TodayOnline: There is a reason for the law, Homosexuality is anti-social (Sept 10)

There is a reason for the law

Homosexuality is anti-social

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Heikel Bafana

I REFER to "Stop making a mockery of Rule of Law: Let's accept gays"
(Sept 8). I must disagree with the assertions of Mr Ho Kwon Ping.

Mr Ho calls for homosexual behaviour to be decriminalised. Whatever
perception he has gleaned from the official attitude, the views of
large segments of our society against the homosexual lifestyle are
neither ambiguous, ambivalent nor schizophrenic.

Whether due to religious belief or personal family values,
homosexuality is widely seen in Singapore society as aberrant
behaviour. I concede, of course, that this view is not shared by
members of the gay community.

Mr Ho's assertion that only "the most fervently fundamentalist
Christians or Muslims" in Singapore care about making gay sex a
criminal act is baseless, and indeed, false.

The Penal Code provision represents the manner in which the law
expresses our society's commonality of understanding as to what is to
be allowed and what is not.

Encouraging a family unit that is able to procreate and rear children
who will contribute to the future of this country is the prime
imperative of our society, and legislating against any behaviour —
including accepting widespread homosexual behaviour, which attacks the
sacrosanct nature of the family unit — is perfectly acceptable.

The Rule of Law constitutes the sum total of the social contract which
we, as citizens, agree to live by. In a multi-racial and multi-faith
society like Singapore, the Rule of Law is a delicate alchemy of
competing racial, cultural and religious demands. It cannot be subject
to change merely because of the high-pitched calls of a small segment
of our society.

I concede that in the context of the prevailing practice of the
criminal justice system here, the belief may arise that homosexual
acts are not subject to criminal prosecution. However, this belief is
not entirely accurate.

Similar non-prosecutions by the authorities are also the norm, for
example, in cases of mischief or of assault involving simple hurt.

However — and this is the critical distinction — the victim still has
the right to lodge a Magistrate's Complaint and undertake a
prosecution himself. From this perspective, why should a person who
feels aggrieved as a victim of homosexual behaviour be deprived of
such a right to prosecute an assailant?

To achieve acceptance, tolerance or respect, perhaps it is more
effective for the gay community to address in substance the issues
which lead society to frown upon homosexuality. Such engagement would
be more effective than getting tied up in knots about the law.

Mr Ho calls for an act of boldness to allow gays to "realise their
dreams". To believe that changing a piece of legislation will attain
this result is misconceived.

TodayOnline: There is simply no need for anti-gay law (Sept 10)

There is simply no need for anti-gay law

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Tang Li

I REFER to Mr Ho Kwon Ping's "Stop making a mockery of Rule of Law:
Let's accept gays" (Sept 8), and I would like to applaud him.

Like Mr Ho, I have to ask myself if there is any justification for
keeping a private act between consenting adults, criminal.

During last year's debate on the repealing of Section 377A, Nominated
Member of Parliament Thio Li-Ann argued passionately that repealing
the act was bad for public morality. In her address, she noted that
"Diversity is not license for perversity".

The majority of Parliament agreed with this and the result was the
retention of 377A, but with a promise from the Government that the law
would not be enforced.

Mr Ho rightly pointed out that the idea of having a law that the
Government has no intention of enforcing makes a mockery of the Rule
of Law, something which is central to the heart of Singapore's
rules-based society. The proponents of the ban on homosexual
intercourse spoke passionately about the need to defend public
morality, but they failed to provide a logically-sound reason for
their case.

At best, Professor Thio argued that private acts would have public
repercussions as in the area of public health. She pointed out that
HIV/Aids was spread most efficiently by anal sex.

What she failed to prove was how anal sex between two consenting men
was more conducive to the spread of HIV/Aids than anal sex between
heterosexuals.

The Ministry of Health's statistics on HIV found that in 2007 there
were 255 heterosexuals infected, versus 145 homosexual and bisexual
infections, something that nobody seemed to have taken note of.

Furthermore, the defenders of public morality didn't seem too troubled
by the fact that the greatest rise in HIV among women was from
loyally-married women who were infected by their husbands.

So, where is the premise for having a law against consensual
homosexualactivity? Singapore is socially-conservative, but does that
mean it is necessary to have laws — albeit non-enforced ones — that
discriminate against one group without protecting another?

Ministry of Health statistics on HIV show that anal sex between
consenting adult men is no less of a threat to public health than sex
between heterosexuals. So, why then do we need laws if there is no
threat to public health or security? Is it because the majority of
people disapprove of it? Surely, the people who disapprove of such
acts would continue to disapprove of them regardless of whether laws
against them exist or not?

There is no rational premise for laws against homosexuality, so why do
we need them? More importantly, why do we have such laws if we have no
intention of enforcing them? Is it because we know that such laws have
no benefit to society? I may not like homosexuals or homosexuality,
but I can see no reason for laws against what consenting adults do in
the privacy of their bedroom.

I salute Mr Ho for taking a stand against the current mockery of the
Rule of Law.

TodayOnline: Sexual orientation not a 'right'

Sexual orientation not a `right':

Just because the rest of the world allows it, doesn't mean Singapore
should

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Koo Xun Zhao

I REFER to "Stop making a mockery of Rule of Law: Let's accept gays"
(Sept 8) and would like to point out several fallacies in Mr Ho Kwon
Ping's reasoning.

First, contrary to what he says, the Government has not said it would
not prosecute those who breach the law — just that it would not pursue
those who breach it.

This is a fundamental difference which does not result in what he
calls "a mockery of the Rule of Law". It can be just as easily argued
that we can avoid what Mr Ho calls our current "schizophrenic"
situation by actually enforcing the law on gay sex.

After all, it was the Rule of Law before the Government decided to be
more open to gays.

Mr Ho also compares the so-called "persecution" of gays with racial
discrimination. Sexual orientation or preferences, however, are not
"rights".

