ST: Offensive online content: MDA investigates all feedback (March 1)

March 1, 2008
Offensive online content: MDA investigates all feedback
By Lynn Lee
NOMINATED MP Thio Li-ann yesterday asked what action the Government
would take against those who posted offensive content online, and
whether it monitored television programmes for objectionable content.

For instance, if laws were violated, would it help persons defamed
online to identify the relevant Internet service providers?

'Online defamation may be considered a private matter although the
Media Development Authority (MDA), as gatekeeper, may bear
complicity...owing a duty of care to protect individual reputation,'
she said.

Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts
Balaji Sadasivan assured her that the MDA would investigate all
feedback. Anyone could lodge complaints and on average, MDA receives
one to two a month.

It would have no qualms about using the law on those who made remarks
to incite racial and religious hatred.

But otherwise, it would continue to regulate Internet content with a
light touch, he said.

He added that libel and defamation lie outside the MDA's scope of
regulation, but online content is subject to existing laws, such as
the Penal Code.

As for TV content, Dr Thio cited a letter by Mr Bennie Cheok published
in the The Straits Times Online Forum. Mr Cheok had complained about
the screening of a programme during prime cartoon time on a Sunday,
that portrayed a gay couple with a child.

Dr Thio said that the show violated screening rules that require
themes like homosexuality to be 'cautiously treated and not glamorised
and endorsed'.

During last October's parliamentary debate on amendments to the Penal
Code, Dr Thio had made an impassioned plea for sex between men to
remain a crime here.

Dr Balaji said the MDA had received a complaint about the show and was
looking into the matter.

But he also pointed out that the show was part of a series on home
decoration and design. That particular episode was about a game room
in a home of two men and a child.

Their relationship was an 'incidental feature' of the programme, Dr
Balaji said, and Singaporeans would 'need to take a balanced view'.

He stressed that TV, especially free channels, would continue to
promote traditional family values.

Sydney Morning Herald: Selective Tolerance is not Tolerance for All (Nov 19)

Selective tolerance is not tolerance at all
Michael Kirby - Michael Kirby is a judge of the High Court of Australia. This article is based on the Griffith Lecture, which he delivered in Brisbane on Friday.

19 November 2007

Freedom of religion does not have an easy relationship with revealed religions. It is difficult for many believers to tolerate the postulate of error: the possibility that another God or earthly messenger may exist, different from their own, or indeed that there may be no God.

Lina Joy was born in Malaysia into a Muslim family. At birth she was given the name Azalina binti Jailani. In 1998 she decided to convert to Christianity. She announced her intention to marry a Christian man. Under Malaysian law she would be unable to do so unless her new status as a non-Muslim was officially recognised.

Azalina applied to change the name on her identity card to a Christian name. She was successful. However, the regulations required that the identity cards of Muslims state their religion. Therefore, when Lina Joy received her new identity card, the word Islam still appeared. In effect it stood as a barrier to her marriage.

She then applied to have the word Islam removed from her identity card. Her application was rejected. She contested the policy, invoking the Malaysian constitution, which provides that: "Islam is the religion of the federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the federation."

Upon the rejection of Lina Joy's application by both the High Court and Court of Appeal, she appealed to the Federal Court, the country's highest judicial body. She argued the requirement that she must obtain the approval of a third party to exercise her choice of religion was unconstitutional. By a majority of two to one the judges found against her. Inevitably, it was noticed that the two majority judges were Muslim. The dissenting judge was a non-Muslim.

In earlier times Christianity had a very similar approach to renouncing religion. It was most evident during the bloody wars, forced conversions and burnings of heretics that accompanied the Christian Reformation and Counter Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church of my youth in Australia did not permit Protestants to marry in its churches. This was only 50 years ago. We have overcome this sectarian divide.

It is important for those who support the universality of human rights within Islam to realise that the primary source of Islamic principles, the Koran, expressly states that "there is no compulsion in religion". The foundation of human punishment for apostasy by Muslims is essentially found in an interpretation not of the Koran but of the hadith, or recorded sayings, of the prophet Muhammad.

In Australia the case of Lina Joy has come as a surprise. We are entitled to express our concern about it. We know the one universal principle that is shared by all the world's great religions is the Golden Rule. To do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you.

One of the foremost critics of the Lina Joy decision was Dr Thio Li-ann of the National University of Singapore. She observed: "There is a certain agony about this case, which at its heart concerns a woman who wishes to make a change in religious profession and to marry and have a family."

