Today: The Gay Debate and the Breakthrough We Need

May 21, 2007

The GAY DEBATE AND the BREAKTHROUGH WE NEED

P N BALJI

Editorial Director balji@mediacorp.com.sg

NO amount of print or pressure, or even persuasion, is going to change the Government's stand on what is being described by some as an archaic and discriminatory law: A law that makes overt homosexuality a crime in Singapore.

That is the only black-and-white certainty in the on-going debate on gays. The rest, as they say, is all grey.

So why bother even talking about it, asked a friend exasperated with the glacial pace in the politics of change here.

Over lunch, we tried to jog our collective memories on the number of occasions when the Government introduced a new law or changed a stand because of overt influence from the outside.
Two stick out like sore thumbs: Former Nominated Member of Parliament Walter Woon's push in 1995 for a law to force children to pay for their parents' maintenance — the only Act passed by Parliament since 1965 not initiated by the Government — and the official embrace in 2001 of a group of nature lovers who wanted to save Chek Jawa from reclamation.

There have been instances of Government reversal (such as on the graduate mothers policy) and tweaking (to allow the restricted viewing of certain movies). But these have all originated from within, with no overt pressure or persuasion from without.

The Jeremys of this world, as quoted in Today's weekend report, need to know that this is a government that guards jealously its self-imposed change-from-within mandate.

For every Jeremy and partner who want to pack up and go because of the legal discrimination against gays here, there is a Dennis and partner, who swear by Singapore's enlightened attitude — covert though it may be — towards gay couples like them.

I met Dennis, his partner and two other gays at a 31-year-old lady's birthday a month ago. They led me into a world of highly-intelligent, highly-articulate and highly-successful people.

They have an opinion – a penetrating and alternative one, mind you — on nearly everything that is happening in Singapore and around the world. That is definitely refreshing in a place where debate and discussion, even in a dinner setting, is lacking.

Even more refreshing was to see how the four gays took care of the two straight women at the table. They fussed over the women, talking about the latest fashion trends and bitching about nearly everything and everybody under the sun. The dinner ended with one of the women whispering into her husband's ear: "They are God's gift to women!"

I am sure many of the 62.3 per cent of the heartlanders who said, in a Today survey, that they are against legalising homosexuality would have a different view if they got to mingle with these people more often.

That is what happened with Britain's Ministry of Defence which allowed gays to serve in the armed forces.

Today, seven years later, the ministry's verdict: None of its fears of harassment, discord, blackmail and bullying have come to pass, according to an International Herald Tribune report.

If it can happen in a macho and tightly-regulated environment like the armed forces, then Singapore society in general should pose no great barrier.

Singapore needs gays, not just because of the pink dollar and the economic value they bring, but also because they add a colourful and intellectual vibrancy to our city.

With the law and the politics on gays unlikely to change for sometime, the next best thing is for us all to get to know them better.

They have the same emotions we have. A teacher friend once told me, misty- eyed and all, about the pain he suffered after breaking up with his partner. Another, a doctor, spoke of how he is consumed by guilt every time his parents ask him why he is not getting married.

Yes, gays are normal people and they should be treated normally. That is the breakthrough we need to achieve in this gay debate.

CNA: Analysis: The gay debate and the breakthrough we need

Analysis: The gay debate and the breakthrough we need

No amount of print or pressure, or even persuasion, is going to change the Government’s stand on what is being described by some as an archaic and discriminatory law: A law that makes overt homosexuality a crime in Singapore. That is the only black-and-white certainty in the on-going debate on gays. The rest, as they say, is all grey. So why bother even talking about it, asked a friend exasperated with the glacial pace in the politics of change here. Over lunch, we tried to jog our collective memories on the number of occasions when the Government introduced a new law or changed a stand because of overt influence from the outside. Two stick out like sore thumbs: Former Nominated Member of Parliament Walter Woon’s push in 1995 for a law to force children to pay for their parents’ maintenance — the only Act passed by Parliament since 1965 not initiated by the Government — and the official embrace in 2001 of a group of nature lovers who wanted to save Chek Jawa from reclamation.