Hence the question of discrimination does not arise. Mr Ho also cites
proponents of the Rule of Law advocating the decriminalisation of gay
sex, "something which the rest of the world has long decriminalised".

Using what the rest of the world does as the basis for establishing or
repealing a law has no grounds in law-making.

The same goes for the argument that Victorian laws be removed as there
are important laws in our books today that exist from those times that
are still relevant: For example, the law against incest.

Mr Ho claims that it is only "the most feverishly fundamentalist
Christians or Muslims" and the "homophobic" who care about whether the
law against gay sex is kept. In this, he is misinformed since there
are even gays who feel that the statute should be kept.

Moreover, The Straits Times reported on Sept 20 last year that a
survey by Nanyang Technological University found that seven in 10
Singaporeans frown on homosexuality.

I urge Mr Ho to speak to non-gays who are also knowledgeable, if not
experts, in the law and who are for criminalising gay sex to get their
perpectives on the issue.

TodayOnline: If double standards can apply to gays, what about to Hota?

If double standards can apply to gays, what about to Hota?

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Tan Yen Ling

LAST year, there was campaigning by both the pro-repeal gay community
and the anti-repeal Christian camp.

As a result of this, Professor Ho Peng Kee, Senior Minister of State
for Law and HomeAffairs, said that Singapore will keep the ban
although the authorities would continue to not actively enforce
the provision banning gay sexbetween consensual adults.

Such an arrangement would be akin to the authorities allowing
"consensual" organ trading while the Human Organ Transplant Act
explicitly forbids it. Surely, such an arrangement would make a
mockery of the Rule of Law.

And as it now stands, men who have same-sex sexual relations are
committing a crime but are "above the law" as they will not be
prosecuted — as assured by the authorities.

TodayOnline.com: If Double Standards Can Apply to Gays, What about to HOTA? (Sept 10)

If double standards can apply to gays, what about to Hota?

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Tan Yen Ling

LAST year, there was campaigning by both the pro-repeal gay community
and the anti-repeal Christian camp.

As a result of this, Professor Ho Peng Kee, Senior Minister of State
for Law and Home Affairs, said that Singapore will keep the ban
although the authorities would continue to not actively enforce
the provision banning gay sex between ­consensual adults.

Such an arrangement would be akin to the authorities allowing
"consensual" organ trading while the Human Organ Transplant Act
explicitly forbids it. Surely, such an arrangement would make a
mockery of the Rule of Law.

And as it now stands, men who have same-sex sexual relations are
committing a crime but are "above the law" as they will not be
prosecuted — as ­assured by the authorities.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/275027print.asp

TodayOnline.com: Sexual Orientation Not a "Right" (Sept 10)

Sexual orientation not a `right':

Just because the rest of the world allows it, doesn't mean Singapore
should

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Koo Xun Zhao

I REFER to "Stop making a mockery of Rule of Law: Let's accept gays"
(Sept 8) and would like to point out several fallacies inMr Ho Kwon
Ping's reasoning.

First, contrary to what he says, the Government has not said it would
not prosecute those who breach the law — just that it would not pursue
those who breach it.

This is a fundamental difference which does not result in what he
calls "a mockery of the Rule of Law". It can be just as easily argued
that we can avoid what Mr Ho calls our current "schizophrenic"
situation by actually enforcing the law on gay sex.

After all, it was the Rule of Law before the Government decided to be
more open to gays.

Mr Ho also compares the so-called "persecution" of gays with racial
discrimination. Sexual orientation or preferences, however, are not
"rights".

Hence the question of discrimination does not arise. Mr Ho also cites
proponents of the Rule of Law advocating the decriminalisation of gay
sex, "something which the rest of the world has longdecriminalised".

Using what the rest of the world does as the basis for establishing or
repealing a law has no grounds in law-making.

The same goes for the argument that Victorian laws be removed as there
are important laws in our books today that exist from those times that
are still relevant: For example, the law against incest.

Mr Ho claims that it is only "the most feverishly fundamentalist
Christians or Muslims" and the "homophobic" who care about whether the
law against gay sex is kept. In this, he is misinformed since there
are even gays who feel that the statute should be kept.

Moreover, The Straits Times reported on Sept 20 last year that a
survey by Nanyang Technological University found that seven in 10
Singaporeans frown on homosexuality.

I urge Mr Ho to speak to non-gays who are also knowledgeable, if not
experts, in the law and who are for criminalising gay sex to get their
perpectives on the issue.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/275026print.asp

TodayOnline.com: There Is Simply No Need for Anti-Gay Law (Sept 10)

There is simply no need for anti-gay law

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Tang Li

I REFER to Mr Ho Kwon Ping's "Stop making a mockery of Rule of Law:
Let's accept gays" (Sept 8), and I would like to applaud him.

Like Mr Ho, I have to ask myself if there is any justification for
keeping a private act between consenting adults, criminal.

During last year's debate on the repealing of Section 377A, Nominated
Member of Parliament Thio Li-Ann argued passionately that repealing
the act was bad for public morality. In her address, she noted that
"Diversity is not license for perversity".

The majority of Parliament agreed with this and the result was the
retention of 377A, but with a promise from the Government that the law
would not be enforced.

Mr Ho rightly pointed out that the idea of having a law that the
Government has no intention of enforcing makes a mockery of the Rule
of Law, something which is central to the heart of Singapore's
rules-based society. The proponents of the ban on homosexual
intercourse spoke passionately about the need to defend public
morality, but they failed to provide a logically-sound reason for
their case.

At best, Professor Thio argued that private acts would have public
repercussions as in the area of public health. She pointed out that
HIV/Aids was spread most efficiently by anal sex.

What she failed to prove was how anal sex between two consenting men
was more conducive to the spread of HIV/Aids than anal sex between
heterosexuals.

The Ministry of Health's statistics on HIV found that in 2007 there
were 255 heterosexuals infected, versus 145 homosexual and bisexual
infections, something that nobody seemed to have taken note of.

