Singapore - Letters to Newspaper Editors/Editorials April 2, 2008
Enlightened policy deserves praise
IT IS certainly laudable that Singapore has attracted top talent like Professor Kerry Sieh as the founding director of Nanyang Technological University's $300 million Earth Observatory, which is this region's largest, 'MM's reassuring comments seal researcher's move here'. In a recent TV interview in Melbourne, Dr Sieh predicts that yet another tsunami will strike and this will be the grandaddy of them all.
In fact, he predicted the Boxing Day earthquake three years ago which resulted in the tragic tsunami in Sumatra. He handed out fliers, posters and brochures to residents of the islands worst hit by the waves. He spoke at churches and schools to tell people what to do in an earthquake, according to a report.
The Government's forward-looking policy against homosexual discrimination clinched Dr Sieh's decision to accept the appointment. He was reassured that he could live here with his gay Asian partner.
Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao
Straitstimes
Lifestyle
Feb 10, 2008
Hot off the press
By Stephanie Yap
TO KNOW WHERE I'M COMING FROM
By Johann S. Lee
As the novel is a semi-autobiographic al examination of the writer's
own experiences as a gay emigrant returning home, it unabashedly draws
on real life for major characters and events. Arts lovers will enjoy
the thinly veiled representations of local theatre personalities, from
an enfant terrible named Yusof to a flamboyant impresario named Ignatius.It is also no-holds-barred in its critique of a perceived lack of
freedom of expression in Singapore, particularly with regard to gay
pride. Lee disapproves of heavy-handed censorship, citing examples
such as the bans slapped on events such as a picnic and a lecture.Yet, amid such pointed criticism, the writer also presents the
perspective of a pragmatic older person, and how someone like that can
appreciate the Singaporean brand of freedom.At one point in London, Ben hears on the news that a gay man has been
badly beaten up in what is obviously a hate crime: 'I said to Holly
the first thing that came to my mind: 'This would never happen in
Singapore.''Indeed, one of the book's strongest points is its ability to capture
the conflict of being caught between worlds - a universal, yet at the
same time uniquely Singaporean, condition.There is the despair of a lost love warring with the hope of loving
again. And there is the yearning to escape a suffocating environment
for the larger world, yet the inescapable desire to be drawn back into
the embrace of home.
TODAY
BANKS AND THE POOL OF PINK TALENT
Wednesday January 30, 2008
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".
Straitstimes
Dec 16, 2007
Thousands of youth homeless in NYC: survey
TODAY
22 Nov 2007
Once-banned gay pop duo given green light for concert here
Alicia Wong
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.
Nov 12, 2007
Today Online
You are not welcome here, club tells Leona Lo
Phin Wong
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.
Nov 10, 2007
ST Forum
NMP Thio must also address abortion and death sentence in order not to be branded a hypocrite
Peter Lee Peng Eng
1. Oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples (after all, this is also akin to 'drinking with a straw through the nose' and must be equally repugnant to her).
2. Adultery between heterosexual couples.
3. Premarital sex.
4. Prostitution.
5. Masturbation.
7. Sex between lesbian couples.
When your journalist, Ms Li, asked her about her views on other moral issues, she gave a rather vague reply. As Dr Thio believes policy making in Singapore should be guided by some form of morality, and has made a stand on sex between homosexuals, suggesting that what is morally unacceptable to her should be considered a criminal act, she must make equally strong stands on the abovementioned issues. These are sins of equal magnitude in Christianity, all of which are as detrimental to family values as homosexuality. Unless she makes fervent calls for the criminalisation of these directly related issues, she may well seem to the public to have double standards, and a hypocritical viewpoint, and to be a homophobic 'hate-mongerer', bullying only a particular segment of the community. In order not to be perceived as a hypocrite, Dr Thio must also address abortion and the death sentence, as Christianity does not condone killing another human being. These are far more important moral issues than homosexuality, and I hope that as our NMP, she will not be, in her own words, a 'lousy friend', or in this case, a 'lousy citizen' or 'lousy NMP' by keeping silent on these issues, and make known her views with even greater fervour and directness. Remaining silent and/or equivocal on these issues will only affirm her detractors' worst criticisms.
Nov 8, 2007
ST Forum
Think twice before seeking to force change in sexual behaviour
Medical authorities have challenged the purported effectiveness of reparative therapy, with the American Psychiatric Association concluding in a statement in 2000 that 'in the last four decades, reparative therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure'.Indeed, proponents of reparative therapy have failed to provide rigorous, objective assessments of their findings, relying instead on self-reports and the subjective impressions of their therapists.Moreover, concerns have been raised about the potential health risks of reparative therapy, which include depression, anxiety and self-destructive behaviour.The Australian Psychological Society noted in 2000 that reparative therapy tends to overstate the treatment's perceived accomplishments, while glossing over the potential health risks to patients.Given the dubious success rate and detrimental effects of reparative therapy, individuals grappling with their sexual identity should think twice about programmes that seek to force a change in their sexual behaviour.It would be healthier for them to sort out their feelings in a non-judgmental environment, by enrolling in counselling programmes by Oogachaga or other neutral support groups in Singapore. Eugene Quek Wei Liang
Nov 8, 2007
ST Forum
Booklet on gays: SMU should support students' mature actions, not restrict them
In this instance, a group of undergraduates has developed a project aimed at giving a voice to an under-represented group by sharing their stories. Their purpose is to educate and promote understanding - not to advocate a particular lifestyle, but rather to provide insight that will enable their fellow students to develop a more informed perspective. This is not inconsistent with the objectives of the 'Leadership & Team Building' course. Ms Low may wish to note that the group has stated very clearly in the publication that the members are 'not representative of gay activism' and many of them 'come from backgrounds that neither condone nor promote homosexuality' . The intent of their publication is neither contentious nor divisive. The group has stated that they are only presenting voices which are 'real and come from real people'. Readers are given the latitude to form their own views and opinions. The university should support such mature and sensitive actions on the part of its students, not restrict them. Our role is to respect and protect open dialogue and learning, permitted that the means employed to create awareness do not infringe university regulations or the laws of Singapore. Professor Howard Hunter President Singapore Management University
Straits Times
Why S. Africa allowed same-sex marriage
GOH CHIN LIAN
This formed the basis for subsequent court decisions on issues like allowing same-sex partners to jointly adopt children. In November last year, a law on same-sex marriage came into force. Asked about a bid by some groups here to get the Government to repeal a law criminalising gay sex, Justice Sachs said he did not have advice for Singapore. But he explained that in South Africa's case, the Constitutional Court declared the sodomy law unconstitutional because it 'invaded the protected rights to equality, to privacy and to dignity'.
