ST Forum: Homosexuals are contributing citizens too (May 3, 2007)

May 3, 2007
Homosexuals are contributing citizens too

I REFER to the letter from Mr Jonathan Cheng Hern Sinn, 'MM's comments have me and family worried' (ST, May 1).

Mr Cheng and his family were concerned about Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's recent comments about liberalising laws regarding homosexuality which, in Mr Cheng's view, will rob Singapore of its wholesomeness as he alleged that homosexuals lead a promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyle.

I have led many community projects benefiting the infirm elderly and people with disabilities. In most of our projects, we mobilised more than 100 volunteers, with the majority being homosexuals. In the past three years, our volunteers have cleaned and painted more than 150 homes of the elderly, taken the elderly in wheelchairs for outings and organised celebratory free dinners, among other things. In the past two years, our volunteers have twice staged A Nation In Concert, which empowered hundreds of people with disabilities to perform on the grand stage of the Esplanade Concert Hall, and channelled close to $250,000 to various charities dealing with disabilities.

Our volunteers sacrificed their evenings after work and weekends to organise these events.

Contrary to public perception that homosexuals do not have children and family to take care of and, hence, lead a hedonistic lifestyle, there are many homosexuals who volunteer their time and energy to carry out community work in various voluntary organisations.

I applaud MM Lee's foresight in advocating an inclusive society, in keeping with developments around the world. Instead of discriminating against and making life difficult for our fellow homosexual citizens, we should channel our energy towards working together as a nation regardless of race, language or religion - or sexual orientation.

Jerry Siah
Honorary Executive Director
Spaces Community

ST Forum: Looking beyond the gay issue (May 3, 2007)

May 3, 2007
Looking beyond the gay issue


MUCH has been said about MM Lee's recent comments on the possible abolishing of laws with regard to homosexuality.

The purpose of my letter is not to argue the merits or flaws of such an action but to look at the basis upon which decisions such as these are being made.

It is my contention that the value which is esteemed above all else in our country is wealth, material wealth and that is an extremely dangerous ground to be on.

We are taught this in subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, ways.

As an example, MM Lee said this and I quote: 'They tell me that homosexuals are creative writers, dancers. If we want creative people, then we have to put up with their idiosyncrasies.'

If I may have the liberty of paraphrasing this statement, I would put it this way: 'If they can contribute to the economic bottom-line, their lifestyle does not matter.'

The still recent debate over the integrated resort issue is another example. One justification of having an integrated resort (make that two actually) in Singapore is that if we do not have them, we would lose out to other countries which do have them.

Lose out in what way? In revenue of course. We can have more jobs, more tourists, more... money. The fallout from people who may get addicted, the families who may suffer as a result et cetera, these are but minor considerations that can be dealt with.

'We must be realistic' or 'we must be practical' is more important than 'we must do the right thing'. It is not surprising that a me-first (maybe a me-only) mentality is prevalent here.

It is not surprising, therefore, when I take the lift and find litter scattered all over the floor, I squeeze onto the bus trying to find space to get on and find that the back of the bus is still relatively empty, I read the papers and discover rich people scurrying for cheap books meant to bless the poor, and so on.

Of course, some would take exception to what I am describing and say that this generalisation is overly simplistic and I cannot draw a conclusion from these observations. And they would probably be right. However, the purpose of my writing is to force us to think about what is truly important in life.

The family in Singapore is not well. I think this is a statement that needs little justification.

Even while the family is deteriorating, we are about to introduce another factor that truly bears upon the family (namely, the homosexual issue).

While we are out earning our wages, our children are at home being brought up by maids (and this is in no way a slur on the job that they perform).

If we persist in this philosophy of life, we may indeed find that our country remains on top of the economic pile but has lost its very soul.

I conclude with words from an ancient book of wisdom: 'What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?'

Aaron Ho Chien Kwok

ST Forum: Writer has prejudiced view (May 3, 2007)

May 3, 2007
Writer has prejudiced view that all homosexuals lead promiscuous and
hedonistic lifestyles


CONSIDERING that Singapore is striving to be an inclusive and open society,
I was dismayed to read the bigoted statements in Mr Jonathan Cheng Hern
Sinn's letter, 'MM's comments have me and family worried' (ST, May 1).

To purport that the legalisation of homosexuality will compound the problems
of Singapore's declining birth rates and the breaking down of families is
not logical.

Is the writer trying to suggest that by outlawing homosexuality, homosexuals
will somehow be forced to become heterosexual and set up 'normal' families
with children and thus solve the abovementioned social problems? This is a
ludicrous proposition, given that it has already been established that
homosexuality is a propensity that one is born into.