There have been instances of Government reversal (such as on the graduate mothers policy) and tweaking (to allow the restricted viewing of certain movies). But these have all originated from within, with no overt pressure or persuasion from without. The Jeremys of this world, as quoted in TODAY’s weekend report, need to know that this is a government that guards jealously its self-imposed change-from-within mandate. For every Jeremy and partner who want to pack up and go because of the legal discrimination against gays here, there is a Dennis and partner, who swear by Singapore’s enlightened attitude — covert though it may be — towards gay couples like them. I met Dennis, his partner and two other gays at a 31-year-old lady’s birthday a month ago. They led me into a world of highly-intelligent, highly-articulate and highly-successful people.

They have an opinion – a penetrating and alternative one, mind you — on nearly everything that is happening in Singapore and around the world. That is definitely refreshing in a place where debate and discussion, even in a dinner setting, is lacking. Even more refreshing was to see how the four gays took care of the two straight women at the table. They fussed over the women, talking about the latest fashion trends and bitching about nearly everything and everybody under the sun. The dinner ended with one of the women whispering into her husband’s ear: “They are God’s gift to women!” I am sure many of the 62.3 per cent of the heartlanders who said, in a TODAY survey, that they are against legalising homosexuality would have a different view if they got to mingle with these people more often. That is what happened with Britain’s Ministry of Defence which allowed gays to serve in the armed forces.

Today, seven years later, the ministry’s verdict: None of its fears of harassment, discord, blackmail and bullying have come to hot news newscomment pass, according to an International Herald Tribune report. If it can happen in a macho and tightly-regulated environment like the armed forces, then Singapore society in general should pose no great barrier. Singapore needs gays, not just because of the pink dollar and the economic value they bring, but also because they add a colourful and intellectual vibrancy to our city. With the law and the politics on gays unlikely to change for sometime, the next best thing is for us all to get to know them better.

They have the same emotions we have. A teacher friend once told me, misty- eyed and all, about the pain he suffered after breaking up with his partner. Another, a doctor, spoke of how he is consumed by guilt every time his parents ask him why he is not getting married. Yes, gays are normal people and they should be treated normally. That is the breakthrough we need to achieve in this gay debate.

TODAY: What price, the pink dollar?

What price, the pink dollar?

WHAT HEARTLANDERS SAY What it means for the hunt for talent how businesses strike a balance

Weekend . May 19, 2007

Jasmine Yin and Gracia Chiang
jasmine@mediacorp. com.sg

HE IS your typical high-flyer - head of corporate finance at a major investment firm here. But 40-year-old Jeremy (not his real name) may soon bid farewell to his life in Singapore.

His partner of seven years, a scholar with a master's degree, is eyeing a home in cities that are "more open" to gays, such as New York, London and Hong Kong, where he can "be himself" - without a law against homosexual activity hanging over their heads.

"I just want to live my life quietly and be who I am, without having to constantly worry if one day the Government will decide to enforce this law." said Jeremy.

The law in question, Section 377A of the Penal Code, may rankle with those such as Jeremy who think it an archaic, discriminatory piece of legislature that should be repealed, since the authorities have said they do not proactively enforce it in the case of private consensual acts between adults.

But many others believe it is a necessary moral safeguard, a signal of society's still-mostly conservative and wholesome family values. And as a poll commissioned by Today showed (see table), a majority of Singaporean heartlanders share this view.

Asked if homosexuality should be made legal, 62.3 per cent of the 300 respondents disagreed - 25.3 per cent strongly so. Only 11.6 per cent thought it should be legalised while, interestingly, 26 per cent had no views either way.

The issue cropped up for debate recently, when Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew flagged the need for a "practical, pragmatic approach" at a forum.

While the conservative majority's views on homosexuality should be respected, he had said, "they tell me, and anyway it is probably half-true, that homosexuals are creative writers, dancers, et cetera. If we want creative people, then we've got to put up with their idiosyncrasies so long as they don't infect the heartland".

