PLU first application: second appeal letter

source: original document

Appeal for the registration of People Like Us (PLU)
The Moral, Family, Pragmatic and Other Arguments

We recognise that PLU's application may raise some discomfitting issues for the government. The subject of homosexuality may be so close to untouchable that it risks being denied a hearing or being rejected outright at many levels of society and probably within the government as well.

Your ministry may not heretofore have found the need to deliberate on its pros and cons. Allow us to present some of the debating points in this issue for your consideration.

Many Singaporeans believe that homosexuality is somehow immoral and that the State should give expression to this belief through legal and administrative sanctions.

For some, the source of their belief that it is immoral may be their religious affiliation. Yet, not all religions take a uniformly negative view of the matter. Our layman's understanding is that Buddhism and Hinduism do not consider sexual orientation as a pivotal consideration. Furthermore, in Singapore, there are a large number of people who declare themselves as free-thinkers, or atheists.

In a secular State, government action should not be based on the terms of reference of any particular religion, or any religion at all, out of respect to those not of that religion, or non-believers entirely.

Hence, objections based on religious grounds to the registration of PLU cannot be overriding. After all, PLU membership will be entirely voluntary to those who want to join.

In addition to those who hold religious beliefs in this matter, there are others who also think homosexuality is objectionable, without reference to any religious source. It is a vague, but deepseated feeling. We grant it is quite common.

What we do want to highlight is that increasing numbers of Singaporeans do not think homosexuality is a question of morality at all. If anything, it is in the more informed sections of our society that this evolving opinion is found. The basis for this opinion is found in Appendix A, which shows how for them, the recognition that homosexuality is a naturally occurring and immutable trait leads to the view that it is morally neutral. It is a logically coherent belief and can certainly be very sincerely held.

We do not ask that your Ministry be convinced of any of the above views. We merely ask, what is a government to do in the face of personal beliefs that are so heterogeneous? We think it is only obvious that the government should be even-handed, and should allow each section of society to have its own voice, within bounds of civility.

It is often said that homosexuality is a threat to the family and that this is justification enough for the State to adopt an anti-gay policy.

Closer examination will show this argument to be baseless. The starting point must be a recognition that homosexuality is not a choice. Some people are by nature homosexual, and through no fault of anyone, some families will contain gay or lesbian children.

Homosexual orientation cannot be encouraged or discouraged, since it is not a choice. Rather, depending on the familial and social climate, the homosexual offspring can either grow up emotionally healthy or emotionally deformed. That is the choice that the family and society can make.

A systematic attempt to "discourage" homosexuality with penalties and pressure will merely, instill a sense of alienation in the son or daughter; inhibit parent-child communication; lower self esteem in the homosexual person; add an unnecessary sense of shame to the parents' burden; put day-to-day family life under stress; push the homosexual person into a loveless marriage just to cover up to to please his/her parents. Such a marriage is a lifetime of deceit, and quite often, cheating, and from the spouse's point of view, a tragedy waiting to happen.

Anti-gay sanctions do not bolster the family, they injure it. A State that values its families must promote more compassionate attitudes towards homosexuality and encourage greater tolerance and mutual respect. This may be counter-intuitive, but it is logical.

Hateful divisiveness within our society should be consciously reduced. The wellbeing of all will not be served by having a permanently disaffected subgroup in our midst. They give rise to social problems, and worse, a fatalistic outlook that is inimical to any attempt to help themselves.

The government has been encouraging civic-minded citizens and groups to contribute to society. In this area, the government has recognised that a strong motivating factor is that of helping one's own kind, witness Mendaki, Sinda, CDAC and historically, the various clan associations.

As mentioned in our first Appeal letter dated May 5, 1997, there are serious issues to be addressed. These include: issues of self-awareness and self-esteem; anti-social tendencies and suicide; family conflict; love and heartbreaks; kneejerk prejudice from the general public;

Isolation and loneliness in old age are also important considerations. What happens when singles grow old? Nowadays, many lesbian and gay individuals would rather remain single than enter into a sham marriage. Yet, singles too need circles of emotional and material support. Their married siblings will have families and commitments of their own. In any case, their attitudes may be negative towards their gay brothers and sisters. Do these older singles then end up despondent and dependent on the State?

PLU hopes to conceptualise and encourage the construction of alternative surrogate "families" much like the sisterhoods of the black-and-white spinster amahs of a generation ago. At the same time, PLU intends to reach out to lessen the antipathy of other family members towards their gay siblings. In other words, PLU can help address these social issues creatively. But of course, we will not be able to achieve this if we are not even given the crucial space to exist.

 
OTHER JUSTIFICATIONS

Registering PLU as a society should not be construed as government approval of homosexuality. It is nothing more than -- and nothing less than -- good governance in keeping with some of the most fundamental tenets of Singapore society and identity:

Singaporeans are diverse. We are of different races, faiths, cultural orientations (even among the same race). To recognise that there are gay and lesbian Singaporeans too is nothing new.

Singaporeans are more pragmatic than ideological. We take reality as it exists and work with it. The emerging reality in this day and age is that a significant section of our people no longer consider homosexuality taboo. Of course, others hold opposite opinions, but granting registration is just being neutral and evenhanded in this area of diverse personal beliefs.

We are also pragmatic enough to realise that generation after generation, some of our sons and daughters will be homosexual. It is in the best interest of this country as a whole to reassure them that they are welcome to contribute their talent and effort to Singapore. It is not in our long term interest to propel, through intolerance, a continuing brain drain from our limited population on this account.

We strive to be consistent. Films, plays, magazine articles and books dealing with homosexuality are available in Singapore. Our society is not the worse for it. It would be inconsistent to say that a homosexual support group would then be so harmful that we should disallow it.

 
Sir, we hope you find the above arguments useful in supporting a favourable decision. We would like to add that the Prime Minister has set out a vision of making Singapore our First Home and our Best Home. There is no escaping the fact that this home contains gay and lesbian citizens. We want to do our part too.

(Signed on behalf of all ten applicants for the registration of People Like Us)

* * * * *

Appendix A: Homosexuality is not a question of morality

It begins from a recognition that the weight of evidence now points to the fact that homosexual orientation is not a choice. Whatever may be the causes of homosexuality -- genetic, hormonal, parent-infant relationships -- a conscious decision to be homosexual is not among them. You do not choose or unchoose whom you love. You just do. That person may be white, yellow or brown, ravishing, ugly or handicapped, male or female. You just do.

Morality is in its essence, about life choices. It is about determining to conduct yourself ethically, and about being responsible to those around you. If something is intrinsic to someone's nature, and he/she didn't choose to be that way, nor able to eliminate it, could you label that trait immoral?

Take other aspects that are intrinsic to a person, for example, colour-blindness, left-handedness, musical talent, long-windedness or the tendency to put on weight. Is it meaningful to ask whether these traits are moral or immoral?   

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None