Fridae.com: The truly abhorrent thing

The truly abhorrent thing

by Alex Au
Should a recently circulated church statement, which called homosexuality "sinful, abhorrent and deviant” and for the criminalisation of lesbian sex, cause LGBTs to lose sleep? Fridae columnist and gay activist Alex Au weighs in on the issue.

(This column is in response to a statement issued by National Council of Churches of Singapore which commended the government on its stance on anti-gay legislation and called for the criminalisation of lesbian sex. Click here to read. )

A week ago, the Methodist Church in Singapore circulated a statement calling homosexuality "sinful, abhorrent and deviant." More specifically, the statement, which had been issued earlier by the National Council of Churches in Singapore (NCCS), expressed support for, inter alia, the government's proposal to retain Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes "gross indecency" between two men a criminal offence. In marked contrast to this bid to retain Section 377A, the government also proposed to repeal Section 377 which makes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" another offence (regardless of sex). The effect of this selective repeal of one law and the retention of the other would be to legalise anal and oral sex for heterosexuals while keeping the same criminal for gay men.

The Penal Code had never had any law specific to lesbian sex.

The NCCS statement had nothing significant to say about the legalisation of sodomy for heterosexuals even though for a long time this too was included within the scope of "unnatural sex" they had railed against. Instead, the statement narrowed the focus to gay people, and then, in a call for consistency, urged the government to criminalise "lesbianism" to the same degree as male homosexuality. The gutlessness in not taking on the government and the heterosexual majority over the legalisation of sodomy for the latter is striking. Perhaps the NCCS knew that despite putting up the proposed changes for public feedback, the government had essentially made up its mind. No use trying to move the immoveable?

In that case, is the call to criminalise lesbian sex just so much posturing? Should we just laugh it off?

Secular government
Indeed, in many ways, the Singapore government is very watchful of its secular credentials. It pro-actively ensures that faith groups do not venture into politics, achieving this by various legal and institutional means (e.g. religious groups have to be registered under the law), together with the occasional behind-the-scenes warning to vocal clerics. Yet many LGBTs in Singapore felt that the NCCS statement should not be taken lightly. That's because those who have been watching how Singapore really operates knows that while religious groups may not have much leverage over the government, the government is not loath to use religious groups for its own ends.

As it is, the Singapore government is far from gay-friendly. The fact that they would repeal anal and oral sex for heterosexuals while keeping it illegal for gay men – and not even be embarrassed by such blatant discrimination – proves it. Heretofore, they have justified this state of affairs – and the censorship that supports it – by the claim that "the majority is conservative." Over the years, they have not produced much evidence for this, except for a finding from the 2001 Social Attitudes Survey. In that study conducted by the government, 85 percent of Singaporeans said homosexuality was "unacceptable." Of those aged 15 – 29, a somewhat lower percentage (71 percent) too found it "unacceptable."

However, more recent data have begun to challenge those results. For example, the Singapore Polytechnic last year surveyed 800 Singaporeans aged 15 – 29 with exactly the same question as the government's 2001 survey, and found that only 42 percent considered homosexuality "unacceptable." Clearly, there has been a marked change in the same age band's opinion in just six years. This is where a statement from the NCCS is useful to the ministers and the bureaucrats. It refreshes their basis for claiming that Singaporeans are against liberalisation.

But why is a government that by policy is proud of its secular credentials, so unabashedly biased against GLBTs?

In a large way, it is not. Being anti-gay is not high up there among the government's priorities. What is high up there are its authoritarian instincts, which tend to privilege stability and conformity over experimentation and diversity. On social issues, the status quo is automatically preferred over change. Controversy is to be avoided because authority is harder to impose in such conditions. Thus on the gay issue, there is a resistance to change simply because change is seen as destabilising. Yet Singapore is among the fastest-movers when it comes to economic restructuring. This is how the city-state keeps ahead of challenges. Economic restructuring, however, is painful, more so than ever in this age of globalisation. Lots of people resent the uncertainties and anxieties that result. There is more than a whiff of suspicion that the Singapore government tries to mitigate unrest against its economic policies, but offering a sop in the form of social conservatism.