Furthermore, the defenders of public morality didn't seem too troubled
by the fact that the greatest rise in HIV among women was from
loyally-married women who were infected by their husbands.

So, where is the premise for having a law against consensual
homosexualactivity? Singapore is socially-conservative, but does that
mean it is necessary to have laws — albeit non-enforced ones — that
discriminate against one group without protecting another?

Ministry of Health statistics on HIV show that anal sex between
consenting adult men is no less of a threat to public health than sex
between heterosexuals. So, why then do we need laws if there is no
threat to public health or security? Is it because the majority of
people disapprove of it? Surely, the people who disapprove of such
acts would continue to disapprove of them regardless of whether laws
against them exist or not?

There is no rational premise for laws against homosexuality, so why do
we need them? More importantly, why do we have such laws if we have no
intention of enforcing them? Is it because we know that such laws have
no benefit to society? I may not like homosexuals or homosexuality,
but I can see no reason for laws against what consenting adults do in
the privacy of their bedroom.

I salute Mr Ho for taking a stand against the current mockery of the
Rule of Law.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/275025print.asp

TodayOnline.com: There Is A Reason for the Law (Sept 10)

There is a reason for the law

Homosexuality is anti-social

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Heikel Bafana

I REFER to "Stop making a mockery of Rule of Law: Let's accept gays"
(Sept 8). I must disagree with the assertions of Mr Ho Kwon Ping.

Mr Ho calls for homosexual behaviour to be decriminalised. Whatever
perception he has gleaned from the official attitude, the views of
large segments of our society against the homosexual lifestyle are
neither ambiguous, ambivalent nor schizophrenic.

Whether due to religious belief or personal family values,
homosexuality is widely seen in Singapore society as aberrant
behaviour. I concede, of course, that this view is not shared by
members of the gay community.

Mr Ho's assertion that only "the most fervently fundamentalist
Christians or Muslims" in Singapore care about making gay sex a
criminal act is baseless, and indeed, false.

The Penal Code provision represents the manner in which the law
expresses our society's commonality of understanding as to what is to
be allowed and what is not.

Encouraging a family unit that is able to procreate and rear children
who will contribute to the future of this country is the prime
imperative of our society, and legislating against any behaviour —
including accepting widespread homosexual behaviour, which attacks the
sacrosanct nature of the family unit — is perfectly acceptable.

The Rule of Law constitutes the sum total of the social contract which
we, as citizens, agree to live by. In a multi-racial and multi-faith
society like Singapore, the Rule of Law is a delicate alchemy of
competing racial, cultural and religious demands. It cannot be subject
to change merely because of the high-pitched calls of a small segment
of our society.

I concede that in the context of the prevailing practice of the
criminal justice system here, the belief may arise that homosexual
acts are not subject to criminal prosecution. However, this belief is
not entirely accurate.

Similar non-prosecutions by the authorities are also the norm, for
example, in cases of mischief or of assault involving simple hurt.

However — and this is the critical distinction — the victim still has
the right to lodge a Magistrate's Complaint and undertake a
prosecution himself. From this perspective, why should a person who
feels aggrieved as a victim of homosexual behaviour be deprived of
such a right to prosecute an assailant?

To achieve acceptance, tolerance or respect, perhaps it is more
effective for the gay community to address in substance the issues
which lead society to frown upon homosexuality. Such engagement would
be more effective than getting tied up in knots about the law.

Mr Ho calls for an act of boldness to allow gays to "realise their
dreams". To believe that changing a piece of legislation will attain
this result is misconceived.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/275023.asp

TodayOnline: Don't send mixed signals (Sept 9)

Don't send mixed signals

Tuesday • September 9, 2008

Letter from Felicia Tan Ying Yi

I REFER to the commentary "Stop making a mockery of rule of law: Let's
accept gays" (Sept 8). I fully agree with Mr Ho Kwon Ping.

The Government's stand on homosexuality in Singapore seems to pander
to religious fundamentalists who are vocal.

Such an attempt to pacify those who believe that it is their place to
impose their value system on others should not happen in a country
that prides itself on openness, secularism and pluralism.

It is all too convenient for the Government to "appease" the gay
community by not taking action against them, while at the same time
continue to pacify the conservatives by keeping the law in name.

However, this merely cheapens what the rule of law means. Laws should
not be made or retained to reflect the views of a vocal minority; in
fact, their purpose should not even be to reflect the views of the
majority.

Instead, they are there to protect the rights of the citizens. In this
way, section 377A of the Penal Code achieves nothing.

I feel that the Government should be courageous enough to finally
decide that everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race
or religion, has an equal right to privacy, and this right should
never be superseded by the moral posturing of any group, regardless of
how vocal or influential.

Or, if the Government should still choose to retain this archaic law,
then it should enforce it instead of sending mixed signals.

But it should also be ready to expect the exodus of not only the gay
community, but also of liberal, tolerant people like me, who refuse to
settle down and start families in such a country.

TodayOnline: What's next? Same sex marriages? (Sept 9)

What's next? Same sex marriages?

Tuesday • September 9, 2008

Letter from Anton Chan

MR HO Kwon Ping is wrong to propose the acceptance of gays into
Singapore society because accepting a gay lifestyle would have a
tremendous impact on society as a whole in terms of religious beliefs,
social well-being and families.

As a Christian, I oppose legalising a gay lifestyle in Singapore
because it's against my beliefs. As a father of three teenagers, I
care because I don't want my children to be affected by such a lifestyle.

Imagine if we allow the acceptance of such a lifestyle in Singapore.
What next? Legalise same sex marriages? Legalise adoption of children
for gays?

Where are we as a socially-conservative society heading towards?

Soon gays will claim the right for social acceptance in all areas
including education, welfare et cetera. What effect will this have on
the next generation of children and parents who wish that their
children will grow up normally and produce children in the normal
course of their being?