When I read this critique I applauded Dr Thio's views. Imagine my disappointment to read the Hansard record of remarks by the same Dr Thio, a couple of weeks ago, as a member of the Parliament of Singapore, opposing proposals to repeal the criminal laws of Singapore directed against homosexual men.

Speaking from a standpoint as a Christian believer, Dr Thio rallied the opposition to reform. She denounced "the sexual libertine ethos of the wild, wild West". She declared "you cannot make a human wrong a human right". She warned against "slouching back to Sodom". We have all heard all this type of language from religious zealots in Australia. Fortunately, recent evidence suggests that we are growing up.

My point is that it is not good enough for Christians, or people of the Christian tradition, to be selective about tolerance and acceptance. We cannot selectively denounce Islam for its views on apostasy but then do equally nasty and cruel things to others by invoking imperfect understandings of our own religious tradition.

Universal human rights are needed to permit each and every one of us to fulfil ourselves as our unique human natures, intelligence and moral sense demand. For Lina Joy and her fiance this means the freedom to worship God as they believe, and to marry and live, in their own country. For a homosexual man in Singapore, it means freedom from the fear of harassment and humiliation by outdated criminal laws.

Lina Joy should have our support because she is a human being standing up for the integrity of her basic rights. Those rights are not, as the majority judges in Malaysia said of her case, her "whims and fancies". They are precious manifestations of deep-seated human feelings that express part of the very essence of what it is to be a human being.

ST Forum: MPs should be able to speak their minds freely (Nov 10)

ST Forum: MPs should be able to speak their minds freely

I WAS shocked and saddened to read of another threat being made against Nominated MP Thio Li-ann. A mark of real progress for our nation is when Members of Parliament, whether elected or nominated, can speak their minds on issues without being abused or threatened. Speaking for retaining Section 377A might have put Prof Thio in the
spotlight but she is not a one-issue person. She has, in fact, ably articulated views on other subjects, both in Parliament and in articles published by The Straits Times and academic journals. In many ways, she is a fine example of a person with a good mind and a clear voice whom we should encourage and support to enrich public discourse and help to define the content of our common good.

Any MP - and any thoughtful Singaporean - should be free to share his views without fear or favour, and none of them should be subject to any threat. Threats and bullying tactics are usually associated with gangsters, desperate people and tyrants in their attempt to silence good people and dismiss sound arguments.

Daniel Koh Kah Soon

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

ST Forum: NMP Thio must also address abortion and death sentence in order not to be branded a hypocrite (Nov 10)

Nov 10, 2007
NMP Thio must also address abortion and death sentence in order not to be branded a hypocrite

THANK you for presenting Dr Thio Li-ann's case on the repeal of Section 377A to the public, 'A fiery NMP gets her baptism of fire' by Ms Li Xueying (ST, Nov 2).

I think Dr Thio is right to express her moral position on this issue. However, I think a lot of the negative reaction she is getting may stem from the fact that she is perceived to be solely targeting the homosexual community with her views on sexual licentiousness and gross indecency. As sexual licentiousness is a problem afflicting all genders and sexualities, Dr Thio must be equally outraged about
unnatural and immoral acts among heterosexuals as well, all of which are not criminal acts in Singapore, such as:

1. Oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples (after all, this is
also akin to 'drinking with a straw through the nose' and must be
equally repugnant to her).

2. Adultery between heterosexual couples.

3. Premarital sex.

4. Prostitution.

5. Masturbation.

7. Sex between lesbian couples.

When your journalist, Ms Li, asked her about her views on other moral issues, she gave a rather vague reply. As Dr Thio believes policy making in Singapore should be guided by some form of morality, and has made a stand on sex between homosexuals, suggesting that what is morally unacceptable to her should be considered a criminal act, she must make equally strong stands on the abovementioned issues. These are sins of equal magnitude in Christianity, all of which are as detrimental to family values as homosexuality. Unless she makes fervent calls for the criminalisation of these directly related issues, she may well seem to the public to have double standards, and a hypocritical viewpoint, and to be a homophobic 'hate-mongerer', bullying only a particular segment of the community.

In order not to be perceived as a hypocrite, Dr Thio must also address abortion and the death sentence, as Christianity does not condone killing another human being. These are far more important moral issues than homosexuality, and I hope that as our NMP, she will not be, in her own words, a 'lousy friend', or in this case, a 'lousy
citizen' or 'lousy NMP' by keeping silent on these issues, and make known her views with even greater fervour and directness. Remaining silent and/or equivocal on these issues will only affirm her detractors' worst criticisms.