While it is unlikely that Section 377A will be repealed any time soon, Mr Lee noted: "If this is the way the world is going and Singapore is part of that interconnected world - and I think it is - then I see no option for Singapore but to be part of it.

"Some have long argued that a law criminalising homosexuality can only work against the Republic's push to lure foreign talent here and to grow an ideas-driven, creative economy. But equally, such pundits have failed to convince a large segment of heartlanders of the economic value that homosexuals might bring.

In the Today telephone survey, 41 per cent of respondents disagreed with the statement that gay people had much to contribute to the national economy. In contrast, 32.7 per cent thought they did.

Political scientist Kenneth Paul Tan is one of those who frames the debate in the context of Singapore's aspirations to become a global city. He feels the law will be another reason for talent not to come here.

It will be seen as a culturally intolerant and sterile place and that is the image it presents to the world by persisting with Section 377A, said the Assistant Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

He cited a study published in 2002 by Carnegie Mellon academic Richard Florida, who coined the term "creative class" - comprising talented and innovative people who can choose to work anywhere in the world. They are likely to be drawn to cities that show a tolerance for differences, and in turn, these cities perform well economically, Prof Florida argues.

Places that welcome the gay community are seen to welcome all kinds of people, he notes. San Francisco and San Diego - two cities in California - rank on his list of most diverse and creative in the United States.

Others have pointed out that mobile gay professionals with spending power can contribute to a nation's economy in other ways. Indeed, some businesses in Singapore are eyeing the "pink dollar".

One example is four-year-old fashion chain NewUrbanMale, which recorded $6 million in revenue last year. Said founder-director Shenzi Chua: "We are perfectly cool that we are known as a gay brand even though our target group is much wider and includes straight men and women." Half his design team is gay.

There is, however, a catch: Some enterprises worry about what conservative customers would think of a gay-friendly business.

Gays account for up to 20 per cent of takings at Hotel 1929 near Chinatown. Said its sales manager Charmaine Wee: "We see that business increasing if the law changes, but we won't say that we are going to pursue the pink dollar enthusiastically.

"The hotel is aware that a large number of corporate clients are uncomfortable with the idea of targeting the pink dollar.

But is the promise of economic gains enough to sway naysayers - which include the religious groups - that the Government has often described as the "traditional" majority?

Notwithstanding the survey results, Dr Tan called the idea of a conservative majority that is actively against homosexuality a "myth".

Said the political scientist: "There are certainly conservative Singaporeans whose views any open society must also take into account. Most, however, don't really have a view on homosexuality either way, but may feel compelled to offer a 'safe', meaning 'conservative' , response when polled.

"But when it comes to elections, no government would want to take a chance."

Certainly, such voices have been vocal in the media. These range from those who lament the erosion of social and religious values, and what they see as harm to the public good, to those who say they are "okay" with gays as long as they keep their distance and are "discreet".

Some pundits say these attitudes will change as society gets more cosmopolitan and connected globally. Yet, there are some in the gay and lesbian community who pooh-pooh the economic argument for decriminalising homosexuality.

Said Dr Ethan Lim, a 29-year-old doctor who is gay: "I would rather people see me as a person. But our society places heavy valuation on economic success.

"Touting economic benefits can "help sell most things" - but Dr Russell Heng, senior fellow at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies, says he would rather "believe that the driving forces here should be principles of equality in citizenship, doing what is right, and not just what may be profitable".

A better reason for repealing Section 377A, said Dr Lim, would be how it would help national health efforts in tackling sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and HIV/Aids. Groups like Action for Aids would then have more leeway to reach out to such groups with its message of safe sex. "It's not so much about homosexuality but unsafe sex practices that increase the risk of getting STDs," he added.

The divisions are clear. At the core of the debate is the question of what kind of society Singapore is.

Accommodating alternative lifestyles, yes. Welcoming such lifestyles with open arms, not yet.