Fri, Oct 19, 2007
The Straits Times
By Lydia Lim
A conservative group has just launched a keep377A online petition, which charges that a repeal would foist homosexuality on a society that is not ready for it.While MPs have welcomed the use of this 'legitimate channel' by an interest group to put its views across, there is also a concern that if the gay lobby pushes too hard, it might provoke a conservative backlash.MP Irene Ng says that to date, the conservatives have not called for the law to be enforced rigorously and that 'live and let live' attitude has given homosexuals the space to live as they want to.So where is the ongoing tussle over 377A likely to lead?
ST FORUM
18 Oct 07
NMP in no way overstepped his role
Indeed, the constitutional provision for the appointment of NMPs in 1990 was made to ensure a wide representation of community views in Parliament.This being the case, there is nothing wrong with NMPs choosing to represent community views that they believe are valid and justified. Thus Mr Siew, in sponsoring the Parliamentary Petition to repeal Section 377A, has in no way overstepped his role as an NMP. In fact, considering that Mr Siew is a 'straight' man and has therefore no cause to be associated with homosexuality, his willingness to represent that community's views in relation to the repeal, in the face of widespread opposition, is admirable and should be applauded. Ooi Jian Yuan
ST FORUM
18 Oct 2007
SHOULD SECTION 377A BE REPEALED?
Why is one law 'archaic' and not the other?
MS LIM Poh Suan wrote that repealing Section 377A of the Penal Code - a law criminalising gay sex - would threaten the family unit and 'lead to the disintegration of our social fabric' ('Removing Section 377A threatens family unit'; ST, Oct 16). She forgets that gays are part of a family unit and many parents, siblings and other relatives - who are concerned that the law would discriminate against their gay loved ones - do support the call for the repeal.
In some ways, it is similar to interracial or inter-religious marriages - I have witnessed parents who were initially disapproving coming around after they got to know their child's partner and see the sincerity and realness of the relationship. Section 498 of the Penal Code, which makes it an offence to entice, take away or detain a married woman with the intention of having illicit intercourse with her, will be repealed. One may argue that repealing such a law would signal to society that adultery is acceptable, and this would threaten the family unit and children especially - more so than Section 377A, as it is applicable to all families.The Ministry of Home Affairs explained that Section 498 concerns an archaic offence which is no longer relevant in today's context. How is it that Section 498 is deemed 'no longer relevant in today's context' but Section 377A is still relevant? Tan Yen Ling (Ms)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN HER letter, Ms Lim Poh Suan implies that gays destroy family values. I would like to correct that view. Family values are challenged when there is infidelity between husband and wife, when parents are too busy working to take care of children, when parents inculcate the wrong values in their children, when family members do not learn to think.
A family is not broken up just because a friend, a neighbour or even a relative is gay. It is absurd to blame parenting failure and family problems on external forces and the Government.Repealing Section 377A is about love and compassion, and seeing all people as equals. Let not religious dogma deny fellow Singaporeans their right to exist. Chua Chee Hiang
Straits Times
Oct 1, 2007
Homosexual friends: Let's fight the hypocrisy
By Tessa Wong
Having been brought up in a conservative background, I had always subscribed to the notion of 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. Gay people were all right, I thought, just as long as I didn't have anything to do with their 'wrong' lifestyles.But as Mark and I grew closer, I began to see how difficult it was putting that truism into practice.Being gay wasn't a detachable part of Mark's identity. His sexual orientation was also embedded in every aspect of his life, from his relationships with his family to his outlook on life, to how he treated others.So how could I as a friend truly love him for who he was, when I could not accept every single part of him?At this point, I began to question what exactly was so wrong about homosexuality. From what I saw in Mark's life, gay people were just like everyone else, and fully capable of holding stable, loving relationships, unlike what I had been taught previously.After some soul searching, I realised that not only could I not accept the illogical flaws of that truism, but I also had to make a stand about what had become obviously clear to me - that homosexuality is not something intrinsically wrong.I'm sure that a number of young people reading this are facing a similar dilemma when it comes to dealing with homosexual friends.My advice? If you really want to love the 'sinner', don't call it a sin. Otherwise, it would just be pure hypocrisy.