Nonetheless, that the government and bureaucracy are prone to homophobia is well known, going by the numerous petty examples of censorship and denials of permits on flimsy grounds. Partly, it is due to the disproportionate representation of Christians in government and the civil service. Some of these individuals – though surely not all -- are already homophobic due to their religious upbringing and affiliation, and they tend to assume that the rest of Singapore must be like them. That is why statements like what the NCCS issued are significant, serving to reinforce their pre-existing bias.

Contesting the statement
There is no need to get into a debate about scripture. However, it can and should be pointed out that that there are plenty of Christians who would disagree with the line taken by the NCCS.

In the first place, not all churches belong to the NCCS. The Singapore archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church, for example, does not, though that church is no less homophobic. But even those churches that are in the NCCS, e.g. the Anglican and the Methodist Churches in Singapore, would find their stance contested by Anglican and Methodist churches in other countries. That the local bishops' positions are hardly the last word on the matter is worth bringing to the public's attention.

The other thing worth pointing out is that Christians form a small minority in Singapore, at most 20 percent of the population. To this, the churchmen tend to respond by saying, "All major religions abhor homosexuality" – a stock phrase that comes from the fundamentalist churches of America. This is patently untrue. Buddhism and Taoism (about 50 percent of Singaporeans) have nothing to say on the subject. Nor does Hinduism, I am told, if one removes the Victorian prudishness that has blanketed it. Not least, let's not forget that there are atheists and free thinkers among us. What this leads to is the charge that church leaders are expecting the government to impose Christian ideas of morality on non-Christians through law. This is the truly abhorrent idea. It is abhorrent to a secular state that promises freedom of religious belief and practice to its citizens to allow any religious group to dictate the laws of the land. That is why the NCCS statement must be resisted.

Alex Au has been a gay activist for over 10 years and is the co-founder of gay advocacy group People Like Us. Alex is also the author of the well-known Yawning Bread web site.

Fridae.com: Council of churches commends singapore government on anti-gay legislation, calls for criminalisation of lesbianism

Council of churches commends singapore government on anti-gay legislation, calls for criminalisation of lesbianism

by Sylvia Tan
As Singapore is looking at its first major review of its Penal Code in more than 20 years, the National Council of Churches has praised the government for its proposal to retain laws criminalising homosexual acts, and for the first time advocated the specific inclusion of lesbians in its scope. In a statement published in the March issue of the Methodist Message, the official monthly journal of the Methodist Church in Singapore, the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) commended the government on its stance to not repeal Section 377 A which outlaws sex acts between men although laws that criminalise anal and oral sex between opposite-sex couples will be repealed.

The NCCS represents Methodists, Anglicans and Presbyterians, among other mainstream denominations in Singapore. Currently, Section 377A of the Penal Code (PC) provides for a 2-year jail term for “any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person.” The statement published on the Methodist Message web site reads: “We are aware that the proposed amendment to delete section 377 PC but on the other hand retaining section 377A PC may be controversial in some quarters.

Nevertheless, we consider homosexual acts to be sinful, abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not. The NCCS commends the Government on taking a clear, unequivocal and bold stand of neither encouraging nor endorsing a homosexual lifestyle and opposing the presentation of the same as part of a mainstream way of life.” Although the NCCS has in 2003 publicly urged the government to maintain current legislation concerning homosexuality, not permit the registration of homosexual societies or clubs and not allow the promotion of homosexual lifestyle and activities, this is the first time it has called for the criminalisation of lesbianism.