ST Online Forum: Changing a person's sexual orientation: conclusion flawed

ST Online Forum
May 19, 2007

Changing a person's sexual orientation: Conclusion flawed

I AM writing in response to Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang's letter titled, 'Figures speak for themselves: Practising gays have higher risk of HIV'.

I thank Dr Chin for keeping the discussion on an emotional topic grounded in rational discourse, and such an effort deserves a considered response.

First, with regard to Dr Chin's point about the higher relative incidence of Aids in homosexual people - the risk of contracting Aids among people who 'practise' homosexual sex is not a justification for continued criminalisation, but by safer-sex education and outreach programmes. This is exactly society's approach towards addressing the risk of contracting STDs among people who actively 'practise' heterosexual sex or that of lung cancer among people who smoke.

Dr Chin goes on to address the question of whether or not a person can change his sexual orientation, and quotes a study by Dr Robert Spitzer to draw the conclusion that 'even if one person can change, then homosexuality is not an immutable trait'.

Unfortunately, Dr Chin's conclusion is a skyscraper erected upon a foundation of straw. Dr Spitzer's study does not support Dr Chin's claim that homosexuality is not immutable because the sample population was not random but specially hand-picked for a special purpose.

Sadly, this is a mistake that is made so often by non-specialists that Dr Spitzer himself was compelled to respond. On May 21, 2001, the Wall Street Journal published a commentary by Dr Spitzer about his own study where he said (verbatim):

'In reality, change should be seen as complex and on a continuum.'Some homosexuals appear able to change self-identity and behavior, but not arousal and fantasies; others can change only self-identity; and only a very few, I suspect, can substantially change all four.

'I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation.

'I did not conclude that all gays should try to change, or even that they would be better off if they did.

'In other words, just because one person among millions might possibly be able to change his intrinsic sexual orientation and attractions after years of therapy, it does not therefore mean that everyone else is able to (or should even try, given the potential destructive consequences of failure). After all, can you imagine what it would take to make a red-blooded straight man stop being attracted to a Playboy centrefold?

Lastly, I will turn again to Dr Spitzer's commentary to address the issue of equal treatment (not protection, mind you!) for homosexual people:

'My study concluded with an important caveat: that it should not be used to justify a denial of civil rights to homosexuals, or as support for coercive treatment.

'Gay rights are a completely separate issue, and defensible for ethical reasons.

'I could not have said it any better myself.

Lee Jin Hian

Is there a place for God in public morals debate?

May 18, 2007

FRIDAY MATTERS

Is there a place for God in public morals debate?
By Chua Mui Hoong, Senior Writer

GOD often enters the picture when there is debate on issues of morality and values.When it comes to gay issues, for example, some Christians may say that homosexuality is a 'sin' - not just any old sin but a particularly grievous one that harms individuals and children and families and indeed puts the entire bedrock of society at risk - and should thus be criminalised.

Back in 2003, when the Government liberalised its hiring policy and said being homosexual was no longer a bar to holding a sensitive government position, the gay issue erupted into the national consciousness.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's recent remarks have caused the issue to be raised again. He said that if homosexuality is genetically determined, 'why should we criminalise it?' But he also said Singapore is a conservative society, and the Government did not wish to upset citizens' sense of propriety.

So the situation in Singapore remains: homosexual sex acts remain a crime, but the state won't act like a moral police and go around barging into bedrooms.

Once again, the battle lines are drawn clearly, with the notion of homosexual sex acts as a 'sin' cropping up.

But 'sin' is a theological concept, defined by some religions as an offence against God. Should it have a place in a public discussion on morals?

Or to frame the question in another way, should religion have a place in public discussions on morality? To what extent? And are there ground rules for such debate, so people of different or no faiths can engage in meaningful dialogue?

One solution is to give up and say that people of different beliefs can never engage since they start off with different a priori positions.

Nominated MP and lawyer Siew Kum Hong noted: 'How do you convince, through argument, a Christian who is convinced that homosexuality is evil and immoral, a sin that needs to be outlawed? I don't think you can.