STRAITS TIMES
Sep 22, 2007
Views divided, so gay sex law stays
By Jeremy Au Yong
Mr Lee said in reply: 'If everybody felt like you in Singapore... we could change 377A and we would de-criminalise gay sex.'But the fact is many people in Singapore feel passionately to the contrary to the point of view which you have argued. And you have to take cognizance of that.'He said that the Government's view was that it should not push forward on this issue but follow along as societal views shifted.'And as of today my judgment is the society is comfortable with our position. Leave the clause' he said.Sharing his own views on homosexuality, he said it seemed to him that it was a trait people were born with.He stressed, however, that that did not mean gays should set the tone here.'My view is that gayness is something which is mostly inborn, some people are like that, some people are not. How they live their own lives is really for them to decide. It's a personal matter,' he said.'I think the tone of the society should really be set by the heterosexuals and that's the way many Singaporeans feel.'He also made clear that the issue was something Singapore would deal with on its own. It did not need foreign speakers coming here to 'add sugar and spice' to the debate.He was referring to a recent decision by the Police to cancel the permit for Canadian academic Douglas Sanders to speak in Singapore on the subject.'Within Singapore, we will have to work this out in our society, and I think that's what we will do,' he said.
STRAITS TIMES
Sep 18, 2007
Gay teacher's outing a milestone in debate
Dr Peter Goh Kok Yong
The reality is that there has never been any neutral, unbiased advice given to students on sexuality. Heterosexuality has always been the biased model. While the Education Ministry may want to acknowledge the concerns of parents who are uncomfortable with gay teachers in schools, it would do well not to continue to hide them in the closet. It should publicly acknowledge the existence of gay teachers and assure parents that all its teachers, gay or straight, are expected to uphold the utmost standards in their professional conduct and will not impose their personal values, including sexuality, on the students.
AN OPEN LETTER FROM OTTO FONG
08 Sept 2007
I am Otto Fong. I have been teaching Science in Raffles Institution for the last eight years. Being a teacher has been the most rewarding part of my professional life thus far. My students continue to amaze me daily with their wit, maturity, independent thinking and leadership. It is very fulfilling that I am a part of an institution that moulds the future generation of Singapore’s leaders.Leaders are people who can rise above the tide of popular opinion, people who are guided by the conviction of rightness and justice and in being so guided, lead others towards that right path. Recent events leading to my action Recent events have made me decide to write this open letter. In April this year, Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew – one of the school’s greatest alumni – called homosexuality a “genetic variation”, questioning the validity of criminalising gay sex. In July, MP Baey Yam Keng expressed support for the repeal of Section 377A of the penal code (which criminalises gay sex acts). In August, Malaysian columnist and ordained pastor Oyoung Wenfeng released his inspiring new Mandarin book “Tong Gen Sheng”, encouraging gay men and women to come out of the closet.A few evenings later, I attended a forum organised by People Like Us on gay teachers and students. A few brave twenty-something guys asked, “Why has there been so little guidance available to me as a gay teenager?” It was a question that I had asked myself often, growing up.When I became a teacher in 1999, I looked back on the good guidance my own teachers gave me as a template, and tried to be a better teacher to my students. Besides teaching them Science, I spent considerable effort in imparting good social values: give up your seats to the needy, save the handicapped parking lot for those in wheelchairs and their caretakers, respect people regardless of profession or social status.How hate is perpetuatedYet, in the eight years I have taught, I have done little for that small group of students who are gay. When the religious group Focus on the Family masqueraded as sex guidance counselors and gave a talk full of misinformation about homosexuality to our students, I was furious but kept my mouth shut.When my niece returned from school saying, “Gays are disgusting!” I knew she learnt that hatred from a classmate, who had in turn absorbed that hatred from a parent. I knew that this hatred has been perpetrated for generations. But hatred grew out of fear, and hatred, as a line in a movie goes, “leads to the Dark Side.” This is the same environment of hatred I grew up in, as a gay teenager and student.Until Section 377A* is repealed, there will be precious little the Ministry of Education can do to help these students. As a teacher, I am bound by my professional duty to follow the directives of my superiors.While these events helped crystallize my decision to come out of the closet, my motivation remains deeply personal.My family and I. As far back as primary six, I have been aware of my attraction towards classmates of the same sex. For those who argued about nurturing factors of the family, my brother and sister grew up under the same parents and remained heterosexuals despite growing up with me in close proximity.As a teenager, I was very quick to sense society’s aversion towards the ’sissies’ in my classes. I worked hard to distance myself from them. While I was successful in modifying my outward behavior, my sexual orientation remained unchanged. My denial gnawed at me, and the suppression of my true self resulted in self-destructive behavior during my overseas university years.Fortunately, my American fraternity mates were supportive. I began to see a counselor who helped me accept myself for who and what I am.Returning to Singapore, I came out to my family. My father, mother, brother and sister, out of love for their son and brother, walked the long road to acceptance. It was not easy for them, but they loved me before I came out, and they love me after. When I finally settled down with my longtime companion (we have been together for more than nine years), my entire family made sure my nieces and nephews included us in their lives. I loved my family too much to keep them in the dark, to deny them the chance to really know me. And they loved me too much to let some old prejudice tear our family apart.I kept my sexual orientation a secret at work, and only a handful of my colleagues knew about me.I don’t want to be a bonsai tree. Not counting my childhood, I have spent more than twenty years in the professional closet. I am nearing my fourth decade on Earth. While I have had some successes in life, I am not content to be just average. As I have often told my students, “Why be average when you can be your best?”Do you know what a bonsai tree is? A bonsai tree is an imitation of a real tree. It is kept in a small pot with limited nutrients, trimmed constantly to fit someone else’s whim. It looks like a real tree, except it can’t do many things a real tree can. It cannot provide shelter, it cannot find food on its own; its life and death are totally reliant on its owner. It is the plant version of the 3-inch Chinese bound foot for women: useless and painful.Being in the closet, pretending to be straight, trimming our true selves to suit the whims and expectations of others, is just like being a human bonsai tree. By staying in the closet, we cannot even hope to be average, much less above and beyond average.I felt that in order