“Given that section 377A PC criminalises homosexuality whether done private or publicly, we are of the view that a similar prohibition ought to be enacted in respect of lesbianism, considering that lesbianism (like homosexuality) is also abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not.'” Said the statement. In a document released last year by the Ministry Of Home Affairs on the proposed Penal Code amendments, Section 377A will sit between new laws criminalising necrophilia and bestiality under the same rubric of “unnatural offences.” The proposed amendments are expected to be debated in Parliament in the next quarter.

Penal Code: Proposed changes 'relevant and compassionate' -- says National Council of Churches of Singapore

Homosexual lifestyle: NCCS commends Govt on taking bold stand

(c) We are aware that the proposed amendment to delete section 377 PC but on the other hand retaining section 377A PC may be controversial in some quarters. Nevertheless, we consider homosexual acts to be sinful, abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not. The NCCS commends the Government on taking a clear, unequivocal and bold stand of neither encouraging nor endorsing a homosexual lifestyle and opposing the presentation of the same as part of a mainstream way of life. At the same time, we do not condemn homosexuals as the Bible calls us to hate the sin but love the sinner. Given that section 377A PC criminalises homosexuality whether done private or publicly, we are of the view that a similar prohibition ought to be enacted in respect of lesbianism, considering that lesbianism (like homosexuality) is also abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not.'

Don't you just hate it when Christians open their mouths and sound so stupid? As a fellow Christian, I am sickened by such blatant hate and lack of grace.

NZ Herald: Australia rocked by 'lesbian' koala revelation

Australia rocked by 'lesbian' koala revelation

11:00AM Sunday February 25, 2007
By Roger Dobson

Female koalas indulge in lesbian "sex sessions", rejecting male suitors and attempting to mate with each other, sometimes up to five at a time, according to researchers.

The furry, eucalyptus-eating creatures appear to develop this tendency for same-sex liaisons when they are in captivity. In the wild, they remain heterosexual.

Scientists monitoring the marsupials with digital cameras counted three homosexual interactions for every heterosexual one.

"Some females rejected the advances of males that were in their enclosures, only to become willing participants in homosexual encounters immediately after," say the researchers.

"On several occasions more than one pair of females shared the same pole, and multiple females mounted each other simultaneously. At least one multiple encounter involved five female koalas.

"One theory put forward by the researchers is that the females do it to attract males; another is that it is simply hormonal, or that it is a stress reliever.

Scientists from the University of Queensland studied 130 koalas in captivity and will publish their results in the journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science.

"Our aim was to determine the extent of differences in the homosexual and heterosexual behaviour of female koalas and thereby to determine the purpose of female homosexual behaviour in the koala," say the researchers.

"Wild koalas brought into captivity clearly display homosexual behaviour on a regular basis. A total of 15 heterosexual and 43 homosexual interactions were recorded in separate animals. Homosexual behaviour was restricted to females only. Heterosexual encounters were typically twice as long as homosexual encounters," they add.

- INDEPENDENT

Retention of gay sex laws “cannot be justified”: Singapore’s law society to government

Retention of gay sex laws “cannot be justified”: Singapore’s law society to government

The Law Society of Singapore has released a statement disagreeing with the Ministry of Home Affairs' proposal to retain the country's laws against gay sex.

The Law Society of Singapore – at the invitation of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) last November to comment on the government’s proposed amendments to the Penal Code – has advised the government that “the retention of s.377A in its present form cannot be justified.” Last November, MHA announced their intention to retain gay sex laws although laws which criminalise anal and oral sex between consenting heterosexual adults will be repealed as part of Singapore's first major penal code amendments in 22 years. Section 377A currently makes “gross indecency” between two males an offence punishable by up to 2 years’ imprisonment.

The Law Society, the professional association of lawyers in Singapore, which formed an ad hoc committee of 16 members to study the matter has issued a report which was reproduced in part by gay activist group People Like Us on its web site: “The majority of the Council considered that the retention of s.377A in its present form cannot be justified. This does not entail any view that homosexuality is morally acceptable, but follows instead from the separation of law and morals and the philosophy that the criminal law’s proper function is to protect others from harm by punishing harmful conduct. Private consensual homosexual conduct between adults does not cause harm recogniseable by the criminal law. Thus, regardless of one’s personal view of the morality or otherwise of such conduct, it should not be made a criminal offence.