'I am more sanguine. I not only believe Singapore can evolve ground rules for discussing moral issues among people of diverse or no faiths, but I also believe it is essential that we do so, given the increasing sway of religious teachings, and the rise in values-related issues Singapore will confront.

The gay issue is just one example. Others include recent debates on casinos and stem-cell research, and sexuality education (abstention or contraception? ), and one day, perhaps, euthanasia.

With moral debate a certainty in public discourse, it behoves Singaporeans to develop an understanding of how to engage in such discussions fruitfully.

Some people may respond by saying that religion and private morals have no place in public debate.

The thinking here is that Singapore is a secular state made up of people of many or no faiths, so God should be kept out of policy discussions.

But this position ignores the psychological reality that people's values are shaped by their religion, so religion will slip into the picture anyway.

As the 1989 White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act states: 'It is neither possible nor desirable to compartmentalise completely the minds of voters into secular and religious halves, and to ensure that only the secular mind influences voting behaviour.'

In Singapore, 85 per cent of the population profess a faith, such as Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Christianity or Hinduism and others, with diverse teachings on ethics.

It may be more realistic to acknowledge that religion affects an individual's private morality, and hence shapes his view on public issues.

Should the line then be drawn here, to let citizens practise their private morality, but curtail their ability to use religiously motivated views to influence the public agenda?

In 2004, I wrote a commentary arguing this point of view, saying that religious groups should limit their influence to their own flock, and not try to organise to get others round to their point of view.

I have since come to see the limits of such a position, which curtails individuals' and organisations' right to influence the policy process.

So, should people of faith be allowed to use religious justifications for their views and influence others accordingly? For example, can the argument to keep homosexual acts a crime be based on religion?

Prescribing this would be foolish in a multi-faith society with people who adhere to different religious teachings.

Those who want to advance public discussion must make use of public reason, and put up public justifications for what they believe in.

In other words, religion may influence your view on an issue. But when arguing your case in the political arena, you need to present arguments understandable and acceptable to those of different faiths.

Influential moral thinker John Rawls' The Law Of Peoples is devoted to the issue of whether religious doctrine is compatible with democracy.

He sets out to distinguish a person's value system or 'comprehensive doctrine, religious or non-religious' as one which 'we do not expect others to share'.

In political discussions on an issue, however, 'each of us shows how, from our own doctrines, we can and do endorse a reasonable public political conception of justice...The aim of doing this is to declare to others who affirm different comprehensive doctrines that we also each endorse a reasonable political conception'.

For example, Christians may cite the Good Samaritan story to say that Jesus taught that we should care for our neighbours.

But to convince non-Christians, they have to 'go on to give a public justification for this parable's conclusions in terms of political values', notes Rawls.

How can they do so? Well, they may argue that we owe a duty of care even to strangers, using the principles of proximity and reciprocity: You were there, and can help, so you should, because you would want others to do so if you were in such a situation.

Such use of 'public reason' is accessible to all regardless of religious faith.

This way, individuals may hold fundamentalist religious views that are non-negotiable, yet are able to take part meaningfully in discussions on morality using 'public reason', appealing to common values held by those of different faiths.

But this requires mutual respect, a spirit of civil tolerance and a willingness to bracket one's own religious beliefs to hear others out.

Most important of all, it requires a willingness to consider that one's private morality, based on one's own religious beliefs, need not be the basis of public law.

muihoong@sph. com.sg

ST Online Forum: Gay debate continues: Writer responds (May 17 2007)

ST Online Forum

May 17, 2007

Gay debate continues: Writer responds

I REFER to Mr Brian Selby's letter, 'Why is male homosexuality a crime but not lesbianism?' (Online forum, May 15), written in response to my three-point rebuttal (ST, May 10) of his first letter, 'Professor's views on gays prejudiced' (Online forum, May 8), which he wrote in reaction to my op ed, 'Decriminalising homosexuality would be an error' (ST, May 4).