to reach my fullest potential as a useful human being, I must first fully accept myself, and face the world honestly. I have lived long enough to know that what I am is not a disease, an aberration or a mental illness.Hate is not a religious valueMany people have cited many ‘reasons’ for hating homosexuals, just as many people tried to justify their views that the Earth was flat, that the darker skinned should always be inferior, and that women should subjugate their lives to men. The teachings of the world’s great religious traditions offer many words of wisdom, but the interpretations of their human followers are not infallible. As Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount (yes, a personal Bible was given to me by a great lady and I honored her by reading the book), we must love our neighbors as ourselves. It is a simple teaching, but one that’s rarely followed by those who seek to oppress people different from themselves. The path to enlightenment always faces stubborn resistance. As Mahatma Gandhi said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you…”There are some people who are using homosexuality to advance their personal ambitions vis a vis religion. They claim that the homosexual ‘agenda’ is to make the whole world gay and threaten the stability of the family. Yet, let us examine the evidence: Denmark, Norway and Sweden, the first countries to legalise gay marriage, are more stable than ever – their population has not been converted by gays and their heterosexual divorce rates have even decreased since gays have been afforded legal rights. (William N. Eskridge, Jr and Darren R. Spedale, Oxford University Press, 2006).The only agenda gay people have is to be able to live with the same rights and dignity as our heterosexual brothers and sisters. Our very vocal opponents are the ones actively preying on innocent people, recruiting them to their cause by spreading fear and misinformation. I hope thinking people will quickly see that it is this small group of vocal objectionists who have a more dangerous agenda, that their fight with gay people has nothing to do with what’s right or wrong, but is merely a litmus test of their political influence. For peace and prosperity to continue, Singapore must always uphold secularism, where each different segment of the population respects the beliefs and rights of the others.Can a country with no natural resources afford to drive away its own citizens?There is a very pragmatic reason that you should support the rights and dignity of gay Singaporeans: in this globally-competitive era, Singapore needs her gay sons and daughters, just as we need our Singaporean Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, immigrants, men and women, old folks and young. Most importantly, we need those gay sons and daughters because those gay sons and daughters are Singaporean Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, immigrants, men and women, old folks and young. Can a country without natural resources continue to flourish when it starts to drive away its own children? As I said before, leaders are people who are guided by the conviction of rightness and justice and in being so guided, lead others towards that right path. I am still a teacher. My main purpose and joy is to teach our youngest citizens, the same ones who will be the leaders of our nation tomorrow. But, I feel I am shortchanging both society and myself by staying in the closet. I must be true to myself. If my colleagues and students, both gay and straight, see that being true to one’s own self has great value, perhaps we can produce a new generation who is truly courageous. A new generation of young people who are proud to be themselves, no matter what difference they have from their classmates. Then I will have succeeded in providing them a better education than I had the opportunity to receive during my years in school.So here’s what I am, and I am a friend in need at the moment So here it is: I, Otto Fong, have always been and always will be a gay man. When you ask about my spouse, I will say he is a man. I am as proud being gay as you are proud being straight. I am not, as some people like to label gays, a pedophile, a child molester, a pervert or sexual deviant. I did not choose to be gay, just like heterosexuals did not choose to be straight. I am not going to hell (not for being gay anyway). I am not going back in the closet. When you ask me who I am, I will answer: I am a son, a brother, a long-time companion, an uncle, a teacher, a classmate, a colleague, a part of your community, a HDB dweller, a Singaporean. And I am also gay.I would like to enjoy the respect that all other Singaporeans enjoy. I will not let the closet bind my feet, because I am made to sprint. I am not interested in being a bonsai tree, my DNA is programmed to climb higher. My heart aspires to reach my fullest potential as a human being.I hope, dear friends and colleagues, that you look back and remember what I am, and see that I am not someone you fear. I am essentially the same person – flawed, imperfect, but brought up properly by two loving parents to lead a productive, beneficial and meaningful life. My friends and family love me for who I am, and I hope you can too. I come out to you with as much hope and trepidation as when I first come out to my mother and father. Your support and understanding are very important to me at this moment.Thank you, may you prosper in health and soul.Yours sincerely,Otto Fong8th Sept 2007
ST Forum - Online Letter - Yap Kim Hao
We cannot afford to wait
for conservative views to change
before dropping laws against gays
I refer to your report, 'S'pore must stay connected globally to grow'. (Aug 31) Minister Mentor Lee Yew cited the homosexual issue again and re-affirmed his positive views on the issue after what we can always expect was very careful study and analysis. His need to balance the interests of different groups in our pluralistc society is appreciated. The interesting fact that emerges in his interview with the International Herald Tribune is that China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have 'allowed and accepted gays'. He is convinced that it is a matter of time before Singapore follows suit. But the question is how much time. The headline of this article states that Singapore must stay connected globally to grow. Growth is essential, but can we afford to wait, or grow slowly? We have a conservative sector of our population, but they should not hold back the growth of our nation. They should not impede the progress of the country in becoming a world-class society. Allowing and accepting gays is necessary and shows respect for the laws of the country. To have a law and not enforce it can only mean that it is redundant and must be removed from the statute books as soon as possible. The rationale of keeping the law to satisfy the conservative minority brings the legal system into disrepute. It is simply not right to label a minority of the population criminals because they were born homosexual. What makes the consensual same-sex sexual act a criminal offence? All the allegations about irresponsible sexual acts apply to consensual opposite-sex acts as well. We can ill-afford to wait and watch the world progress ahead of us. We need to stay ahead of our competitors in attracting foreign talent and foreign investment. MM Lee has warned us of our nation's vulnerablities. We have been able to overcome one crisis to another thus far. Let us stay connected and continue to grow. We cannot retain a fishing-village mentality in the 21st century. Let us work together in harmony irrespective of race, creed, gender and sexual orientation to make pluralistic Singapore a continued success.