The only strong contention in Mr Ho's proposal is the so-called gay
leading edge in the "creative class". Doesn't our society have many
other people to develop and nurture? Why are we so eager to promote
creative class talent in Singapore? So that we can become a more
tolerant society to accept whatever lifestyle these bring? Definitely no.

I would like to borrow a similar argument by Attorney-General Walter
Woon regarding the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota). In "None above
the law" (Sept 8), he said: "If Dr Lee (Wei Ling) disagrees with Hota,
she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended ... But until
Parliament amends or repeals the Hota and the Oaths and Declarations
Act, they remain the law of Singapore."

If anyone disagrees with the law for gays as enacted by Parliament,
he/she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended ... But
until Parliament amends or repeals the law of Singapore for gays, it
remains the law of Singapore.

TodayOnline.com: What's Next? Same Sex Marriage? (Sept 9)

What's next? Same sex marriages?

Tuesday • September 9, 2008

Letter from Anton Chan

MR HO Kwon Ping is wrong to propose the acceptance of gays into
Singapore society because accepting a gay lifestyle would have a
tremendous impact on society as a whole in terms of religious beliefs,
social well-being and families.

As a Christian, I oppose legalising a gay lifestyle in Singapore
because it's against my beliefs. As a father of three teenagers, I
care because I don't want my children to be affected by such a lifestyle.

Imagine if we allow the acceptance of such a lifestyle in Singapore.
What next? Legalise same sex marriages? Legalise adoption of children
for gays?

Where are we as a socially-conservative society heading towards?

Soon gays will claim the right for social acceptance in all areas
including education, welfare et cetera. What effect will this have on
the next generation of children and parents who wish that their
children will grow up normally and produce children in the normal
course of their being?

The only strong contention in Mr Ho's proposal is the so-called gay
leading edge in the "creative class". Doesn't our society have many
other people to develop and nurture? Why are we so eager to promote
creative class talent in Singapore? So that we can become a more
tolerant society to accept whatever lifestyle these bring? Definitely no.

I would like to borrow a similar argument by Attorney-General Walter
Woon regarding the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota). In "None above
the law" (Sept 8), he said: "If Dr Lee (Wei Ling) disagrees with Hota,
she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended ... But until
Parliament amends or repeals the Hota and the Oaths and Declarations
Act, they remain the law of Singapore."

If anyone disagrees with the law for gays as enacted by Parliament,
he/she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended ... But
until Parliament amends or repeals the law of Singapore for gays, it
remains the law of Singapore.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/274854print.asp

TodayOnline.com: Don't Send Mixed Signals (Sept 9)

Don't send mixed signals

Tuesday • September 9, 2008

Letter from Felicia Tan Ying Yi

I REFER to the commentary "Stop making a mockery of rule of law: Let's
accept gays" (Sept 8). I fully agree with Mr Ho Kwon Ping.

The Government's stand on homosexuality in Singapore seems to pander
to religious fundamentalists who are vocal.

Such an attempt to pacify those who believe that it is their place to
impose their value system on others should not happen in a country
that prides itself on openness, secularism and pluralism.

It is all too convenient for the Government to "appease" the gay
community by not taking action against them, while at the same time
continue to pacify the conservatives by keeping the law in name.

However, this merely cheapens what the rule of law means. Laws should
not be made or retained to reflect the views of a vocal minority; in
fact, their purpose should not even be to reflect the views of the
majority.

Instead, they are there to protect the rights of the citizens. In this
way, section 377A of the Penal Code achieves nothing.

I feel that the Government should be courageous enough to finally
decide that everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race
or religion, has an equal right to privacy, and this right should
never be superseded by the moral posturing of any group, regardless of
how vocal or influential.

Or, if the Government should still choose to retain this archaic law,
then it should enforce it instead of sending mixed signals.

But it should also be ready to expect the exodus of not only the gay
community, but also of liberal, tolerant people like me, who refuse to
settle down and start families in such a country.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/274855print.asp

TodayOnline: Stop making a mockery of rule of law: Let's accept gays (Sept 8)

Stop making A mockery of rule of law: Let's accept gays

Why keep such an archaic statute when there's no intention to prosecute?
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/274653.asp

Monday • September 8, 2008

HO KWON PING

news@newstoday.com.sg

SINGAPORE is known to be economically liberal, but socially
conservative. It is a rules-governed society with clear parameters for
behaviour, whether political, economic, or social. And within the "OB
markers" (out-of-bounds markers) of these do's and don'ts, it is a
transparent and fair social order, with no favouritism for anyone
operating outside the parameters.

This state of affairs governed the issue of homosexuality in Singapore
for many years. Not only was gay sex illegal, but every manifestation
was openly discouraged — some would say suppressed — and
discrimination against gays in the public domain (the civil service,
the military, the police, schools, and so on) was commonly accepted.
Indeed, because it was public policy to promote heterosexual family
life as the only norm, any other lifestyle was considered deviant and
handled accordingly. Repressive though it certainly was to gays, it
was at least very predictable.

Today, official attitudes towards homosexuality in Singapore are quite
different. They are certainly ambivalent and ambiguous — some would
even say, schizophrenic. On the one hand, many gay Singaporeans are
feted and lauded for their creative contributions to Singapore, and
warmly accepted by even senior figures of the establishment. On the
other hand, gay sex remains a criminal activity, even after much
public debate on the issue, and any kind of activity which is seen to
promote a gay lifestyle remains off-limits.

To those who believe that the non-persecution of gays is already
something to be grateful for, one could argue that allowing a black
person to sit in the front of the bus while legally forbidding it, is
something to be grateful for. Or, in an analogy closer to home for the
supposedly homophobic heartlanders, should a Chinese person be
grateful if the edict forbidding Chinese and dogs to enter parks in
Shanghai in the '20s were relaxed in reality, but maintained in the
law?