I thank Mr Selby for his unreserved apology, in relation to the personal and professional allegations made against me in his letter of May 8.

Clearly, the decriminalisation of homosexuality as one aspect of a broader homosexual rights agenda raises politically controversial issues. This has provoked polarised responses and have caused deep social rifts in countries like the US and Canada.

My op ed sought to inform the debate by highlighting relevant legal social and policy issues which will need to be considered in the context of Singapore's multi-racial and multi-religious society by the Government.

I reject Mr Selby's suggestion that my op ed and rebuttal have been deliberately 'vague'. The first was intended for general readership and the intent of the second was not to provide a substantive discourse of these controversial issues of law and social policy, given the restraints of this forum. One might equally ask Mr Selby to substantiate his own views to prove his case.

However, as Mr Selby has in his latest letter highlighted certain issues for my response in a civil fashion, I make the following observations:

First, I agree that my op ed has attracted a substantial amount of debate generated by websites and blogs written by certain individuals of a self-declared 'liberal' or homosexualist persuasion.

However, I do not share Mr Selby's delight in what he calls the 'muddle scrum of public debate'. The right to free speech which the Constitution safeguards for Singapore citizens is not absolute but subject to express limitations.

Not all types of 'speech' will help 'Singapore become a better civil society' as certain types of 'speech' seek to prevent the articulation of differing viewpoints through intimidatory and hateful tactics.

''Speech' which attacks my character or professional ability seeks to chill my rights of free conscience and speech as a concerned Singaporean as well as to violate the principle of academic freedom.

Further, 'speech' which demonises and labels the views expressed in my op ed as 'religious' or 'bigoted' opinions, in an attempt to paint them as irrelevant to an important public policy debate within the context of a multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore, may well be an insidious cover-up for subjective prejudices and biases. This undermines pluralism and constructive debate.

Some comments thrown up in this debate seem to indicate that arguments based on or inspired by 'religious' values should be excluded from public debate. This rests on a certain assumption about what a secular state requires.

The assumption seems to be influenced by one school of constitutional thought that 'Church' (or Mosque or Temple) and 'State' be strictly separated. This version of 'secularism' rests on an unspoken anti-theism and is not universally endorsed.

There is a broad spectrum of positions which countries have adopted in relation to the role of views inspired by religious convictions in public debate.

This ranges from anti-theistic separationists (for example, Stalinist regimes or radical liberals/'secular fundamentalists' ) who seek a 'religious cleansing' of the public square, to those who seek a genuine pluralism by protecting the expression of all moral viewpoints whether based on 'religious' or 'secular' convictions (assuming these can even be separated). All viewpoints are subject to public scrutiny and debate, rather than being censored by law or social pressures.

Indeed, Singapore's version of secularism is not benighted or anti-religion; Singapore is secular but not atheistic, as a minister once stated. Singapore's model of secularism is more appropriately characterised as agnostic or accommodative as defined by the Singapore Court of Appeal, which is committed to freedom of religion and the role of the state in removing restrictions to one's choice of religious belief.

Therefore, in our aspirations towards democracy, no view should be gagged just because it is identified as a 'religious' one. Otherwise, secular humanism and its morally relativist viewpoint, which forms part of its comprehensive world view, would by default be privileged and foisted on society as a new sort of 'secularised religion'.

Second, there are medical opinions that homosexual sex (that is, anal sex) is inherently unhealthy.One may argue that this is a 'private' matter, affecting only individuals who contract diseases such as 'gay bowel syndrome'.

However, this is a narrow view of what amounts to 'public health' concerns, given that the activities and diseases of individuals may affect the public at large.

Further, the possibilities of allocating public funds to resolve these sorts of health problems make this a matter of public concern as it could mean that funding for research into other illnesses like cancer and diabetes is reduced.