Dr Yap Kim Hao
16 Aug 2007
Straits Times Online Forum
Jason Wee
Section 377A should be repealed - reputation in legal and multinational
community at stake
IN RECENT months, significant debate has raged in the press on the
'gay' issue.
Many arguments favouring retention of section 377A appear to be
religious dogma masquerading as universal truism, which it isn't. When Singapore's Law Society urged the repealing of section 377A, it
stated that those arguing for its retention were a 'minority'. Many in
Singapore also hold belief systems fundamentally grounded on acceptance
and tolerance. Sometimes the arguments are clouded by excessive facts and figures. For
example, Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang's contribution, 'Beware the high-risk
'gay lifestyle' ' (ST, Aug 8), highlighted the promiscuity of gay men
with this statement: '28% of them have more than 1,000 partners'. Would
he then suggest the unthinkable, that gay marriages be allowed so that
overactive libidos can be contained? Dr Chin further laments that 'not enough has been done to warn our
youth that leading a gay lifestyle is not cool'. I disagree. In a society where continuing of the family name is of utmost
importance, gays are often threatened with being disowned, disinherited
and ostracised by family, friends and colleagues. Indeed, I sometimes
wonder why any sane person would choose to be gay. Perhaps MM Lee is correct in suggesting that this is genetic. If so,
then should we blame God for this genetic aberration, or blame it on
the parents who conceived such a child? Frankly, keeping section 377A and not enforcing it is an unnecessary
burden. First, it changes nothing. Second, as asserted by Singapore's Law
Society, 'retention of unprosecuted offences on the statute book runs
the risk of bringing the law into disrepute'. Worse, if an openly-gay opportunistic expatriate sues his multinational
company for posting him here, thereby knowingly endangering him given
that his lifestyle is a criminal offence in Singapore, assertions that
the law will not be pursued would prove a weak defence. Such a suit
could prove financially lucrative for him, but detrimental to
Singapore's standing with MNCs. For the greater good, Singapore should repeal section 377A. Our
reputation in the legal and multinational community is important.
Retaining section 377A will just keep this albatross on Singapore's
neck forever. Repeal it and the gay community may celebrate, but it will prove a
Pyrrhic victory. The moment will be consigned to forgotten history in
months, if not weeks. In the long run, our conservative majority that continues to frown on
gays, the Aids epidemic, the promiscuous gay lifestyle and their
inherent inability to procreate will conspire to keep this minority
group a minority.
16 Aug 2007
Straits Times Online Forum
Jeffree Benet
Heterosexuals who visit prostitutes greater risk than gays. I REFER to Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang's letter, 'Beware the high-risk 'gay lifestyle' ' (ST, Aug 8). Using the good doctor's own logic, look at it this way: As of July, Singapore's population is 4,553,009, with a gender ratio of 0.954 male to female, meaning about 2,171,785 males of which 2.8 per cent are gay (60,809), leaving you with 2,110,976 men who are heterosexual. The journal Sexually Transmitted Infections asked 11,000 men in a survey in 2000 if they frequented prostitutes, and one in 10 said 'yes'. That comes to about 211,097 cases comprising men having sex with prostitutes (MSPs). Based on the prevalence of 97.2 per cent of men being heterosexual, and with 9.72 per cent using prostitutes, you have to wonder about the real risk and which lifestyle is 'not cool'. Some of the Third World countries have as many as 7 per cent of their adult females infected and working as prostitutes while in the developed world, typically, the percentage of infected prostitutes is 1 per cent. If MSPs sleep with this 1 per cent daily, that's 2,111 men exposed to HIV daily, or 770,515 annually. The virus is not easy to transmit heterosexually but, over time with multiple exposures, infection is inevitable. These men then act as a conduit to bring the virus home, their other casual sex partners and to their wives. Sounds to me like MSPs are a higher-risk group than MSMs (men who have sex with men) which is, by its very nature, is a statistically smaller pool. And since I don't sleep with men, it's these MSPs who are worrying me, as they spread their infections to hetero non-prostitute women, and it's why there are more of them with HIV than MSMs - because of their 'lifestyle' which is chosen, unlike MSMs. For a great hetero viewpoint on gay rights, check out this article by Cher Tan on www.think.cz/ issue3/29/ 5.html.
