AFP: Government does not endorse gay lifestyle: Singapore minister

SINGAPORE (AFP) — Singapore's government does not want to endorse a homosexual lifestyle, a senior cabinet minister said Monday, as parliament debated a rare petition to repeal a law that criminalises gay sex.

A member of parliament filed the petition to repeal the relevant part of the Penal Code on the grounds that it is discriminatory and violates constitutional safeguards on equal rights.

It was the first time in more than two decades that parliament had heard a petition, local radio reported, and coincided with debate on the most extensive amendments to the city-state's Penal Code in 22 years.

The MP, Siew Kum Hong, who is not gay, said the government's proposed changes would allow anal and oral sex between two consenting heterosexual adults.

However refusing to decriminalise the same acts between homosexual and bisexual men is discrimination, said Siew, who filed the petition after an online campaign to repeal the section.

Arguing for the section to be retained, Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, Ho Peng Kee, said Singapore remains a largely conservative society.

"While homosexuals have a place in society... repealing section 377A will be contentious and may send a wrong signal that the government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life," Ho said.

Public feedback on the issue had been "emotional, divided and strongly expressed," he said, but most people wanted to retain the section.

"The majority find homosexual behaviour offensive and unacceptable," Ho added," noting that police nevertheless have been lenient in implementing the law.

However, Siew said private, consensual sexual acts between adult males would "not impact on the safety and security of society."

"Now is the time, not to do the pragmatic or easy thing, but to do the right thing," he said.

Stuart Koe, chief executive of the Asian gay portal, Fridae.com, and one of the people behind the petition, said that for gays in Singapore, Section 377A has been like "a gun pointed to their heads."

Singapore celebrities joined the campaign to repeal the anti-gay sex section by appearing in a rap video posted on the YouTube website.

CNA: Special Report: Singapore Parliament

Singapore will not abolish Section 377A of the Penal Code, this was the stand taken in Parliament. The new Penal Code was passed by the House with only NMP Siew Kum Hong recording his dissent. The NMP had petitioned the House on Monday, to repeal the Section on homosexual relationships.

The House also passed on Tuesday 23 October, the Education Endowment Scheme and the Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings)Bill.

Five bills were also introduced in the House, including the Income Tax and CPF Amendment 2 Bills.

Speech on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill - Siew Kum Hong (Oct 22)

Speech on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill:

22 October 2007

By now, my views on this issue have been widely-reported. In
particular, a New Paper report last week had carried an interview with
extensive quotes from me (it felt really weird buying a newspaper with
my face on the cover -- so much so I gave it to the cashier with the
back cover facing up!).

So I'm not going to write much commentary around this speech, other
than to highlight that apart from Section 377A, I very strongly
disagreed with other parts of the bill. The speech below is based on
the prepared text and has been (mostly) checked against delivery. I
ran out of time, but the part that I skipped basically contained some
of the more offensive quotes from http://www.keep377a.com/, which I
will not post here.

I will (hopefully later this week) write another post to respond to
all the comments posted on this blog, which I have refrained from
replying to earlier.

Oh, and the video of my speech will be available on the CNA website
for a week.

Speech on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill

1. Mr Speaker Sir, I rise to speak on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill,
and on the petition I had presented to Parliament earlier. I will
first speak on two aspects of the amendment bill not related to
Section 377A, and then on Section 377A and the petition.

2. The Penal Code is one of the most important statutes that we have,
because the criminal law touches so many people so intimately. This
bill represents the first review of the Penal Code in 22 years. It
seeks to do a lot, and yet it leaves so much undone.

3. The bill introduces some positive changes. For instance, there is a
new offence of sexual grooming. Going by the experience in the UK,
this could well become an important weapon in the arsenal against
sexual predators, especially those on the Internet.

4. Another important change is the criminalization of child sex
tourism, extending to acts performed overseas. Notwithstanding
potential issues of enforcement, this will help greatly in closing the
door on Singaporeans engaging in such despicable practices.

5. But Sir, some aspects of the amendment bill are not so positive. I
will focus on three in my speech.

General increase in maximum imprisonment sentences

6. Firstly, clause 105 of the amendment bill increases the maximum
sentences for a number of offences. I echo Ms Sylvia Lim's comments on
this increase, and would add to them.

7. Sir, depriving a person of his or her liberty is a very serious
matter. We should not be so hasty in increasing the maximum sentences
for so many offences. The general increase in maximum fines is clearly
justifiable, even necessary, given that they were last reviewed in 1952.