Peter Lee Peng Eng

ST Online Forum: Sympathy for NMP threatened with harm (Nov 9)

Sympathy for NMP threatened with harm

I REFER to the article, 'NMP Thio files 2nd police report after getting threat' (ST, Nov 8). I am sorry that Prof Thio Li-ann has to endure harassment from threats issued under the cloak of anonymity. I was impressed by Prof Thio's speech in Parliament against repealing Section 377A of the Penal Code, a law criminalising gay sex.

I admire her courage in speaking up for the many (especially those with young children) who are petrified at the prospect of an uncertain, unfamiliar social setting without S377A. I thank her for speaking up for my family, my friends and others who wished we could fight our case as eloquently and passionately.

Like Mr Stuart Koe, co-organiser of the unsuccessful petition to repeal S377A, I hope that the culprits will be brought to justice.

Lim Su-Fern (Ms)

TODAY: Protect Open Discussion (Nov 8)

PROTECT OPEN DISCUSSION

Phobia of openness
Letter from HO KONG LOON

I REFER to the report, “NMP Thio gets threatening note” (Nov 7).

The threats against Professor Thio Li-ann, following her speech in Parliament on keeping the Section 377A law on homosexual sex, is simply uncivilised behaviour.

It appears that someone out there has a phobia of discussing a contentious issue rationally, calmly and openly.

A vigorous exchange of views would lead to better and more rounded perceptions of the issues discussed.

...

Avoid law changes to prevent violence
Letter from RACHAEL NG LAY BEE

IT IS unacceptable that NMP Thio, or anyone who voices his or her opinion, should be threatened in such a manner.

I urge the police to look into the issue.

If Singapore is not ready for open and responsible debate, then a wise decision would be to keep the status quo for all current laws to prevent the polarisation of society and any outburst of violence.

...

How well are public figures protected?
Letter from AMY ANG

I WOULD like to know what safety precautions are in place for public figures under such circumstances.

And what is the Government’s take on the threats against Prof Thio?

Today: NMP Thio gets threatening note (Nov 7)

She gets physical threat, makes second police report in 3 months

It looked innocuous enough: A brown envelope with a single, printed A4 sheet inside.

But the contents of this letter were hateful enough — indeed, the words "hate", hatred" and "hurt" were repeated no less than 10 times — that its recipient made a police report on Monday night. It is the second police report Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann has made in three months.

But while she has said she will not sue her first antagonist, poet Alfian Sa'at, who sent her a four-sentence insulting email, the situation is different now.

"This is a physical threat, different from the usual insults," said Professor Thio. The threats are ugly and worded unambiguously, and Today, which has a copy of the page-long letter, chose not to reproduce its content.

But, if carried out, the threats are serious enough to be treated as offences causing grievous hurt. And the anonymous letter writer even threatened her family.

"Singaporeans need to know the tactics that have been employed and what I really want to see is free and open debate without intimidation," said Prof Thio, who disclosed last month the first email incident, after she gave a strongly-worded speech on keeping Section 377A, the law on homosexual sex.

While she declined to say if she would take precautions, Prof Thio said making a police report was the "responsible thing to do". Police spokesman Stanley Norbert confirmed her police report. A probe is ongoing, while the email incident is under investigation.

Criminal lawyer Anand Nalachandran, a partner at Harry Elias Partnership, said the letter was "malicious", and that anonymous threats to cause hurt or death would attract stiffer punishments because of the "ominous" factor of not knowing the threat's origin.

The punishment for criminal intimidation to cause hurt or death is a maximum seven-year jail term or a fine, or both. If the threat is anonymous, an additional jail term of up to two years could be imposed.

NMP Siew Kum Hong, who had differed with Prof Thio in Parliament, was outraged by the threat, saying: "There is no place for such things in our society. Whoever sent that letter crossed the line. The police should look into it."

Mr Siew, who has received his share of abuse for asking for Section 377A to be repealed, said he has not received threats of "this extent". "This is outrageous … I unequivocally condemn this ... Nothing anyone says could possibly justify such a despicable act."

ST: A fiery NMP gets her baptism of fire (Nov 2)

Nov 2, 2007
PEOPLE & POLITICS
A fiery NMP gets her baptism of fire

She is the woman at the centre of a stormy debate over gay men and their sex lives. Nominated MP Thio Li-ann has made headlines for her stance against repealing Section 377A. Who is she? Why does she feel so strongly about this issue? LI XUEYING finds out

SHE was a 'very, very arrogant' atheist, who scored an A1 in Bible Knowledge for her O levels, and ripped apart the beliefs of her Christian friends when debating religion with them.

Then, at the age of 19, she converted to Christianity.

Professor Thio Li-ann smiles wryly as she casts her mind back to that day in October 1987.