July 16, 2007
MP Baey all for repealing anti-gay law
By Jeremy Au Yong
A PEOPLE'S Action Party MP yesterday spoke out against the non-review of the law banning homosexual sex. Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng said if it comes to a vote in Parliament, he would say 'yes' to doing away with the law which makes it illegal for men to have sex with other men. He was joined by Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong who had previously made public his opposition to Section 377A of the Penal Code which bans homosexual sex. Both were members of a forum panel yesterday that included gay activist Alex Au, founder of gay media company Fridae Stuart Koe, and Methodist church leader Reverend Yap Kim Hao. They were discussing the legislation with about 100 participants. When the Home Affairs Ministry proposed changes to the Penal Code last year, it said it would retain the ban on acts of 'gross indecency' between men. One participant, academic Russell Heng, 56, asked Mr Baey for his position if Parliament took a vote on this issue. He said he would vote to repeal the law, a response which drew loud applause. Explaining his stand, Mr Baey drew an analogy between homosexual sex and drinking or smoking. 'There should be a distinction between what the Government wants to discourage, and what it wants to criminalise, ' he said. 'The Government can make it more difficult to access drinking and smoking, but you are still allowed to drink and smoke. So, you can discourage homosexual sex without criminalising it.' He believed the Whip should be lifted if Parliament were to debate this issue. But he conceded that - from his understanding - not many MPs would share his views on decriminalising homosexual sex. Lifting the Whip means MPs can vote according to their convictions, and do not have to toe the party line. But Mr Baey emphasised that he did not think this issue would be decided through public consensus. 'From what I understand of how the Government works, I don't think the Government will make a decision based on a survey...The Government would want to make its own stand and position on issues like this,' he said. Changing the law would require 'some progressive thinking and also people who are able to influence the Cabinet's thinking'. Thus, recent remarks by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew were welcome, he added. 'We should be happy he made those remarks, and that will pave the way for some change in the thinking of the current Government.' In an interview with Berita Harian published two weeks ago, MM Lee said the Government should not act like moral policemen, 'prying on consenting adults'. He also reiterated his view that homosexuals 'were mostly born that way', but also recognised that Singapore is a conservative society and cannot go as far as some countries that recognise gay marriage. Yesterday's forum also touched on issues about the gay community and what the religious view on the matter was. Offering his view, Rev Yap said: 'Contrary to the majority of the Christian views... I personally would call for it to be repealed on the basis that this is God's purpose - the existence of the homosexual community... We know there will always be a proportion of the population, generation after generation, who will be homosexual, and they are created by the heterosexuals. ' At the end of the forum, both Mr Baey and Mr Siew said it was good to have open discussion to increase awareness of the issue, but the absence of a different point of view meant the discussion lacked balance. Said Mr Baey: 'We were talking to the con
On Section 377A ...
Forum on gay law well-attended, but change unlikely:
MPs
Nazry Bahrawi
Straitstimes
July 7, 2007 THINKING ALOUD
Can mum, mum and kids make a family?
By Janadas Devan, Senior Writer
I HAVE a good friend who is a lesbian. She believes she was born one, not having experienced any heterosexual inclinations since she became sexually conscious in puberty. My friend has a partner. They are not legally married, since the state they live in in the United States does not recognise gay marriages. But their partnership was solemnised in a Quaker ceremony, witnessed by family and friends, including myself. To all intents and purposes, theirs is a stable marriage.It is also a fruitful marriage, for my friend has two children, both biologically hers. She conceived them by means of artificial insemination, the sperms having been donated by suitably screened men.Apart from the fact that there is no father in the picture, my friend's family is normal and exemplary in every way. The two children are healthy, cheerful, intelligent and well-behaved. They have two loving parents. My friend and her partner are highly educated, with five university degrees between them. They own the home they live in, they pay their taxes, they save for their children's education, they are charitable, they never fail to vote, they attend church every Sunday. They are model citizens. Of course, there are any number of other model citizens - in the US and Singapore, in China, India, Indonesia and elsewhere - who would think my friend's family is anything but normal. Homosexuality is against the laws of God and Nature, they would say. Artificial insemination is all well and good for heterosexual couples - but not for homosexual ones. A family must consist of a husband, a wife and children - not same-sex parents with children. I find all these assertions incomprehensible.If homosexuality is against the laws of God and Nature, how come there are so many homosexuals? What sort of iron-clad laws can these be if they can allow for so many exceptions to the rule?The demographics on sexual orientation is hazy, but it is evident that a fair number in any population is either homosexual or bisexual. Alfred Kinsey's famous studies of sexuality in the 1950s claimed that as much as 10 per cent of American males were homosexual. Most experts today believe this was an over-estimation.Recent studies suggest 3 to 6 per cent of adult American males, and somewhat fewer adult females, are homosexual. Surveys in other countries reveal similar or somewhat lower proportions. It is possible such surveys underestimate the number of homosexuals, since homosexuals are often reluctant to admit to their sexual orientation.Whatever the correct figure, it is impossible to believe God (or Nature) is of the view that Socrates and Alexander the Great, Walt Whitman and Ludwig Wittgenstein, W.H. Auden and E.M. Forster, are all somehow deformed versions of humanity simply because they were gay.'Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.'It is astonishing the number of people who profess to be religious who manage to forget this most momentous of statements in Christ's Sermon on the Mount. (There are similarly powerful statements in all the major religions.)As for the belief that there is an ideal family unit - father, mother, children - and that any straying from this model is somehow dangerous, it is worth remembering that the nuclear family as we know it was not always considered the norm.