8. But while money loses its value due to inflation, there is no
equivalent concept when it comes to imprisonment. The intrinsic value
of a person's liberty does not diminish over time. If anything, with a
higher standard of living and greater economic opportunities today,
the opportunity cost of a day in jail is arguably a lot higher now
than in the past.

9. In addition, an excessive maximum sentence could well be oppressive
towards accused persons in the manner described by Ms Sylvia Lim. This
insidious effect is undesirable, unfair and detrimental to the balance
of the criminal justice system.

10. MHA should therefore provide adequate justification for each
increase in maximum sentence. In its public consultation paper last
year, MHA stated that it has "avoided increasing imprisonment terms
unnecessarily". It should disclose the different factors considered
for each maximum sentence increased, and why it had concluded that the
existing maximum sentence was inadequate. It has not done so.

11. To my mind, it is dangerous to increase the maximum sentences of
so many offences, without proper justification. It seems to pay
insufficient respect to the fundamental importance of a person's
liberty. In the absence of such justifications, I have no choice but
to disagree with this aspect of the amendment bill.

Marital immunity

12. I now turn to the issue of marital rape.

13. The Penal Code has historically provided an absolute defence of
marital immunity. A husband is legally incapable of raping his wife.
In other words, regardless of whether or not she consents to sex,
regardless of whether or not he forces himself upon her, it is simply
impossible in law for a husband to rape his wife.

14. The amendment bill proposes to take a "calibrated approach" in
limiting this defence. Marital immunity will now not apply where
divorce or separation proceedings have been commenced or completed, or
where the wife has applied for or obtained an injunction or protection
order against the husband.

15. MHA's stand is that total abolition of marital immunity would be
"too radical" and would change "the whole complexion of marriage in
our society", citing "a need to strike a balance between the needs of
women who require protection and the general concerns about conjugal
rights and the expression of intimacy in a marriage."

16. Sir, I was flabbergasted when I read that. Perhaps it is because I
am young and unmarried, and hold a romantic view of marriage,
untarnished by its reality. But surely that is the conception that we
should still uphold. The proposed change still sends the message that
in most circumstances, a husband cannot be considered to have raped
his wife even if he knew that she did not consent. Under this change,
the critical issue for rape in a marriage is not consent, but whether
the wife has taken certain legal steps.

17. MHA talks about "conjugal rights", suggesting that a husband has
some sort of right to sex from his wife. This seems to be derived from
the archaic view that a wife, by marrying the husband, has irrevocably
consented to sex with her husband. It is linked to the view that a
wife is some sort of property of the husband.

18. Sir, such a view has no place in a modern society, not even in a
limited form. A man does not have the right to demand sex from his
wife at any time. Sex without consent is rape, whether it takes place
within or outside a marriage.

19. To me, it is simple: no means no, and rape is rape. Rape within a
marriage is the same as rape outside marriage. In a modern society,
marriage is a partnership of equals. We are a modern society. So why
are we still retaining this defence, even in a limited form? I cannot
fathom that.

20. MHA also cites "the expression of intimacy in a marriage". Sir, if
sex without consent is seen as being a permissible expression of
intimacy in a marriage, then I fear for marriages and married people
in Singapore. What sort of conception of marriage do we have, if the
law recognizes sex without consent as being legitimate? That cannot be
right.

21. I can do no better than to quote the response of the Association
of Wwomen for Action and Research to last year's public consultation
paper:

"Rape is not sex, it is violence. No wife who has been raped
considers the act to be merely sex. It is a form of violence, aimed at
violating the victim in one of the most humiliating manners. … To
equate sex with rape is to equate a caress with a beating.

[…]

Throughout the eighties and beyond, girls were continually warned
in schools to be alert for sexual predators, and given the message
that rape was the worst possible violation against a woman. It is
truly ironic that these same girls, now adult women, are told that
they have to subject themselves to this most humiliating of assaults
by none other than their husbands."

22. The amendment bill effectively penalizes the most vulnerable of
wives: those who have no choice but to continue in a marriage, for
whatever reason. It says that if a woman has the wherewithal to leave,
then we will protect her from rape, but not if she is completely
dependent on her husband. That again cannot be right.

23. For all of these reasons, I disagree with the proposed change to
Section 375 of the Penal Code. Instead, I urge the Government to
repeal marital immunity in its entirety. That is what a modern society
needs, that is what fairness requires, and that is what justice demands.