At another level, my gay friends argue cogently that non-prosecution
(or non-persecution, for that matter) signals, at the most, simple
tolerance of them, and nothing more. There is a difference between
being tolerated because gays are seen to be at the leading edge of the
"creative class" — which Singapore is trying to develop as part of its
new knowledge-based, creativity-oriented economy — and being accepted
because of the recognition that fundamental human rights and the
dignity of the individual extends to gays as much as to anyone else.

The somewhat schizophrenic decision to not prosecute an illegal
activity has ramifications beyond the gay community, and has disturbed
some sections of the larger community, which is not particularly
interested in gay issues.

To many thoughtful citizens, Singapore has always openly claimed that
the Rule of Law, possibly even more than the formal mechanisms of
democracy, is a vital component of good governance. Yet, to
criminalise gay sex and, in the same breath, state that anyone
breaching this law will not be prosecuted, makes a mockery of the Rule
of Law.

Minor though this violation of the principle may be, the proponents of
the concept that the Rule of Law is a sacrosanct pillar of the
Singapore ethos lament that the Government did not take the bold step
to simply decriminalise something which the rest of the developed
world has long decriminalised; which most Singaporeans (except,
perhaps, the most fervently fundamentalist Christians or Muslims)
don't care that much about one way or the other; which the police,
courts, and legal community would welcome simply to remove an archaic,
Victorian-era statute; and finally, which the gay community would
embrace as an important signal that their right to privacy — a
fundamental human right — is considered to be more important than the
right of anti-gay groups to proselytise about morality.

Optimists hope that the decriminalisation of gay sex — a yawn to
anyone except the homophobic and the gays themselves — will eventually
occur. In reality, rather than in law, gays in Singapore today have
never had it so good, and should within a short time, become
fully-accepted — not just tolerated — members of an increasingly
diverse, and therefore vibrant, Singapore community.

But if we pat ourselves on the back for being so "bold" as to accept
casinos and Formula 1 events into staid Singapore, why can't the
boldness extend to a simple act to enable gays to realise their dream
— indeed, their simple right — to be normal Singaporeans like anyone
else, no more and no less.

The writer is chairman ofSingapore Management University,executive
chairman of Banyan Tree Holdings and chairman of MediaCorp.

TodayOnline.com: Stop Making A Mockery of Rule of Law: Let's Accept Gays (Sept 8)

Stop making A mockery of rule of law: Let's accept gays

Why keep such an archaic statute when there's no intention to prosecute?
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/274653.asp

Monday • September 8, 2008

HO KWON PING

news@newstoday.com.sg

SINGAPORE is known to be economically liberal, but socially
conservative. It is a rules-governed society with clear parameters for
behaviour, whether political, economic, or social. And within the "OB
markers" (out-of-bounds markers) of these do's and don'ts, it is a
transparent and fair social order, with no favouritism for anyone
operating outside the parameters.

This state of affairs governed the issue of homosexuality in Singapore
for many years. Not only was gay sex illegal, but every manifestation
was openly discouraged — some would say suppressed — and
discrimination against gays in the public domain (the civil service,
the military, the police, schools, and so on) was commonly accepted.
Indeed, because it was public policy to promote heterosexual family
life as the only norm, any other lifestyle was considered deviant and
handled accordingly. Repressive though it certainly was to gays, it
was at least very predictable.

Today, official attitudes towards homosexuality in Singapore are quite
different. They are certainly ambivalent and ambiguous — some would
even say, schizophrenic. On the one hand, many gay Singaporeans are
feted and lauded for their creative contributions to Singapore, and
warmly accepted by even senior figures of the establishment. On the
other hand, gay sex remains a criminal activity, even after much
public debate on the issue, and any kind of activity which is seen to
promote a gay lifestyle remains off-limits.

To those who believe that the non-persecution of gays is already
something to be grateful for, one could argue that allowing a black
person to sit in the front of the bus while legally forbidding it, is
something to be grateful for. Or, in an analogy closer to home for the
supposedly homophobic heartlanders, should a Chinese person be
grateful if the edict forbidding Chinese and dogs to enter parks in
Shanghai in the '20s were relaxed in reality, but maintained in the
law?

At another level, my gay friends argue cogently that non-prosecution
(or non-persecution, for that matter) signals, at the most, simple
tolerance of them, and nothing more. There is a difference between
being tolerated because gays are seen to be at the leading edge of the
"creative class" — which Singapore is trying to develop as part of its
new knowledge-based, creativity-oriented economy — and being accepted
because of the recognition that fundamental human rights and the
dignity of the individual extends to gays as much as to anyone else.

The somewhat schizophrenic decision to not prosecute an illegal
activity has ramifications beyond the gay community, and has disturbed
some sections of the larger community, which is not particularly
interested in gay issues.

To many thoughtful citizens, Singapore has always openly claimed that
the Rule of Law, possibly even more than the formal mechanisms of
democracy, is a vital component of good governance. Yet, to
criminalise gay sex and, in the same breath, state that anyone
breaching this law will not be prosecuted, makes a mockery of the Rule
of Law.

Minor though this violation of the principle may be, the proponents of
the concept that the Rule of Law is a sacrosanct pillar of the
Singapore ethos lament that the Government did not take the bold step
to simply decriminalise something which the rest of the developed
world has long decriminalised; which most Singaporeans (except,
perhaps, the most fervently fundamentalist Christians or Muslims)
don't care that much about one way or the other; which the police,
courts, and legal community would welcome simply to remove an archaic,
Victorian-era statute; and finally, which the gay community would
embrace as an important signal that their right to privacy — a
fundamental human right — is considered to be more important than the
right of anti-gay groups to proselytise about morality.

Optimists hope that the decriminalisation of gay sex — a yawn to
anyone except the homophobic and the gays themselves — will eventually
occur. In reality, rather than in law, gays in Singapore today have
never had it so good, and should within a short time, become
fully-accepted — not just tolerated — members of an increasingly
diverse, and therefore vibrant, Singapore community.