Concerned citizens who would like to be informed on this matter may usefully refer to the medical opinion of one Dr John R. Diggs, Jr's (August 16, 2000), which was set out in his affidavit in relation to a Massachusetts lawsuit (concerning homosexual activists' legal claims against parents who opposed sexual 'orientation' education in schools):

'There are a variety of significant medical and health risks associated with homosexuality and the gay 'lifestyle'. These include promiscuity, multiple sexual partners, assault and battery and anal intercourse. The sexual practices of male homosexuality consist primarily of oral-genital contact and anal intercourse. These practices are inherently dangerous because of the proclivity to produce occult and overt physical trauma, often spreading sexually transmitted disease. The rectum is particularly vulnerable to sexual trauma, where breaks in the protective membrane barrier facilitate blood exchange and, in turn, the transfer of infectious agents. Furthermore, certain male homosexual practices, such as 'fisting', that is, the insertion of the entire hand into the recipient's anal canal, are likely to cause more serious injuries... Studies have repeatedly shown that lesbians and gay men are at increased risk for mental health problems, including depression, substance abuse, and suicidal behaviour, compared to heterosexuals. .. Homosexuals perpetrate child sex crimes at a rate many times their number in the population.. .

'Full text available at http://www.massnews .com/past_ issues/2000/ 9_Sept/900fist3. htm

Third, my observations on the development of the homosexual rights agenda in countries like the US, Canada and Europe and how this seeks to coerce changes in moral and social attitudes towards a broad range of issues are factually based.

Mr Selby should consider the effects of decriminalising homosexuality in other jurisdictions, and how it affects the community, as documented in news reports and case law.

For example, if homosexuality is decriminalised, this will require changes in other aspects of law and life such as changes in insurance and tax benefits laws; schools may have to teach that a range of family set-ups (for example, having two fathers instead of a father and mother) is possible or that homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally equivalent.

This will violate the conscience of certain teachers and also can violate parental rights in the moral education of their children. This is not fictional nor can it be brushed aside as a 'slippery slope' argument. This would obfuscate matters which are of real concern to the majority of Singaporeans. Indeed, perhaps this is the intent of those deriding 'slippery slopes'.

Fourth, as stated in my op ed, the Singapore Constitution does not prohibit all types of differentiating classifications. In layman words, classifications which are not rational and do not serve a legitimate policy, are unconstitutional.

The critical issue is whether the criminalisation of homosexual acts has a rational basis.

The views in my op ed show the broader legal social and policy issues forming the rational basis for S377A of the Penal Code which criminalises homosexual acts by male.

To argue that S377A is not rational because the laws do not criminalise lesbianism assumes that the law must achieve a technically 'perfect classification' which includes all homosexual acts under its ambit.

There is no such requirement. Broader social objectives may be served by S377A, so as to validate it and its classification, under Singapore equality jurisprudence.

Fifth, Mr Selby has assumed that laws do not and should not affect our 'private activity'.

However, human beings while desiring a sphere of autonomy are also social beings and live in community. Laws do reflect community standards which place limits on 'private activity' - that is the basis for laws against incest, paedophilia or even surfing and downloading Internet porn, for example.

The critical question is what constitutes 'private' activity and when does 'private activity' have repercussions for the public, so as to be subject to legal regulation and sanction?

No law is morally neutral and it is intellectually dishonest to assert that there are moral values which are objective, and some which are subjective.

To call for the decriminalisation of homosexual acts, on grounds of non-discrimination on the basis of 'sexual orientation' is to assert a moral or amoral position which cannot claim 'neutrality' . No one is neutral in this debate.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has stated that 'ur enforcement approach also remains the same' as Section 377A will not be proactively enforced 'against adult males engaging in consensual sex with each other in private.'

This is the current practice and reflects a pragmatic compromise. This does not mean the law will not be enforced but one can take the government at its word to continue the current practice.

Thus, under the proposed Penal Code amendment, homosexuals wishing to lead 'private' lives may do so 'peacefully' in Singapore, provided they do not foist their homosexual acts on the public or seek to mainstream homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.

Yvonne C. L. Lee
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law Deputy Director, The Asian Law Institute (ASLI)
National University of Singapore