Petition presented on 22 October 2007

24. Sir, I now turn to the petition I presented to this House earlier,
which argues that Section 377A would be unconstitutional upon the
repeal of Section 377. For ease of convenience, I will refer to
Section 377A as "377A", and Section 377 as "377".

25. The amendment bill amends 377 to legalise private, consensual anal
and oral sex between heterosexual adults. But 377A, which criminalizes
the same acts between men, is retained. This discriminates against
homosexual and bisexual men. The amendment of 377 without also
repealing 377A is therefore unconstitutional under Article 12(1) of
the Constitution, which provides that "All persons are equal before
the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law." That is
because it does not satisfy the legal requirements for derogating from
Article 12(1).

26. A valid derogation from Article 12(1) must satisfy the "rational
nexus" test, that is, it must be rationally connected to a legitimate
purpose of the statute in question. So we must first consider the
purposes of the Penal Code.

27. The preambles of both the Penal Code and the amendment bill are
silent on this. So let's turn to what MHA has said. Its public
consultation paper on the draft amendment bill dated 8 November 2006
stated that the review is intended to make the Penal Code "more
effective in maintaining a safe and secure society in today's
context". So, according to the Government, the objective of the Penal
Code is to maintain a safe and secure society.

28. But 377A criminalizes consensual sexual acts between men, even if
it takes place in the privacy of their own homes. How does the private
sexual conduct of consenting adults make Singapore unsafe or less secure?

29. Furthermore, criminal lawyers generally accept that the criminal
law should be concerned with two elements, and two elements only: harm
and culpability, of which only harm is relevant here.

30. Professor Michael Hor teaches criminal law at the NUS Law Faculty.
In a recent article, he explained that criminal activity must entail
harm to others that is recognizable and tangible. In other words, if
an act does not harm others, then it should not be a crime. This is
taught to first-year law students in their first few weeks, and indeed
I recall being taught this over ten years ago.

31. Professor Hor went on, and I quote:

"The government has been strangely silent about the harm that 377A
is intended to prevent. Indeed consistent statements over a number of
years from the highest officials of the land lead any reasonable
observer to think that the government no longer believes, if indeed it
did before, that the sort of activity contemplated by 377A is harmful
at all. If corroboration were required, it lies in the repeated
assurances of the government that 377A will not be enforced –
apparently because there is no harm to be prevented, no offender to be
rehabilitated, no potential offender to be deterred, and no victim to
be satisfied.

One might, of course, disagree with the government's position on
the harmfulness of 377A activity, but once that position is taken, how
can it be right for 377A activity to remain a crime?"

32. The Law Society, in its submission to MHA on the draft amendment
bill, similarly noted:

"… the criminal law's proper function is to protect others from
harm by punishing harmful conduct. Private consensual homosexual
conduct between adults does not cause harm recognizable by the
criminal law. Thus, regardless of one's personal view of the morality
or otherwise of such conduct, it should not be made a criminal offence."

33. Private, consensual sexual acts between adult males does not
impact on the safety and security of society. Furthermore, it is
accepted that the criminal law addresses activities that harm others,
but the Government seems to accept that 377A does not cause harm. So
how can 377A possibly be linked to a legitimate purpose of the Penal
Code? The answer is that it does not, and it cannot.

34. And the Government has effectively admitted this. It does not seek
to justify the retention of 377A on grounds of societal safety and
security, or of harm to others from the conduct contemplated by 377A.
Instead, its reasons for retaining 377A are that the majority of
Singaporeans disapprove of homosexuality, and so 377A should be
retained to reflect, or "sign-post", this majority view of
Singaporeans. But reflecting the morality of the majority is not a
stated aim of the Penal Code, nor is it an accepted objective of the
criminal law.

35. Clearly then, 377A has no rational connection with any legitimate
aim of the Penal Code. Its retention, which leads to different
treatments of men engaging in oral and anal sex, and of heterosexual
adults doing the same, without any legally acceptable justification,
must therefore be unconstitutional.

36. I would even argue that there can be no legitimate aim of the
Penal Code with which 377A can be rationally connected, so as to
justify its retention. The amendment of 377 permits heterosexual
adults to engage in private, consensual oral and anal sex. By
definition then, we are saying that there is no harm arising from such
private and consensual acts between heterosexual adults.

