July 2003

Letters in the Straits Times, 15 July 2003

source: Straits Times, Forum page, 15 July 2003

 

  

 

 
Govt should rethink hiring of gays 

I am a heterosexual man, married to a heterosexual woman and we have four heterosexual children. We believe that the right upbringing by parents will prevent improper and deviant future behaviours.

We also believe in a God who loves both the heterosexual and the gay, but He hates the sin of immorality.

So now you know where I would stand on the issue of the Government hiring gays for even sensitive jobs ('Govt more open to employing gays now'; ST, July 4). Or is there no more right or wrong regarding the hiring of gays to help govern the country?

The saying 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' is my guiding principle. I accept a criminal, a gay, a gangster or a hooligan, but I reject his behaviour. Why? Because as human beings we have a conscience to distinguish between what is good and what is bad.

There is no greyness between white and black. White is white, and black is black. There is no relativity in morality. Morality is absolute. Yet the guiding principle is love.

So is it morally right to hire gays for key government positions? It would take a perfect government not to hire them as pressure mounts over the years to accept gays in practically any job.

 
Foreword by Yawning Bread

Our sources had been telling us that the Straits Times were receiving lots of hostile mail since word of Prime Minister Goh's comments broke. (see Gay civil servants, and what next?)

It was thus a bit odd that of the 4 letters published on 9 July, three were supportive. (See Letters in the Straits Times, 9 July 2003)

At last, on 15 July, 3 more hostile letters were published. Here they are.

 

Our society, including religious groups, has been bending backwards towards tolerance of immoral behaviour. A government that does not appease the wishes of its people may not last long. On the other hand, many people still expect our Government to take sound and responsible action to protect young citizens from the corrupting influence of immoral behaviour.

I am concerned about the consequences of the Government's action. Firstly, the Government has shown quite clearly by its action that it has lost its moral authority.

Then there are other repercussions: gay leaders will one day advocate gay marriages and, as if to complete the cycle, they will promote the adoption of orphaned children by married gay couples.

I am concerned for our next generation of children. Will they be able to tell right from wrong? By accepting what the Government is doing now, we are not helping our children to see the corrupting and subtle influences of such a lifestyle.

I disagree with the Government that people are born that way and hence helpless to change. Gays are never born that way. The law of nature has been that you are either born a male or a female, hence the proper behaviour follows.

However, because of negative influences in their lives, homosexualism and lesbianism set in and took control of the person's mind, soul and body.

Most gays are reported to have had a history of being sexually abused when they were children. Others mentioned that they had grown up in homes without a father or father figure and subsequently rejected their own sexual identities. Still others admitted that their attraction to the same sex started when they allowed themselves to be addicted to pornography.

Yet the person himself still has a choice as to whether to accept or reject this immoral behaviour. Some people may be comfortable with the change in views, but I am not and will continue to educate my children in the right way.

I am surprised that leaders of religions like Islam and Christianity have not voiced their disagreement openly. These two religions have very strong views about the right behaviours where human sexuality is concerned.

Religions play an important role in society and it is most ironical and sad that religious leaders are refraining from making their stand known publicly in matters of sexual morality.

I would like to appeal to the Government to reverse its decision to hire gays for key jobs. History has shown time and again that great empires fell because of failing human values and shaky moral principles. Does the phrase 'the chain is as strong as the weakest link' sound familiar?

 

I don't know why the Straits Times chose to lead off the three letters with this one. Was this one representative of the majority of anti-gay mail they received? 

It's hard to believe so, because this letter is so extreme, it's almost like a caricature of anti-gay arguments. Did the editor then choose this letter precisely because it's such a caricature? 

Even the opening of the letter sounded pompous and self-delusionary. Substitute the word 'heterosexual' with 'Chinese' and you will see what I mean. 

He begins:

I am Chinese. My wife is Chinese. Our 4 children are Chinese. Our God loves the Chinese and hates non-Chinese ways.

And with his authority so convincingly set out, he argues that 

  • I am absolutely sure I am absolutely right; if you don't agree with me, you're absolutely wrong.
  • having non-Chinese around will lead to a morally bankrupt government
  • non-Chinese will want more and more.
  • the next generation of Chinese. children will get confused, and won't share my ideas about non-Chinese being bad.
  • it's unnatural, the law of nature says everyone ought to be Chinese.
  • Chinese religious leaders are cowards for not speaking up.
  • civilisation will collapse.
  • and like a viral infection, Chinese will become infected and turn into non-Chinese.