Having just entered Oxford to study jurisprudence, she attended a Christian Union talk at a friend's invitation.

Wanting to leave halfway, she was 'stopped' by a voice.

'I basically had a sense that God was talking to me,' she recounts.

'I had stood up to walk out and I heard someone say, 'Stop'. And no one was around me. Everybody was busy doing their own thing. I was one of only one or two Chinese girls in this whole room of ang mohs.

'And then I just had the sense that I had encountered God, that he knew my name and I was shocked.'

Since then, Prof Thio's faith has underscored her values and beliefs.

And certainly, a certain messianic zeal is discernible in her mission to uphold Section 377A of the Penal Code in the recent parliamentary debate over whether gay sex should be decriminalised.

Homosexuality is immoral, she asserted. 'Repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties!' she said in a speech in Parliament last Monday that was widely disseminated and dissected, both in the mainstream media and the Internet.

While supporters called her 'fiery' and 'passionate' , she also attracted a storm of negative comments from detractors - gay and straight.

She has been called a homophobe, a bigot, and not least of all, a fundamentalist.

Others viewed her tirade as a 'hate speech'.

So is she a right-wing Christian, you ask her straight out.

'I am a Christian,' says Prof Thio who attends an evangelical church in the eastern part of Singapore. She declines to give its name but says it is an 'independent non-denominational church'.

'I don't know what right wing is. This is funny because I was always considered a political leftie and now I'm a rightie.

'There's a proverb I like. It says: 'Examine the contents and not the label.''

'Innocence lost'

SITTING down with her for an interview that stretches beyond an hour, you soon realise that whether you agree with her views or not, the 39-year-old, who is single, is personable.

She is likeable. She is funny. She arms herself with self-deprecating wit.

During the photo shoot, you suggest jokingly that she strikes the thinker's pose.

'I'll look like a pretentious snot!' she responds in mock horror.

'I've been called so many names, I'm not going to give them more fuel!'

And while she is clearly very knowledgeable - she was 'very heavily into philosophy' and Friedrich Nietzsche, Herbert Marcuse and John Stuart Mill were part of her reading diet - she also tries very hard to come across as your everyday gal.

For instance, she confesses to how in her college years, she 'had a big, big weakness for very handsome men with brown hair'.

'It was the whole stupid Mel Gibson phase in my life, which all my friends know because they couldn't bear to watch Lethal Weapon with me because I'd shout stupid things,' she says with a laugh.

Musing on the events of the past month, she agrees she has 'lost her innocence'.

'This is my baptism of fire,' she says. 'Eight months ago, I was a happy, quiet academic, writing my little articles that no one ever knows (about) except the poor 200 students who must sit for my exams. And maybe three academics abroad.'

But with the hate mail she received since her Section 377A speech - at its peak, she was getting 25 to 30 a day - she clearly feels victimised.

'I am just cautioning self-restraint for myself. But I don't necessarily mean that you can go all your way out to provoke me because as a human being, you have limits.

'So I'm trying very, very hard to be gracious but I'm going to tell you it's not easy.'

But she fired the first salvo with her speech, you point out.

No, she declaims.

'I think that's a completely wrong conception. The other side pushed the issue. If they had not so aggressively petitioned, so aggressively debated it in the press and in cyberspace, most people wouldn't have cared.'

In fact, she 'would have preferred to stay out of it', she claims.

'But because of all the spurious arguments that were being put out over the airwaves, in the newspapers, how could I sit by and just let a whole lot of what I consider untruths and propaganda float?'

While her explicit description of anal sex - like 'shoving a straw up your nose to drink' - has elicited disapproval, she dismisses such sentiments as 'hypocritical' .

'You think about it. Why do you have an offence of gross indecency?

'Because it creates a sense of moral opprobrium or repugnance. It's shocking and we can't put it into words but the truth of the matter is we do instinctively feel certain things are repulsive. I could easily say, do you pour butter into a car. So straw up the nose.'

Meanwhile, she is frustrated her 'reasoned' arguments have been obscured by the 'colourful' bits. She is also uneasy by what she perceives as attempts to paint her as a distraught, emotional speaker.

'I was passionate but I speak that way,' she says. 'You may disagree with the premises but I would say look at my arguments, tell me that they are irrational, tell me that they're not legally sound and you want to contest it on a legal basis rather than saying, oh, you're so rude.

'I find it ironical that homosexual activists say it's a Victorian and archaic law and then when someone talks about straws, they become so coy and Victorian themselves.'

There's a choice

THROUGHOUT the interview, Prof Thio does not use the word 'gay', plumping instead for 'homosexual' .