37. Why should it be any different when those acts are performed
between adult men? What is the differentiating factor that leads to
harm? There is none. There is no harm that would be recognised by the
criminal law.

38. It is not harm that results from such acts being performed between
adult men, but the moral disgust that the majority says it feels. But
there is a very good reason why the criminal law should not reflect
public morality. And that is because doing so can lead to the
discriminatory oppression of minorities.

39. In times past and in other countries, public morality and disgust
have been used to justify slavery; discrimination against racial and
religious minorities; and discrimination against women, including not
permitting them to work or to vote. All of these are now universally
recognised as being wrong and immoral. Let us not perpetuate or repeat
the mistakes of others in the past.

40. Sir, the "sign-posting" argument is fundamentally flawed. It is
couched in the language of "the majority". But let us not forget
another phrase involving the majority: the tyranny of the majority.
That is precisely why the constitutional guarantees of equality and
equal protection are entrenched as a fundamental liberty in Article 12(1).

41. Even if we accept the "sign-posting" argument, the amendment bill
seems to reflect public morality in a selective and discriminatory
manner. It is surely undisputed that society views extra-marital sex
as immoral. And surely, most Singaporeans disapprove of prostitution,
and all types of discrimination, such as age, racial and gender
discrimination. But we have not criminalized any of these.

42. Indeed, the amendment bill even repeals Section 498, which makes
it an offence for a man to entice, take away or detain a married woman
with the intent of having "illicit intercourse" with her. The reason
given is that it is an archaic offence which is no longer relevant in
today's context.

43. But public morality in today's society remains firmly opposed to
extra-marital sex. So why do we selectively reflect public morality
with respect to private, consensual acts between adult men, but not
public morality on adultery? Why are we not "sign-posting" society's
disapproval of adultery by retaining Section 498, without pro-actively
enforcing it?

44. The Senior Minister of State has argued that repealing Section 498
is not an endorsement of adultery or extra-marital sex. In the same
way, repealing 377A is also not an endorsement of homosexuality. Such
inconsistency is discriminatory.

45. And taking the "sign-posting" argument to its logical conclusion,
if we repeal Section 498, are we then telling the world that seducing
a married woman, hence leading to adultery, is acceptable? By lifting
the marital rape defence in limited circumstances, are we endorsing
marital rape in the other circumstances?

46. "Sign-posting" is all or nothing. We cannot "sign-post"
selectively, with some provisions reflecting public morality and
others not; it does not work that way. It is a fundamentally flawed
argument that does not stand up to logic or reason or the principles
of a democratic society, and so we should shy away from it.

47. Sir, Mr Cheng, a Singapore graduate student in the US, e-mailed
this to me:

"Retaining 377A on the basis that the 'conservative' majority is
uncomfortable with homosexuality sets a dangerous precedence [sic] for
our society.

It suggests that any majority group can now regulate the private
activities of a minority group because it is uncomfortable with it or
feels threatened by it.

Imagine what this means for the many majority-vs-minority
fault-lines within the Singapore society - Chinese vs others, citizens
vs non-citizens, heartlanders vs cosmopolitans, a majority religious
group vs a minority one.

Breeding the majority group's self-righteousness to demand
deference from the minorities will weaken the social cohesion of our
society based on mutual respect and tolerance.

The repeal of 377A will make a clear statement on how, in
Singapore, we will always have to find ways to live harmoniously with
people who are not like us."

48. Many people have described the repeal of 377A as a "slippery
slope". I think Mr Cheng has identified the true slippery slope that
we face today.

49. For all of these reasons, I believe the continued retention of
377A to be unconstitutional. I think the arguments in the petition are
valid and correct in law, and so I presented it to Parliament. I
humbly ask this House to consider these arguments, and acknowledge
their cogency in this debate.

Universality of non-discrimination argument

50. Sir, that was the petition. I will now speak on why I support the
repeal of 377A, quite apart from its unconstitutionality.

51. Contrary to how many have sought to frame the issue, the repeal of
377A is not a gay issue. It is not about gay rights. It is not just
for gays, or friends or relatives of gays.

52. No. It is about fairness, justice and non-discrimination. It is
about tolerance, understanding and inclusiveness. It is about
upholding the fundamental protections afforded by the Constitution,
the basic pillars underpinning our country. These are issues for all
Singaporeans.