 

We know that yeast causes dough to rise, so in the recent Sars outbreak its containment depended on not leaving even one virus at large to infect people.

Likewise, the majority of the public should make known its disapproval of hiring gays for key government jobs. This seemingly harmless action today will not bode well for our children tomorrow.

GEORGE LIM HENG CHYE

* * * * *

I am disturbed by just the thought that gays are ordinary people like you and me. Their sexual orientation is more than just a deviant desire which needs to be corrected, and their lifestyle remains questionable.

If we accept gays as a sexual minority, then subtly we are telling ourselves and our children that it is acceptable to have sex with the same gender.

I would encourage gays to rethink the way they live, being man or woman. Getting back to religion or the basics of sex is the right thing to do.

And, hopefully, they would realise that they have to change. They should not allow themselves to be blinded by other parts of the world where the gay community is accepted, nor jump onto the bandwagon on the pretext of evolution of a country or people's maturity.

To be blunt, even in the animal kingdom, a tiger will look for a tigress to share their lives together.

PHIROZE ABDUL RAHMAN

* * * * *

Gay-rights study heavily tainted

THE three Ts - technology, talent and tolerance - of economic success mentioned in the article, 'It's not about gay rights - it's survival' (ST, July 9), are probably valid. But the Carnegie Mellon study cited in the article about gay rights is so heavily tainted that it has become an object of ridicule within the United States.

The people who authored the study were gay, and extremely selective about the data they presented. The data looked valid during the 'dot.com bubble' of the late 1990s. But in the more subdued 2000s, the 'gay tolerant' areas cited in the report have seriously underperformed against the overall economy.

The report is so tendentious that it is often cited by conservative political activists as an archetype of 'how to lie with statistics'.

As poor as the Carnegie Mellon report on 'the creative class' is, the idea of tolerance (but not necessarily with endorsements or promotion) seems to work in favour of nations seeking to advance. This is not only true in the case of homosexuals, but also in matters of religion, nationality, and other lifestyle choices.

But tolerance does have its limits when it comes to lifestyles. Tolerance for gay rights does not require a culture to legally recognise gay marriages, nor does it require that the institutions (public or private) promote and encourage gay lifestyles.

In a nation such as Singapore, where corporations often need to bring in people from other countries, it is frequently the case that the only people willing to take on such assignments, or who have the flexibility to do so (because of a lack of family or other commitments) are gays.

Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's recent statements are a recognition of the realities of life in an age of globalism.

BRIAN LYNCH
Texas, USA  

 

One of the problems we face is that views such as these seem so crazy to us, we are reluctant to engage with them. Quite obviously, we'll never convince them, so why bother.

Yet, we realise that such views, if repeated often enough, will influence many others. But we also want to believe that the soft middle are rational just like us. Surely, others can see the absurdity of these statements?

So we end up prevaricating about whether to respond, seeing instead hilarity in their rants.

Here's one comment (by Christopher Low), which I thought deserves some kind of prize. With a few flicks of a sharp gay tongue, he nicks both the government's pathological need to control the political agenda ("if the gay community starts to push ... there'll be a backlash") and gay men's narcissism.

...pondering whether I should write back as well, or whether my writing back will be a backward step for the "gay agenda". 

"gay agenda for the week": gym at 8pm.

 

Footnotes

  1. An immediate comment by a friend through mobile phone SMS: "The long letter was too long and his argument too weak, and he is beating round the bush, so he won't be taken seriously. The religious and moral sides brought up in the first letter can be easily demolished while the other two letters I will ignore if I am PAP."

  2. Three days later, the Straits Times published 6 letters in response to George Lim's long letter. See Letters in the Straits Times, 18 July 2003

  3. The Church of Our Saviour also sent a letter to the Straits Times, but it was not chosen for publication. See COOS wants "a nation of righteous Christians"

  4. Two other letters sent to the Straits Times but not published can be found here: Letters not in the Straits Times, 18 July 2003

 

Addenda

None