The latter, when used as a noun, has pejorative overtones as it is a throwback to the era when homosexuality was seen as a mental illness.

Her choice of words is deliberate.

'I take the position that there is a degree of choice. Someone said you might have a genetic predisposition but we all know we don't act on our impulses,' she says.

'You could have the hiao gene, right? It doesn't mean you sleep with every man you come across. There is some degree of control, some degree of choice. And yes, the social environment will condition it.

'So my fear is if you've an increasingly permissive society, which we are seeing, then people will just continue with sexual experimentation and it's going to harm people.'

But why spend time waging war on homosexuality and not on another 'sexual morality' issue that affects far more people, say, prostitution?

While saying that she is not a 'one-issue person', Prof Thio adds:
'Because it's been so weakly rebutted.

'I really have done a lot of research and I really do think that the homosexual agenda is very dangerous.

'The agenda will not stop at repealing 377A. It will go on because first and foremost, the online petition said so - we don't just want to be tolerated, we want to be endorsed.

'When you cross the line from tolerance - which means I disagree with you, keep your distance butlive and let live - to endorsement and celebration, it becomes coercion, it becomes tyrannical.'

In other countries for instance, there are 'homosexuality training workshops', and same-sex unions, she says. 'People are being forced to rent out apartments to homosexuals whether or not you are a conservative Muslim or Christian or Jew and you don't want to.'

She says that she is 'not against homosexual people'. In fact, she has two gay friends, both American. One has 'left' the community, and the other 'never came out and struggles with it', she says.

Spark of defiance

IT IS almost a certainty that Prof Thio will henceforth be largely defined by the public as the 'anti-gay NMP'.

This despite that as an academic and as a parliamentarian, she has contributed incisive articles and comments on a wide range of subjects - from constitutional law to civil liberties and human rights, from the elected presidency to ministerial pay.

While perturbed by this, a spark of defiance remains.

She says: 'My students know what I'm like as a person. They know the risks I took, stood up in the past and being critical of Government.. .I've always spoken my mind. Why do you expect me to shut up now and be excessively polite?

'If people want to define me in some way, that's fine, because at the end of the day, this public thing will end soon enough. You want to remember me that way, it's fine, but at the end of the day, it's people who love you that matter, people who know you.

'So people who have a certain perception of me, well - God bless them.'

ST Forum: 'Expression of opinion' was in fact harassment (Oct 31)

Oct 31, 2007
THIO-ALFIAN SPAT
'Expression of opinion' was in fact harassment
IN THE article, 'Police question poet over e-mail to NMP' (ST, Oct 30), one Alfian Sa'at is identified as the writer of the hate mail directed to me on Aug 12. Before this, I had never heard of him.

I note his public apology as reported. His current rejection of using hate-mail tactics containing four-letter words and abusive language to intimidate people is welcomed; he also urged others to eschew his anger-fuelled 'reckless example'.

While Mr Alfian says he was merely expressing his opinion, this was in fact harassment. A person identifying himself as a 'gay Singaporean' e-mailed me to apologise for Mr Alfian's e-mail which he had read as he was 'deeply embarrassed by such rude and uncivilised actions from a gay counterpart... I have no idea who this Alfian guy is but his actions cannot be reflective of the collective gay community'. I appreciated his kind message.

Mr Alfian later e-mailed me after the October parliamentary session to explain his 'motivation' for his hate e-mail: 'I shot it off after hearing of how you had made a police report regarding the 'Pink Run''. I understand this referred to a cancelled public event staged by gay activists. He reiterates this point on his public blog.

Mr Alfian evidently failed to verify his source. He apparently drew a direct link between the 'Pink Run' in August and my support for keeping Section 377A of the Penal Code, which I expressed this October in Parliament.

Accurate and fair reporting requires the clarification of one factual error. The assertion on Mr Alfian's blog that I made a police report (or indeed any other complaint) against a Pink Run is a patent falsehood. The truth is that the only police report I have ever made related to the hate e-mail of one alfian_saat@yahoo.com.sg. The authorities can verify this. Perhaps Mr Alfian was over-impulsive in relying on a misleading and unreliable information source; however, he remains responsible for his abusive manner of communication.

His first e-mail to me was prefaced 'This is a personal note to you.' However, its reproduction in the public forum of his blog now raises the issue of defamation.

Politicians and public figures should be thicker-skinned, to serve robust, democratic debate.

Given his public apology, we should move on and aspire towards civilised, rational debate. To demonstrate his genuine remorse, Mr Alfian should remove any inaccurate or defamatory blog posts concerning this incident.