What perturbs me the most is how the writer takes a prejudiced view that all
homosexuals lead promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyles.

Such a wild and unsubstantiated accusation vilifies an entire community that
has contributed as much to Singapore's growth as has heterosexuals.

Are 'promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyles' exclusive to homosexuals?
Furthermore, would the writer like to vouch that all heterosexuals do not
carry STDs and thus are of no risk to the general population, as he condemns
homosexuals to be?

A teacher teaching his wards that being homosexual is normal seems to me
like an effort to educate the young that everyone has the right to be
treated equally. Does the writer deem it morally acceptable then for it to
be taught that only heterosexuals are normal and being homosexual is thus
abnormal?

I believe it is not simply 'criticism' that riles homosexual communities. It
is the bigotry and scorn heaped upon them by some sections of society that
cannot tolerate anyone being different from what they deem to be the norm,
as the writer has so blatantly demonstrated in his letter, which exposes the
writer's deep seated personal bias against homosexuals.

Knowing homosexual friends and peers has convinced me that homosexuality
does not make them any different from anyone else, nor does it make them the
scum of society that some people might paint them out to be. Their continued
persecution holds no place in a forward-thinking society.

Tim Mou Hui

Safehaven Dialogue Session - 10 May 2007

Safehaven Dialogue Session, presented by Free Community Church
10 May 2007, 7.30pm, Amara Hotel

Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao
First Asian Bishop of The Methodist Church in Malaysia and Singapore. Council Member, Inter-Religious Organisation.

AND

Dr Tan Kim Huat
Chen Su Lan Professor of New Testament and Dean of Studies, Trinity Theological College.

ST Forum: Whether Heterosexual or Gay, Treat All Equally

SAFE is a group of family and friends who affirm and support gay and transgendered people as persons with equal rights to respect, dignity, acceptance and empowerment in society.

We are writing to express our thanks to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for his recent comments at the dialogue with Young PAP and in the interview with Reuters.

We appreciate the two cogent points he made:

That homosexuality is a genetic variation, not an aberration.

That the law against homosexual acts is outmoded.

We at SAFE are hopeful that the law that criminalises homosexual acts will be abolished. Whether heterosexual or gay, we believe that all Singapore citizens and residents should be treated equally under the law.

We cannot agree with a law that proclaims our sons, grandsons, brothers, nephews, uncles, relatives and friends as criminals for a propensity that is not of their volition, is innocuous and part of their private lives. For far too long our gay loved ones from a young age have suffered deep internalised oppression, often resulting in the disintegration of family, compromised relationships, low self-esteem, stunted maturity and unavoidable deceitfulness.

We support the decriminalisation of oral and anal sex as proposed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and ask that it apply equally to all consenting adults.

Homosexual men and women enrich our lives through their participation in business, the professions, the arts and government. As we focus on the richness gay people bring to our lives and our love and support for them, we not only liberate them, but we also become a society committed to the Asian values of real family.

Susan Yap Siu Sen (Ms)
Founding member
S A F E
Supporting, Affirming & Empowering our lgbtQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, questioning) friends and family

ST Forum: Justify why gay acts should remain criminal

ST Forum: 1 May 2007

I REFER to the letter from Ms Agnes Chai, 'Are homosexuals truly born gay?' (ST, April 27).

I think this question would be more accurately put to the proponents of Section 377: In the absence of any proof as to the nature of homosexuality, what justifies the potential imprisonment of homosexuals? Shouldn't those who want to keep it on the books instead be made to justify its continued existence?

Proponents of 377 claim that homosexuality is a question of choice, not nature. Hence, it is unnatural, and should therefore be criminalised.

Ms Chai's article cites the inconclusive results of recent studies surrounding the nature-nurture debate as reason to keep 377 on the books. If anything, these inconclusive results should be a strong warning against us making any assertions as to what is natural and what is not.

Even if we were to concede that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, this doesn't have a bearing one way or the other on the question of criminalisation. The autonomy to make lifestyle choices should be respected as a right in itself, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of another member of the public (or the public in general).

The late Herbert Hart, professor of jurisprudence at Oxford University, highlighted that clear harm to society should be proven before criminalising homosexuality because it involves the potential incarceration, and limits the actions, of individuals. Section 377's provision for life imprisonment is a sword of Damocles that is no less draconian for its infrequent use.

Decriminalising homosexuality in no way sends a signal of approval; what it does is affirm Parliament's respect for individuals as their own moral agents.

Granted, individual liberty can be understandably constrained to prevent harm to society. However, homosexuality harms no one, but its criminalisation casts a pall over a significant section of society. On balance, Section 377 should be abolished.

Choo Zheng Xi