53. The response to the petition bore this out. The signatories were a
broad and diverse group, showing that the issues cut across all lines
and resonate universally with people. Straight and gay, male and
female, young, middle-aged and old, civil servants, professionals and
students, religious and non-religious – they all signed the petition.
They all understood the guiding light of treating others as you want
them to treat you. They were united by the common belief that 377A is
unfair, unjust and wrong, and hence should be repealed.

54. And such lengths they went to, to convey the strength of their
belief. So many, including straight men, went out to collect
signatures on their own accord. They did this voluntarily, without
being asked. An 18-year-old student collected 70 signatures. Two
others collected 150 each.

55. Madam Tan, a 63-year-old mother of two heterosexual sons,
collected signatures from her peers. She took it upon herself to do
this. She believed that she needed to do it, "for a healthy attitude
towards life". She collected five signatures.

56. Apart from the petition, there was also an online open letter to
the Prime Minister calling for a repeal of 377A. This open letter,
which collected 8120 signatures, was handed to the Prime Minister's
Office earlier today. A Mr Goh signed it, and he articulated the
universality of the issue:

"I must admit that I am somewhat "homophopic", [sic] but I believe
that nobody should be discriminated against [for] his belief, or in
this case sexual inclination. If they make me uncomfortable, I just
don't mix in their social circle."

57. I do not know anything about Mr Goh, but I am humbled by his
principled stand against discrimination. It is the right and noble
path, standing fast to our principles even in the face of personal
dislikes. Surely we can all learn from him?

No pro-active enforcement of 377A

58. Sir, the Government has stated that it will not pro-actively
enforce 377A. This may be meant as a compromise, but it is
unsatisfactory and problematic. The Law Society pointed out that this
position was an admission that 377A is "out-of-step with the modern
world", adding that it risked "bringing the law into disrepute".

59. I also quote Professor Michael Hor:

"The moral force of the criminal law is blunted if there are
crimes which are, the government assures the public, never to be
enforced, and its "perpetrators" never brought to court and punished.

The criminal laws are the ground rules of our society and if it is
to be accorded the respect it deserves, it must be reserved for
conduct which the government considers to be clearly harmful to society."

60. The Senior Minister of State has noted that there have been
convictions under 377A, for cases involving abuse of young persons and
acts performed in public. And I absolutely agree that such instances
should remain cirminalised. But 377A as it is currently worded is not
limited to those situations, and covers private, consensual acts
between adults as well. If the Government intends to criminalise only
the abuse of young persons and public acts, then 377A should be
amended to do this. But it has not been amended.

61. Furthermore, not pro-actively enforcing 377A does not mean that
its retention is without cost. The Government says that it seeks to
reflect the moral values of the majority, but what about the human
cost to gay persons and their families? What about the cost to
Singapore from those who leave Singapore because of this law? What
price, this reflection and endorsement of public morality?

62. The majority of Singaporeans seems to speak as if the
non-enforcement of 377A means that everything is fine – but the
majority would say that. Because they are not the subjects of
discrimination, because they are not the minority who has to live
under the threat of 377A, a Sword of Damocles that could fall with a
change of policy by the government of the day.

63. Sir, let me share with this House, the pain voiced by some
signatories of the online open letter.

64. Madam Mak is a 69-year-old mother of a gay 40-something son. He
and his partner have lived with her for over 13 years. She called them
"the best things" that had happened to her, in her 69 years in
Singapore. She wrote:

"Please tell me, Mr. PM, why are you teaching me to be ashamed of
them? If this country doesn't want them, where can they go? Please
tell me."

65. Madam K, a civil servant, wrote:

"my son is gay. He came out to me when he was 22. And I was upset
and i blamed myself why is my son gay… i blamed myself all the time.
But he is my son. He has not changed since the first day i gave birth
to him or the person he is today. I love him for who he is, for what
he is. It sickens me that people think suggests that just because he
is gay, our family isnt what it is. We are a family. what people do in
their private lives shouldnt be an issue to anyone as long as it
doesnt harm anyone else. He doesnt know i am doing this but I support
this repeal. he is my son and he is not a criminal. if i can accept
him, his mother who gave birth to him, who these people who so quickly
judge him and condemn him?"

66. A doctor, who signed off only as "criminal doctor", wrote:

"I'm a doctor. People tell me that's a noble profession. My
parents are proud of me. My teachers are proud of me. … But I'm
ashamed of myself. Why so? Because I'm gay. … It doesn't matter how
many lives I save, it doesn't matter how much suffering I relieve, it
doesn't matter how much good I do, it doesn't change one shameful
fact. I'm a criminal doctor."