Till recently, the norm in many cultures was the
extended family. Some cultures are matrilineal, with
the line of descent and inheritance being determined
by the mother, not the father.No single model of the family has dominated throughout
history. The traditional nuclear family just happens
to be a structure that contemporary society finds
stable and workable - and it too is changing, as women
become more educated and have careers. And even among
today's supposedly ideal nuclear families, how many
live up to their billing?One in two heterosexual marriages in the US ends in
divorce. Are the children of divorced heterosexual
couples better off than the children of my lesbian
friends?How about the children of single mothers or of
constantly bickering heterosexual couples locked in
loveless marriages?No matter how happy and well-adjusted the children of
lesbian couples may be, they are always, by virtue of
their parentage, morally suspect in comparison to the
products of broken heterosexual marriages?The only problems the children of my lesbian friends
would face derive, not from the circumstances of their
birth, but from the nature of the wider society in
which they may find themselves. Fortunately for them,
they are growing up for now in a university town, a
liberal and tolerant milieu. If they were growing up
in Utah, say, it would be a different story. 'You've
two mothers and no father? You're a freak.'One can imagine the taunts they might face in school
if they were growing up in Utah or Alabama instead of
Massachusetts or California.What about Singapore?It is probably closer to Utah than to California in
this matter. Despite none other than Minister Mentor
Lee Kuan Yew saying 'homosexuals are mostly born that
way, and no public purpose is served by interfering in
their private lives', there is considerable social
resistance to accepting gays as equals.Male homosexual acts remain, officially, crimes under
Section 377A of the Penal Code. The Singapore
Government has in effect adopted a 'don't ask, don't
tell' policy where homosexuality is concerned. And as
for gay marriage, Mr Lee himself, despite his
progressive views on homosexuality, has said: 'We
cannot go that far. We are a more conservative
society.'What are homosexuals in Singapore to do?They really have no alternative but to accept the
somewhat larger scope the Singapore Government has now
afforded them and work to change society. That is not
going to be easy, given the deep-seated views - the
prejudices, actually - of the majority.The fact that the Government - usually never shy of
forcing through a policy, no matter what the public
resistance to it might be, if it believes the policy
is correct - finds it necessary to give way to public
sentiment in not officially decriminalising male
homosexual acts, indicates the depth of the prejudice
against gays.On the hopeful side, two factors would favour
homosexuals in the long run: One, the growing vidence
that homosexuality has a genetic basis. And two, the
growing cosmopolitanism of Singapore.What will those who hold that homosexuality is against
the laws of God say when it is definitively
established that homosexuality has a genetic basis?
That God deliberately made a mistake with the DNA of
gays - and wishes us to persecute them for his
mistake?And what will they say when they discover homophobia
renders Singapore a less attractive place to the talented and creative, both local and foreign? There
is a reason why some of the most creative cities in
the world - San Francisco, Boston and London - are
also among the most accepting of gays.Clever people cannot abide intolerance.
MM LEE'S INTERVIEW WITH BERITA HARIAN
Citing the Church of England, Mr Lee noted serious tension between the Anglican church in England, which was more tolerant of homosexuality, and the Anglican communities in Africa and Asia that rejected it totally. 'In Singapore, we want to maintain our social norm, which is that men and women marry and form stable families within which they bring up children,' he said. But neither should the Government pry on consenting adults, he added, reiterating a view he has expressed a couple of times this year. 'We must take cognisance of the contemporary world that has become more accommodating. ..Homosexuals are mostly born that way, and no public purpose is served by interfering in their private lives,' he said. Mr Lee also said the integrated resorts (IRs) and Formula One racing will increase Singapore's buzz, attract a few million more tourists and make the island a lively place to visit and do business.
The IRs are expected to open from 2009, and Singapore will host the
F1 Grand Prix from next year. Mr Lee said: 'If we remain static and unchanged, known only as clean
and green Singapore, but otherwise with an international reputation
for being a dull and antiseptic place, we will lose out in this fast-
changing world. 'High-level executives want to be posted to a country not just for an
increase in their pay but also what lifestyle they and their families
can enjoy.' Hence the need for a lively pop culture like the IRs and bars, and a
vibrant high culture like concerts, he said. MM Lee also stressed the need for Singapore to attract foreign talent
and foreign workers to thrive. Foreign talent will create more jobs for Singaporeans, while foreign
workers will do jobs locals avoid and bear the brunt of layoffs in a
recession, he said. 'The more talent - local and foreign - we have, the more dynamic our
economy and the better-off Singaporeans will be. 'The less talent we have, the less our economic vitality with fewer
jobs, and more unemployed.'
'Today' newspaper
THE GAY DEBATE AND THE BREAKTHROUGH WE NEED
by P N BALJI
Editorial Director
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.
22 May 2007
Straits Times Online Forum
Dr Yap Kim Hao
I REFER to Ms Yvonne Lee's letter, 'Gay debate continues: Writer responds', (Online forum, May 17). Ms Lee has quoted from the affidavit for a court case of one medical doctor, John R. Diggs, Jr, MD, that homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy. A closer examination of the affidavit whose source is supplied by Ms Lee herself shows that Dr Diggs observed: 'People who engage in homosexuality have the same basic sexual equipment as people who do not.' This meant that heterosexuals have the same sexual organs and some can also engage in what is regarded as 'homosexual acts' as well. Unsafe sex by heterosexuals and homosexuals can result in the same medical and health risks like those listed by Ms Lee - promiscuity, multiple sexual partners, assault and battery and anal intercourse. Homosexuals do not have the monopoly of such risks. In reality heterosexuals carry higher risks and spread sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/Aids to their sexual partners and unborn children. In the discussion on natural drives, Dr Diggs wrote: 'We discourage heterosexual promiscuity, cigarette smoking, and intoxication of various sorts, even though there may be a natural inclination to do these things.
Some claim a natural inclination, as adults, to sexually exploit children. This society discourages to the point of making it criminal.' Dr Diggs is right that we should discourage heterosexuals from expressing such inclinations. At the same time I agree with him that we should do the same with homosexuals. But homosexual orientation is not an inclination or a tendency that we must curb. It is just as natural an orientation as the heterosexual to engage in heterosexual and for some homosexual acts as well. Sexuality is common and the health risks of sexual acts are the same. The distinctive difference is that of same-sex and opposite-sex acts. Why do we criminalise one and not the other? This is where there is a need for equality before the law and justice needs to be seen to be served.