But if we pat ourselves on the back for being so "bold" as to accept
casinos and Formula 1 events into staid Singapore, why can't the
boldness extend to a simple act to enable gays to realise their dream
— indeed, their simple right — to be normal Singaporeans like anyone
else, no more and no less.



The writer is chairman of Singapore Management University,executive
chairman of Banyan Tree Holdings and chairman of MediaCorp.

TodayOnline: Softly spoken at the Corner (Sept 2 2008)

Softly spoken at the Corner

Tuesday • September 2, 2008


Tan Hui Leng

huileng@mediacorp.com.sg


THUS was a milestone in free expression marked: A lone businessman putting up posters to draw attention to failed overseas investments, and a group staging an express demonstration on the plight of abused maids.

But if such fledgling efforts at public demonstrations were disappointing to some who turned up expecting far more fire, at least, it was not the no-show that had been expected originally.

At about 9am yesterday — the first day that rules were relaxed at Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park — 52-year-old businessman Teng Liang Huat registered to put up an exhibition that afternoon.

And at the last minute, non-profit group Hearers of Cries, which had earlier registered its evening event as a speech, decided to change this into a demonstration instead, complete with banners.

Much fanfare had led up to the liberalisation of rules: A police permit was no longer needed to speak at the park, visual aids were allowed as were sound amplifiers. Scenarios such as the burning of political effigies or a gay pride parade had seemed real possibilities, with authorities not objecting when these were suggested to them.

So it was that many, like retiree Roger Poh, 61, dropped by in keen anticipation yesterday evening, to see what would take place.

Mr Poh, who came all the way from Jalan Kayu, felt short-changed by the 22-minute ‘demonstration’ from Hearer of Cries – it began with founder Mike Goh appealing for whistle-blowers on maid abuses, after which a volunteer dressed up as an abused maid (complete with paint-on bruises and neck brace) appealed for help.

The speeches lasted less than three minutes in all.

“I’m very disappointed, I expected more,” Mr Poh told TODAY. “I was hoping for demonstrations at the last minute on more controversial topics such as ERP, ministerial salaries and cost of living. This (maid abuse) issue is innocuous. It’s an anti-climax.”

Alan Tan bemoaned the turnout of about 30 to 40 persons. “I though all of Singapore knew, why are they not here?” asked the 50-year-old teacher. “It’s Teacher’s Day today – we should see more students and teachers. Are they scared or are they just not interested?”

And where was the opposition, or other local activists, some wondered.

As Mr Poh said: “It’s the first day and all the media is here; it’s the perfect opportunity to be heard.”



SUBHD: ‘Hopefully someone can help me’

Some expressed pessimism over whether interest in Hong Lim Park could be sustained.

One or two in the crowd were heard mumbling that it would likely “die a natural death” – the same way that Speaker’s Corner had opened on Sept 1, 2000 with a bang that quickly sizzled out, some said largely due to its out-of-the-way location.

Architect Foo Siew Mun, for one, believes that the Internet is now the focal point as a new-age discussion forum and real live demonstrations have become less effective in pushing causes.

But for individuals like Mr Teng – who literally put his name in the record books when he registered to put up posters yesterday – it was a way to vent his frustrations.

Between 1pm and 5pm, he put up hundreds of notices in Chinese typeface, expounding on Singapore businessmen’s misadventures overseas and the bureaucratic red-tape faced. He had apparently run into legal issues when investing in a property overseas.

“I’m using this as a platform to voice my concerns about issues and hopefully, somebody can help me out,” said Mr Teng, who had learnt about the looser rules at Speakers’ Corner only the day before.

He was approached by members of the media, curious tourists and other passers-by, like law student Kerushnan who had dropped by with friends to see if there was “any action”.

Mr Kerushnan, 38, was upbeat about the opportunity for the man in the street to voice his opinions and concerns. Unfortunately, the second event of the day ended too early for the student who had classes in the evening – Hearer of Cries had registered for their demonstration to end at 9pm, but started packing up before 7.25pm.

The seven-member group, which set up a website in 2002, encourages the public to report maid abuse and offers vouchers as rewards. Founder Mr Goh appeared a tad overwhelmed by the keen media attention and declined to elaborate much on the organisation, refering reporters instead to its website.

“Everyone of us here can play apart to prevent maid abuse,” he said, and yesterday’s demonstration was a small start – the group intends to use Speakers’ Corner as a regular platform to spread its message.

After all, as architect Mr Foo put it succintly: “It’s a start.”

And a soft one at that.

TodayOnline: A more open field (Aug 26 2008)

A more open field

S’poreans can now stage demos using loud hailers, placards, and hold overnight candlelight vigils

Tuesday • August 26, 2008


derrick A paulo
deputy news editor
derrick@mediacorp.com.sg

BURN an effigy of a Singapore political leader? Organise a gay pride event outdoors? From next week, protests like these will have a place in Singapore.

These were some of the scenarios put to the Police, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the National Parks Board (NParks) yesterday when they announced the details on liberalising the use of Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park to allow public protests. None of the agencies objected.

“We want to be as open as possible,” said MHA senior director (policy and operations) Tai Wei Shyong at the press conference yesterday.

He did concede that because of the many possible scenarios that could arise, the liberalisation of Speakers’ Corner will be a “work in evolution”.

Come Sept 1, Singaporeans can organise and participate in any demonstration at Speakers’ Corner — except those that involve race and religion — without having to obtain a police permit.

Permanent residents (PRs) can also participate in these demonstrations, in recognition of the stake they have in Singapore. But they have to apply for a permit if they wish to give a speech or organise a protest themselves.

Foreigners will have to apply for a permit to conduct or participate in any activity — to make the distinction that the political rights of citizens are different from those of non-citizens. Which raises this possible scenario: What happens if a foreigner joins the protest without the organiser’s knowledge?

“The rules will be interpreted reasonably ... If there’s no way to stop him, we’ll look at that,” said Mr Tai. The rules will be administered by the NParks. Its chief operating officer, Dr Leong Chee Chiew, said he was not anticipating “worst-case scenarios”.