67. Sir, please bear with me as I quote one last person. Mr Choo
questioned the consequences of repealing 377A. He questioned whether,
if 377A was abolished, those who supported its retention would suffer.
He asked if they would be, and I quote:

"… "living in constant hardship, hysteria, agony and pain,
distress and shame, fear of marriage breakdown, upset with public
safety and order", simply due to the knowledge that someone else is
legally behaving in what they regard as "gross indecency" in some
other bedroom?"

68. Mr Choo went on:

"Let us be honest and look where the tears and the wounds really are.

Talk is cheap, anger is free, but pain is costly. And often such
truly divisive laws as s377A cost lives."

69. And then there are those who leave. If we truly believe that every
Singaporean counts, and surely we must when people are our only
natural resource, then have we counted the cost of all those who have
lost? I will cite only one example, to show how heavy the cost to
Singapore can be.

70. Mr Alex Liang e-mailed me a few months back. He is a former
Singaporean who renounced his citizenship and is now a UK citizen. By
all objective measures, Mr Liang is someone who would have served the
country very well.

71. We had invested heavily in him. He received a sports award for 3
years running, and was also a humanities scholar. He represented the
nation in gymnastics, receiving generous training allowances. He
speaks 8 languages, and had excellent academic results.

72. But the moment he completed National Service, he left for Europe
and he stayed there. He had long decided to leave Singapore, as he did
not see a viable future for himself in Singapore as a gay man.

73. Sir, I ask again: what price, this effort to "sign-post" the views
of the majority?

The majority view

74. Even if we want to signal the majority's disapproval of
homosexuality, we do not need to retain 377A. It can be done through
other means. Repealing 377A does not mean that society endorses or
approves of homosexuality.

75. Let us learn from the example of the Censorship Review Committee.
Its 2003 report noted the distinction between "allowing" and
"endorsing", stating that allowing certain content is quite different
from, and should not be misinterpreted as, an endorsement. The same
reasoning applies here.

76. In any event, this House should be leading and not following. We
should lead by example. We should be doing what is right, fair and
just, what is constitutional and keeping in spirit with Singapore's
cherished principles of equality and non-discrimination. We pride
ourselves on doing the unpopular but right thing, so why are we
abdicating our responsibilities now?

77. Sir, I get a little emotional when I hear the "sign-posting"
argument. That is because it claims to sign-post values held by this
House and by Singaporeans. It purports to proclaim the values that I,
as a Member of this House and as a Singaporean, believe in and want to
proclaim.

78. But what are these values? What is this majority view, what does
the majority whose values we want to "sign-post" think and say?

79. For that, I turned to the keep377a.com website. It was set up to
solicit signatures for an online open letter in support of 377A. Let
me just read some of the messages that have been posted on this website...

[Deputy Speaker interrupted to inform me that I had 3 minutes left]

Do the right thing

80. Yes, Sir. Instead of reading the comments, I will just talk about
what I feel this House should do.

81. I ask this House to "sign-post" the values of fairness, justice,
non-discrimination, openness and inclusiveness, which are values
fundamental to a secular democracy. I ask this House to endorse the
view that our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue
unconventional ideas, or simply be different, that ours must be an
open and inclusive Singapore, and that we should build a nation where
every citizen has a place, where all can live in dignity and harmony.
And if those words sound familiar, that is because those were the very
words of the Prime Minister in his swearing-in speech in August 2004.

82. These are the right things to do. Some have said that Singapore is
not ready, that this is not the right time to repeal 377A.

83. I disagree. I say that there is no wrong time to do the right
thing. Now is the time, not to do the pragmatic or practical thing,
but to do the right thing.

84. Now is the time, to turn our backs on prejudice, discrimination,
intolerance and hatred.

85. Now is the time, for this House, which represents all
Singaporeans, to lead by example.

86. Now is the time, to uphold the noble ideals of our founding
fathers, ideals upon which our country was founded and which hold our
society together. The ideals of a democratic society, based on justice
and equality. The ideal of all persons being equal before the law, and
all persons having the equal protection of the law.

87. Now is the time, to do the right thing and repeal 377A.

88. Sir, with that, and for all the reasons I have stated in my
speech, namely the increase of so many maximum sentences without
justification, the retention of the marital rape defence albeit in a
limited form, and the failure to repeal 377A, I oppose the Penal Code
(Amendment) Bill.