Professor Thio Li-ann

ALFIAN'S DUTY

To demonstrate his genuine remorse, Mr Alfian should remove any inaccurate or defamatory blog posts concerning this incident.

ST Forum: Why Alfian posted copy of e-mail to NMP online (Oct 31)

Oct 31, 2007
Why Alfian posted copy of e-mail to NMP online

IN THE report, 'Police question poet over e-mail to NMP' (ST, Oct 30), it was stated that I had 'emerged as the writer of the strongly worded e-mail to Nominated MP Thio Li-ann'.

This might suggest that the exposure of my identity as the letter-writer was involuntary, and that it was a check with the police that had pinpointed me.

In reality, I had already decided to claim ownership and personal responsibility for the e-mail last Saturday. I posted a copy of the e-mail online, explicitly identifying myself as its author.

Contrary to some reports that stated that it was penned by an 'unnamed stranger', the e-mail was sent from my personal e-mail account, signed off with my own name.

Your article also stated, twice, Professor Thio's assertion that 'it was full of obscene and vile invective'.

I wish to clarify that the e-mail was no more than four lines in total, in which an impolite word appears but once.

Alfian Sa'at

Today: Will NMP sue poet for defamation? (Oct 31)

Will NMP sue poet for defamation?

LEONG WEE KEAT
weekeat@mediacorp.com.sg

HE THOUGHT she had made the police report which led to the cancellation of the “Pink Picnic”, a public event that had been planned by gay activists.

In his “flash of anger”, poet and playwright Alfian Sa’at shot off an angry email to Nominated Member of Parliament Professor Thio Li-ann early one morning in August.

Yesterday, Professor Thio denied that she was the person behind the August police report. In an email to the media, she said: “I have only made one police report in my lifetime and that was in relation to the hate email I received … This fact can be verified by the relevant authorities.”

Mr Alfian told TODAY that he “had heard and saw on a few blogs” alleging that it was Prof Thio who had called the police. He “shot off” the email after returning home from a night of clubbing. “If it was not her,
I had done her great wrong and I offer my public apology,” he said.

Prof Thio said: “Perhaps Mr Sa’at was over-zealous in relying on a misleading and unreliable information source, but he remains responsible for the abusive manner of his communication. However, as he has publicly apologised, I think we can all move ahead by learning to argue on substantive public issues in a civil fashion.”

The email was cited by Prof Thio in her speech in Parliament last week against the repealing of Section 377A of the Penal Code. She had described the email as being “full of vile and obscene invective”.

The 63-word email started off stating, “this is a personal note to you”. It then contained one four-letter word, accusations of “hate-mongering”, vows to urinate “on her grave” and was signed off “With love, Alfian”.

The email has since been removed from Mr Alfian’s personal blog but has resurfaced on at least two other websites.

Mr Alfian, 29, said he removed the email last week “on the advice from friends”.

Yesterday, Prof Thio raised “the issue of possible defamation” in her letter to the media. The National University of Singapore law professor said: “As his first email to me was prefaced, ‘This is a personal note to you’, no issue of libel arose then. However, as he has reproduced his email of Aug 12, 2007, addressed to me in the public forum of his blog, the issue of possible defamation now arises.”

Lawyers told TODAY that they have seen an increasing number of cases involving defamatory statements made in blogs. In this case, Harry Elias Partnership consultant Doris Chia said the email could lower Prof Thio’s reputation. Ms Chia noted, however, that the words were “phrased like an angry tirade. The question
is whether how many people will take his sayings seriously”.

Then, there is also the defence of fair comment.

Mr Adrian Tan, a partner at Drew and Napier, said: “The law allows everyone to express their views on public matters, even if those views involve strong language. All honestly-held views are protected, even views
which the general public might find offensive.” Defamation could also be considered a criminal matter under the Penal Code, where anyone guilty of criminal defamation may be jailed for two years, or with fine, or with both.
Yesterday, Prof Thio said she noted Mr Alfian’s public apology and how he had urged others not to follow his “reckless example”. “His current rejection of using hatemail tactics containing four-letter words and abusive language to intimidate people is to be welcomed,” she said.

Mr Alfian told TODAY: “For me, this matter is closed. I have taken down the post, apologised and it would not be productive to take this any further.”

ST Review: Can we disagree without being disagreeable? (Oct 26)

Oct 26, 2007
Can we disagree without being disagreeable?
By Thio Li-ann

A JUNIOR college classmate I had not heard from in over a decade e-mailed me this week. She had long wanted to 'rag' me for becoming a Nominated MP, knowing my pretentious adolescent infatuation with nihilism and libertarianism. Instead, she was glad I had spoken in Parliament in support of retaining Section 377A.