“Moreover, the assurance given by [the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)] in the Explanatory Notes to Proposed Amendments to the Penal Code that were initially issued by MHA that prosecutions will not be proactively prosecuted under this section is an admission that the section is out-of-step with the modern world. The retention of unprosecuted offences on the statute book runs the risk of bringing the law into disrepute. “Council also recognised that the above view did not necessarily represent the views of its members collectively. A significant minority of Council members as well as members of the Society at large have an opposing view, and strongly support retention of s.377A in the Penal Code. They took the view that the criminal law can and should be deployed to define what the majority or a significant proportion of society believe to be unacceptable conduct even when it takes place in private between consenting adults, and that there are sufficient jurisprudential and logical grounds for this.

“Differing views were expressed on the constitutionality of s.377A. In other jurisdictions, legal discrimination based on sexual orientation has been considered against constitutional guarantees of equal protection. Council did not come to a concluded view on the constitutionality of s.377.”

TNP: Rumours? She laughs them off (Jan 24)

Rumours? She laughs them off

Project Superstar 2's female winner finds judges' comments more stressful than crazy gossip PSST - did you hear the one about how Project Superstar 2 female champion Tan Diya and runner-up Carrie Teo got married in Las Vegas?

By Yeoh Wee Teck

24 January 2007

PSST - did you hear the one about how Project Superstar 2 female champion Tan Diya and runner-up Carrie Teo got married in Las Vegas?

Well, so did they. And the two friends laughed about it.

When asked to confirm the rumour, Diya let out a laugh.

She said: 'This is the craziest rumour I've heard about us.

'You know, we are so busy with rehearsals and training, where do I find the time to go to Las Vegas?'

The 22-year-old Nanyang Technological University mass communications student has no idea who started the rumour. And she doesn't really care.

'They're funny to read. In fact, Carrie and I read each other's forum (posts) all the time and laugh at them.'

Rumours can break a newcomer,
but Diya remains unfazed by them.

In fact, she has a good time reading speculation about herself online.

'It's funny. These are generally ren shen gong ji (attacks on the character). Like the ones that said I look like Ru Hua (a plain Taiwanese comedienne).'

Project Superstar 2 at first pits females against females and then males against males.

The eventual winners will battle it out at the finale, which will be held at the Singapore Indoor Stadium on 4 Feb. The show will be aired live over Channel U at 7.30pm and the winner will win a recording deal with Warner Music.

Diya admitted that Carrie is a very good friend and that the intensity of their friendship, which started when they met during the competition, may have led to the rumour that they were more than friends. 'I'm not (gay), so it doesn't matter,' she said matter-of-factly.

While being mistaken for a lesbian doesn't bother her, some of the comments made about her by the judges left her 'completely stressed' and 'confused'.

'I'm naturally energetic, but when I'm performing they say I prance around like a monkey. But that's my personality, so I just try to strike a balance and do my best,' she said.

Project Superstar 2 has turned out to be a battle of the Tans, with Daren Tan being named the male champion last week.

And like his fellow Tan, there were rumours about Daren's sexual orientation.

But the 23-year-old told The New Paper he is not bothered about the gay rumours.

Whatever the case, this chatter will not affect these budding singers' chances of being signed up.

Mr James Kang, marketing director of Warner Music, said: 'We don't judge an artiste's worth based on rumours of sexual orientation. There are a lot of celebrities with similar rumours flying around anyway and it doesn't hurt their popularity.'

Daren's only worry now is facing the finals. The dimpled one, seen by his fans as the bad boy sex symbol of the competition, revealed his strategy.

'I'll come up with new stuff, probably visual effects,' he said.