GAY DEBATE
The freedom to disagree, respectfully
By Victor V. Ramraj, For The Straits Times
Intolerant vs criminal I WANT to turn, however, to a rather different point that arises from this controversy. Does branding opponents of decriminalisation 'intolerant' undermine or effectively censor free speech? Surely, the answer to this question is no. Indeed, the reverse may be more likely; opponents of decriminalisation effectively silence others by continuing to regard the behaviour they oppose as criminal. To be branded intolerant is one thing; to be branded a criminal is quite another. The publication of letters and commentary in this newspaper shows that those who disagree with decriminalisation are perfectly free to express their views. Perhaps, then, the deeper concern is not that these views will be censored (plainly, they haven't been), but that others will not find them convincing. If that is the true concern, then rigorous and respectful persuasion would be the answer. If the discussion on Singapore blogs is any indication, recent exchanges about the decriminalisation of sodomy have provoked an important debate, one that demonstrates that Singaporeans, including many tertiary students, are far from apathetic when it comes to issues of great social significance. An issue of profound social importance is receiving the serious public attention, reflection and debate it deserves. The sources of identity FOR those who choose to engage in this debate, let us remind ourselves that our words have profound personal impact on those around us, on both sides of this controversy.
Those whose religious views are tolerant of homosexuality, and
especially those of us with secular-humanist inclinations, must remain
sensitive to the deeply personal and communal role that religious
doctrine plays in the lives of many. At the same time, we must have faith that those who oppose the
decriminalisation of sodomy on religious grounds will acknowledge that
personal identity need not be a matter of religion at all. It is
possible, even common, to define one's identity outside of religion -
in terms of one's intimate relationships, career goals, community
service, life-long projects and deep personal convictions. A person's
sense of identity is no less worthy of respect in the public square on
account of its secular sources. I can only imagine the deep personal anguish experienced by gays and
lesbians in Singapore when confronted by the criminal law. Their voices
should be heard in the spirit of an open, respectful and meaningful
discussion. Whatever is said in the course of this debate, it is clear that
someone, somewhere, will take offence. But the ability for all to speak
out should not be taken for granted. There are reasonable limits to be
placed on hateful speech - a view that I have defended elsewhere. But
in the present context, in a society that is increasingly more open, I
find myself drawn to the pithy comment sometimes attributed to
Voltaire: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it.' The writer is an associate professor in the Faculty of Law, National
University of Singapore. This essay reflects his personal views only.
Sraitstimes, May 1, 2007
Susan Yap Siu Sen (Ms)
Founding member S A F E
Supporting, Affirming & Empowering our lgbtQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgendered, questioning) friends and family
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.
Saturday, 5 July 2003
About gay tolerance
PRIME Minister Goh Chok Tong dropped something of a small bombshell this week when he revealed to Time magazine that the Singapore Government had changed its policy on hiring homosexuals in the civil service. 'In the past, if we know you're gay, we would not employ you,' he said. 'But we just changed this quietly. We know you are. We'll employ you,' he revealed. The Government does not seem to have adopted quite the same policy as the United States military's 'don't ask, don't tell', but the effect is analogous. Gay people do not have to declare their sexual orientation - nobody in Singapore is required to, actually - but Mr Goh seemed to suggest it wouldd be best if they did, so as to avoid being blackmailed, especially those in sensitive positions. 'Disclose, and we won't bother' would seem to encapsulate the new policy.
This newspaper welcomes the change. As the Prime Minister explained, broader changes in the laws regarding homosexuality will have to await changes in the beliefs and attitudes of what remains, by and large, a conservative society, but this is a step in the right direction. Homosexual acts will still remain an offence - but as everyone knows, these sections of the Criminal Code are not strictly enforced. Singaporeans are not about to witness gay parades or festivals - but as everyone knows, private gatherings of the gay community are not prohibited. And the Government is not going to institute in the near future a strict anti-discrimination policy towards homosexuals - similar, say to anti-discrimination policies on the grounds of race or religion - but as Mr Goh made clear, the Government itself will not discriminate against gays, and large segments of the private sector have long ceased to make an issue of it. No homosexual in Singapore is starving because of his or her homosexuality; no homosexual is jobless because of his or her sexual orientation. What Singapore has, de facto if not de jure, is a live-and-let-live attitude towards homosexuality. 'So let it evolve,' as Mr Goh put it, 'and in time, the population will understand that some people are born that way. We are born this way and they are born that way, but they are like you and me.'
Some American studies have suggested that as much as 10 per cent of any population is homosexual. In all probability - the science on this is not settled - homosexuality is as genetically determined as heterosexuality, or one's height, for that matter. Ethically and logically, it is as untenable to exclude people on the basis of their sexual orientation as it is to exclude them on the basis of the shape of their noses or the colour of their hair. If it is 'natural' to have snub proboscis as it is to have high ones, it is as 'natural' to be a heterosexual as it is to be a homosexual. There is no one model of the natural; nature is by definition various. Why should anyone be faulted simply for possessing certain traits - of gender, race, sexual orientation, or inherited disability, or even body type - over which they had no control? 'Blaming' someone for being homosexual is equivalent to faulting that person for simply existing. But this is not a position that everyone would agree with. Many religions - or more precisely, segments of many religions - explicitly prohibit homosexuality. These views are sincerely held, and no society, not even avowedly secular ones like the US, can ignore them. If Western Europe, Canada and Australia are any indication, attitudes towards homosexuality will change in the long term. But the process cannot be forced.