Like many others, she urged me to continue to do the right thing in the face of nasty insults and threats. Life beyond the ivory tower requires greater epidermal density.

Aside from the crass and childish, the e-mail messages I received after the 377A parliamentary debates were overwhelmingly warm and supportive.

Friends and strangers thanked me for articulating reasoned views and highlighting the radical nature of the homosexual social agenda. One person thought the local press implicitly supported the gay movement in apparently assuming homosexuality is inborn or that gay 'rights' were somehow being violated.

Why, in the interests of objectivity, had the 'ex-gay' phenomenon not been investigated?

Others chuckled at my observation that those who smear their opponents as intolerant bigots demonstrate their own intolerant bigotry.

Together with other elected MPs, I had apparently given voice to many in the 'silent majority'.

The spirited debate over 377A flows from a policy shift the Prime Minister announced in his 2004 Harvard Club speech, that the Government would pull back from 'being all things to all citizens' and be 'increasingly guided' by community consensus 'on questions of public morality and decency'.

What if consensus is fractured? Even Western societies remain polarised over issues like whether to endorse homosexuality as an 'alternative lifestyle'.

There are no neutral perspectives on morally controversial issues, which evoke strong emotions. This is no excuse for jettisoning critical thought, in the interests of our broader shared commitment to democracy and informed public debate.

To say the law should ignore moral questions is to impose a 'hidden' morality by default. Hedonism, a recipe for societal suicide, is the philosophy underlying the argument that law should not interfere with private consensual sexual behaviour. As philosophy affects law, and law affects popular mindsets, we need wisdom to know what the law should encourage or hinder.

The public debate over 377A demonstrates a new brand of Singapore politics beyond the dominant government, Lilliputian opposition and apathetic citizenry model. We witnessed a galvanisation of citizens on both sides of the fence, through letters to the press and MPs, meet-the-people sessions, cyber discussions, online hissy fits and
petitions. PM Lee Hsien Loong observed that 'both sides' had mobilized 'very well organised campaigns' to promote their causes. This is one way of providing feedback integral to a responsive and representative Government.

Ultimately, the Government has to make a decision. Unlike lawyers who speak of resolving issues, politicians deploy the language of 'accommodation' and 'balance' to facilitate some sort of rapprochement. It is a useful device for politicians to paint a
picture of two extreme views, and occupy the middle ground.

While acknowledging 'space' for homosexuals to live quiet lives, PM Lee firmly stated that homosexuality was not to be mainstreamed, and that heterosexuals should set the tone of society. If homosexual activists 'push this agenda', that would elicit 'push-back' from the morally conservative majority. In other words, don't aggressively push
the bedroom into the public square.

Where do we go from here, with some citizens locked into intransigent stances over controversial public issues?

I hope Singapore will not end up with an uncivil civil society by allowing public debate to degenerate into fruitless name-calling and distorting issues by speaking misleading half-truths. A central goal of debate must be to lend clarity to the issue, as where PM Lee stated that Singapore law recognises only racial and religious minorities. Thus, the politicised term 'sexual minorities' is legally vacuous.

Furthermore, specific issues should be debated, rather than making emotional and vague appeals to 'fairness', 'equality', 'inclusivity' and 'tolerance'. The concrete issue is: What should we exclude or include? What should we not tolerate? 'Tolerance' must not become the refuge of a person without convictions. Terms like 'dignity' and 'tolerance' are empty apart from a theory of human nature, human good and community. To go beyond sound-bites to substance, we must not gloss over the real issue.

Democratic pluralism welcomes every view in public discussion, but does not commit the intellectual fallacy of saying every view is right. The goal is to ascertain the right view for the circumstances.

We should debate with civility and learn to disagree without being disagreeable. This is a facet of character, which no government-imposed law or 'OB marker' can elicit. To approach morally controversial debate with maturity, the solution is not more government, but self-government. The civic virtue of self-control, rather than a culture of anger which celebrates expressions of hate and vulgarity, should be embraced. Indeed, arguments which merely seek to vilify opponents are suspect.

John Milton noted: 'Let Truth and Falsehood grapple: Who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?'

Aside from truth, free speech serves a commitment to rational democratic debate over matters affecting our common good. Civil and civilised debate sustains the possibility that we may be able to persuade fellow citizens that our views are sound. You cannot converse with a shouting person.

The views expressed here are Dr Thio's own.

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.