Since Speakers’ Corner was set up on Sept 1, 2000, there has not been any breach of the rules, according to Singapore Police Force director (operations) Wong Hong Kuan. During this time, there was a total of 2,144 registrations involving 508 speakers.

With the liberalisation, the 7am-to-7pm restriction will be abolished, thereby allowing all-night vigils. Any form of banners, placards, posters and other visual aids can be used for speeches or demonstrations, as long as they do not contain violent or obscene messages or any that pertain to race or religion.

And on top of making a scene, NParks will allow the use of loud hailers and other amplification equipment between 9am and 10.30pm in Hong Lim Park, which can hold 3,000 to 4,000 people.

A point to note: A group of protesters may have to share the park with other protesters. NParks’ new online registration allows you to head down to Hong Lim Park immediately after you register — there is no booking system.

“We work very much on the basis of trust. We are not going to do screening and make sure you speak on what you said you will speak on. But if you give information, you must know you’re accountable for it,” said Dr Leong.

The mandatory registration information includes your personal details, the date and nature of the event and the topic.

Would the police have any knowledge of the registrations with NParks? They would not rule it out yesterday.

“What if someone puts on the website that he’s going to do bad things?” Mr Wong offered as a scenario.

But he wanted to “dispel the perception that there’s a preponderance of police presence” at Speakers’ Corner, which is located next to Kreta Ayer Police Station.

He said that police presence would be kept “minimal”. But the police will intervene to enforce law and order or if there are complaints from the public.

“There are no limits (to the protests) subject to public safety ... for example, the crowd is so big that it obstructs the public,” said Mr Wong.

An agitated crowd is fine – demonstrations are designed as such, noted Mr Wong – but he suggested that organisers choose “some calming words” or call the protests off if they cannot control the crowd.

Lawyer and activist Chia Ti Lik believes this step to open up is “an attempt to return control over something (the government) won’t be able to control”.

“Their stand against demonstrations won’t hold up in real democracies,” he said.

So, will there be any takers for public protests come September?

Gay rights activist Alex Au does not plan to “dignify tokenism”, but the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society is in discussions to organise a demonstration, its executive director Louis Ng told Channel NewsAsia.

NParks is ready to take on this new role.

“Our primary motivation is to keep Speakers’ Corner for use in as well-maintained conditions as possible ... If there’s a need to make good on anything, we can follow up,” said Dr Leong.

“So, don’t damage our shrubs.”

Which means effigies can be burnt – but with care. - Additional reporting by Esther Ng

Todayonline: Channel 5 fined $15k by MDA

Channel 5 fined $15k by MDA

Friday • April 25, 2008

THE Media Development Authority (MDA) of Singapore has fined MediaCorp TV Channel 5 $15,000, the authority said in a statement on its website yesterday.

On Jan 13 at 7.30am, the station had aired an episode of an acquired home and decor series, "Find and Design". The episode featured a gay couple wanting to transform their game room into a new nursery for their adopted baby.

The authority said the episode had contained scenes of the couple with their baby.

It also featured "the presenter's congratulations and acknowledgement of them as a family unit in a way which normalises their gay lifestyle and unconventional family setup".

This was in breach of the Free-to-Air TV Programme Code, which disallows programmes that promote, justify or glamourise gay lifestyles.

The MDA said it consulted the Programme Advisory Committee for English Programmes, which felt that the programme was "inappropriate" for its Sunday morning timeslot as this was "within family viewing hours".

Taking such considerations into account — and the fact that this was a second breach by MediaCorp TV — the MDA decided on the fine.

Mr Kenneth Liang, executive vice president of TV programming and production, said: "We accept the reasons for the fine. Our relationship with MDA is a dynamic one, just as regulations are not static as well. They change with the changing values of society.

"If we have overstepped the boundary this time, at least we now know where the OB marker is."

Last year, the broadcaster was fined $5,000 for airing a kissing scene between two lesbians in an episode of drama series "Without a Trace".

Earlier this month, the MDA fined StarHub Cable Vision $10,000 for airing a commercial that showed two lesbians kissing.

TODAYOnline: Banks and the pool of pink talent (Jan 30)

Banks and the pool of pink talent

by Neo Chai Chin
TODAY, Jan 30, 2008

American investment bank Lehman Brothers is planning an unusual initiative in Singapore, Financial Times reported recently. It is specifically targeting gay and lesbians who aspire to be bankers. This follows the success of a presentation and buffet dinner for 50 gay students in Hong Kong.

Today has learnt that the banking giant is not alone. Global banks around Asia are breaking new ground to attract and retain the best and brightest. Increasingly, their hiring and diversity policies are taking into account the homosexual community, which makes up as a significant part of the talent pool.

At UBS Singapore, for example, benefits including health insurance are extended to a staff's "significant other", defined as "a person who has cohabited with an employee for a continuous period of 12 months". The couple does not need to be married, and sexual orientation is not an issue.

Money is a factor in the competition for talent, but keeping up with social changes is also important.

"This is why our benefits policy is designed to be as flexible and inclusive as possible," said Ms Leona Tan, UBS Singapore's diversity advisor.

Merrill Lynch, on its part, has four professional networks in the Asia-Pacific region for its staff, one of which is the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender network, set up last April. The other networks are for women, young professionals and parents. The firm even has an annual diversity week, when it hosts speakers, events and conferences
for the various networks.

"Our efforts in the area of diversity are about how we can create the most effective and inclusive environment, one in which we value diversity rather than simply tolerate it," said Mr Roman Matla, spokesperson for the bank's diversity and inclusion team.

Besides Merrill Lynch and UBS, however, other banks Today contacted were less willing to provide details of exactly how they are catering or wooing gay employees. Gay bank staff whom this newspaper spoke to were not surprised by the taciturnity of their employers.

"We are not fully aware of the firm's diversity policy, as it is not widely publicised," said a 34-year-old employee of a European bank here.