ST Forum: 'Visibly distraught'? Prof was fiery and passionate (Oct 25)

'Visibly distraught'? Prof was fiery and passionate

I REFER to the article, 'Petition to repeal gay sex law sparks heated debate' (ST, Oct 23).

I take issue with the description of Nominated MP Thio Li-Ann as 'visibly distraught'.

I was in the Parliament meeting and noted that she dealt with several points succinctly, with humour and with passion.

She peppered her arguments with wit, drawing applause from the viewing gallery and getting many MPs thumping their seats. One example was when she said 'we want to be able to say 'Majulah Singapura', not 'Mundur Singapura'' (Onward, Singapore, not backward, Singapore).

Her speech showed up several flaws in the arguments of the pro-repeal camp.

For instance, in response to the pro-repeal camp's description of homosexuals as a disadvantaged minority group, Professor Thio rebutted that 'Singapore law recognises only racial and religious minorities. Special protection is reserved for the poor and disadvantaged. The average homosexual person in Singapore is both well educated, with higher income - that's why upscale-condo developers target them!'.

What I see is a fiery and passionate debater, not a visibly distraught one.

Jenica Chua Chor Ping (Ms)

ST Forum: NMP Thio's comments were inappropriate (Oct 25)

Oct 25, 2007
NMP Thio's comments were inappropriate

I WRITE in response to Nominated MP Thio Li-Ann's speech in Parliament
and comments made to the press on Monday.

As the debate on Section 377A of the Penal Code - a law criminalising
gay sex - was heated, it was inevitable that tempers flared on both sides.

However, Professor Thio's comments were inappropriate and were deemed
disrespectful by many, and not just by the gay community.

It was entirely unnecessary to highlight bedroom practices and refer
to anal sex between men as 'shoving a straw up someone's nose to
drink', in the hope of eliciting disgust among parliamentarians and
the public.

Such comments are, at best, discourteous and do a disservice to the
intellectual nature of such a discussion, especially as the acts she
mentioned are also practised in heterosexual couplings.

Whether or not Section 377A was repealed, this issue has become a
milestone in the democratic involvement of our citizens and could be
potentially divisive.

In engaging in a healthy and lively debate - whether on Internet
forums, in letters to the media or even in Parliament - it is
important that we remain respectful of each other's views.

Azimin Saini

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: 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: 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

ST: Professor Thio Li-Ann ( Oct 23)

Oct 23, 2007
Professor Thio Li-Ann

'THEY offer an 'argument from consent' - Government should not police the private sexual behaviour of consenting adults. They opine this violates their liberty or 'privacy'. They ask, why criminalise something which does not 'harm' anyone; if homosexuals are 'born that way', isn't it unkind to 'discriminate' against their sexual practices?

These flawed arguments are marinated with distracting fallacies which obscure what is at stake - repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties.

Debate must be based on substance, not sound-bites. Let me red-flag four red herrings.

First, to say a law is archaic is merely chronological snobbery.

Second, you cannot say a law is 'regressive' unless you first identify your ultimate goal. If we seek to copy the sexual libertine ethos of the wild wild West, then repealing Section 377A is progressive.

Third, to say a law which criminalises homosexual acts because many find it offensive is merely imposing a 'prejudice' or 'bias' assumes with justification that no reasonable contrary view exists. This evades debate.

Fourth, some argue that legislators should be 'open-minded' and decriminalise sodomy. This demand for objectivity is intellectually disingenuous as there is no neutral ground, no 'Switzerland of ambivalence' when we consider the moral issues related to 377A which
require moral judgment of what is right and wrong - not to take a stand, is to take a stand!

The issues surrounding 377A are about morality, not modernity or being cosmopolitan. What will foreigners think if we retain 377A? Depends on which foreigner you ask.

While homosexuals are a numerical minority, there is no such thing as 'sexual minorities' at law. Activists have coined this term to draw a beguiling but fallacious association between homosexuals and legally recognised minorities like racial groups.

Race is a fixed trait. It remains controversial whether homosexual orientation is genetic or environmental, perhaps both. There are no ex-blacks but there are ex-gays.

The 'argument from consent' says the state should keep out of the bedroom, to safeguard 'sexual autonomy'. While we cherish racial and religious diversity, sexual diversity is a different kettle of fish.

Diversity is not licence for perversity. This radical liberal argument is pernicious, a leftist philosophy based on radical individualism and radical egalitarianism. It is unworkable because every viable moral theory has limits to consent.

If you argue from consent, how can you condemn any form of sexual self-expression, no matter how selfish or hurtful? But, no man is an island. Ideas, embodied in laws, have consequences. Don't send the wrong message.'