"I've heard that Lehman and Goldman Sachs are the more progressive firms, in that they are more explicit in talking about their policies, normally through email or employees' handbooks."

But are more events organised specifically for gay employees the way to
go?

Perhaps not, the employee said. "To be honest, I feel it's not an agenda that needs to be singled out - for example, a skincare workshop for gay employees. I would just like for the policies to be more explicitly stated."

It does seem, however, that when it comes to diversity initiatives, offshore banks are ahead of their local counterparts. Three major local banks told Today that they did not have staff specifically handling the issue of diversity. OCBC, however, added that its human resource policies "do not discriminate against employees' personal backgrounds including gender, race or religion".

When contacted, Dr Stuart Koe, chief executive of Fridae.com, a gay lifestyle portal, said: "Having a diversity programme is going one step beyond an anti-discrimination policy. It shows that employers value the merits and contributions of their gay and lesbian employees."

TodayOnline: Once-banned gay pop duo given green light for concert here (Nov 22)

Once-banned gay pop duo given green light for concert here

Thursday • November 22, 2007

Alicia Wong
alicia@mediacorp.com.sg

IN A sign that authorities are prepared to work with civil society groups to tackle the HIV problem, a once-banned gay pop duo has been given the green light to take part in a concert here next month.

And the HIV Outreach, Prevention and Empowerment (Hope) Concert will have as its guest of honour, Dr Balaji Sadasivan, Senior Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Information, Communications and the Arts).

The gay duo, Jason and deMarco, had a planned performance here cancelled two years ago after the Media Development Authority (MDA) rejected an application by the organiser, Safehaven, a gay-affirmative Christian support group, for an Arts and Entertainment Licence.

The MDA had then cited "alternative lifestyles are against the public interest" as its ground for rejection.

Explaining its change of heart, the MDA said that the organisers had assured the authority that the aim of the Dec 13 concert is Aids education and HIV prevention.

"The organiser for this concert has rated the performance R18 and has given the assurance to MDA that the concert is targeted at the high-risk group," said Ms Amy Tsang, MDA's Deputy Director (Arts & Licensing) of the Media Content Division in an email reply to Today.

Dr Balaji's scheduled attendance at the concert is not surprising since he had earlier touched on the need for the authorities and non-governmental organisations to work together in tackling the spread of HIV.

Out of the 357 new HIV cases reported in Singapore last year, 26 per cent were contracted through homosexual sex.

In an interview with this newspaper in August, Dr Balaji noted that in the Australian state of New South Wales, the number of HIV cases reported each year had, on the whole, been dropping over the past decade.

Dr Balaji had earlier went on a study trip to Sydney, accompanied by Ministry of Health (MOH) officials and representatives from Action for Aids (AFA), gay web site Fridae.com and Oogachaga, a local gay and lesbian affirmative counselling agency.

Referring to the Sydney trip, Mr Paul Toh, AFA's Director for fund-raising and programmes, said yesterday: " I guess the Government has learnt from other developed Western countries how they can cope in terms of managing the epidemics within the alternative lifestyle community."

Mr Toh said while everyone has a role to play in addressing the HIV problem, the Government "bears more weight" because it has the "political will to move things at a faster pace".

Jointly organised by AFA and Safehaven, the HOPE Concert aims to raise awareness on HIV and Aids in the gay community, said Mr Alphonsus Lee, the chairman of Safehaven.

The concert will be held at the Kreta Ayer People's Theatre, which can house a 1,100-strong audience. The one-night only performance will also involve local artists such as Chua Enlai as MC, Hossan Leong and Selena Tan.

Concert tickets are available only through AFA and restricted channels, such as nightclubs, saunas and gay website Fridae.com.

"We are very conscious of the mainstream view of such a concert and we would like to be respectful of their views ... So, we are willing to restrict ourselves," said Mr Lee.

Although this is a "once-off event the official nod for the HOPE concert is "good news" since it will help increase local Aids and HIV awareness, said Mr Bryan Choong of Oogachaga.

TODAYOnline: You are not welcome here, club tells Leona Lo (Nov 12)

You are not welcome here, club tells Leona Lo

Monday • November 12, 2007

Phin Wong
phin@mediacorp.com.sg

She has written about life as a transsexual woman and has given talks on transsexual issues. But on early Saturday morning, Ms Leona Lo was asked to leave a Clarke Quay nightspot, apparently for being a "lady boy".

Ms Lo was at The Pump Room with a Singaporean Chinese man and woman and an American Chinese man.

She said in an email to the media: "The bouncer … asked one of my friends if he knew me. My friend replied 'Yes'. Still, the bouncer … asked me to show him my ID. He said the bar did not welcome 'lady boys'."

Ms Lo told Today she refused to show him her identity card because it was unfair that she was "being singled out". Ms Lo and her friends then left the bar.

Her IC states her sex as "female".

A spokesperson for The Pump Room would neither confirm nor deny the incident yesterday, saying there was not enough time to investigate the matter.

Mr William Graham, director of the club, said: "The Pump Room has no general policy to exclude any particular groups other than the age guidelines we publish.

"We do however reserve the right to refuse entry, at our discretion, to any individuals whom we feel are not in adherence to our entry policy.

"For example, if the customer does not adhere to our dress code, is below our age guidelines, or if we feel they might create a disturbance or misbehave in the establishment based on prior experience, we might not welcome them."

According to the bar's staff, the age limit is 21 for women and 23 for men on Fridays and Saturdays, and 18 for everyone on other days. The dress code bars sandals, slippers, shorts and sleeveless shirts.

Ms Lo, 32, said she was wearing a "typical silver dress".

"I've been there before. The band has even sung 'Happy Birthday' to me," she said.

In her email, she added: "Ironically, Pump Room's anchor band is Jive Talking, which features a transgender lead singer."

Ms Lo recently launched From Leonard To Leona, a book chronicling her experience as a post-operation transsexual. She underwent sex assignment surgery in 1997 in Thailand.