I refer to the letter, 'MM's comments have me and family worried' (ST, May 1), by Mr Jonathan Cheng Hern Sinn.

I am disheartened by the writer's myopic view on homosexuality, as he makes sweeping and unsubstantiated statements as to why homosexuality should not be decriminalised.

The claim that all homosexuals lead hedonistic and promiscuous lifestyles is far from the truth. I have homosexual friends who are working professionals and make significant contributions to society. Many of them are in stable and loving relationships with long-term partners. They are discreet and do not publicise their sexual exploits, which is more than can be said of many heterosexual individuals I know.

It is true that pornography is much more accessible in the West. However, most of this pornography is heterosexual in nature and a result of lax anti-pornography laws. In decriminalising homosexuality, one would not expect a sudden surge in the availability of pornography as these are two completely separate issues.

By legalising homosexuality, such individuals would feel more accepted by society, and thus be more encouraged to conform to common social values, such as responsible sexual behaviour, as well as play a part in contributing to civic life.

By criminalising the act of homosexuality, we only end up driving such individuals to the margins of society, where they are more likely to engage in promiscuous and risky behaviour.

While it is true that the prevalence of HIV is higher in homosexuals than heterosexuals, excluding them from our health-care system is not a solution in any case.

By making health care and health education more accessible to these individuals, we actually have a better chance of reducing rates of HIV infection.

While I accept that we should be entitled to our opinions and points of view, the writer's argument against legalising homosexuality is based on misconceptions and personal bias rather than fact.

I am proud to be Singaporean but not proud of the fact that we continue to discriminate against a very legitimate section of our society.

Dr Shirin Kalimuddin

* * * * *

I refer to the letter from Mr Jonathan Cheng Hern Sinn, 'MM's comments have me and family worried' (ST, May 1).

Mr Cheng and his family were concerned about Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's recent comments about liberalising laws regarding homosexuality which, in Mr Cheng's view, will rob Singapore of its wholesomeness as he alleged that homosexuals lead a promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyle.

I have led many community projects benefiting the infirm elderly and people with disabilities. In most of our projects, we mobilised more than 100 volunteers, with the majority being homosexuals. In the past three years, our volunteers have cleaned and painted more than 150 homes of the elderly, taken the elderly in wheelchairs for outings and organised celebratory free dinners, among other things. In the past two years, our volunteers have twice staged A Nation In Concert, which empowered hundreds of people with disabilities to perform on the grand stage of the Esplanade Concert Hall, and channelled close to $250,000 to various charities dealing with disabilities.

Our volunteers sacrificed their evenings after work and weekends to organise these events.

Contrary to public perception that homosexuals do not have children and family to take care of and, hence, lead a hedonistic lifestyle, there are many homosexuals who volunteer their time and energy to carry out community work in various voluntary organisations.

I applaud MM Lee's foresight in advocating an inclusive society, in keeping with developments around the world. Instead of discriminating against and making life difficult for our fellow homosexual citizens, we should channel our energy towards working together as a nation regardless of race, language or religion - or sexual orientation.

Jerry Siah 
Honorary Executive Director 
Spaces Community

* * * * *

I refer to the letter by Mr Choo Zheng Xi, 'Justify why gay acts should remain criminal' (ST, May 1).

Mr Choo argues on three fronts (1) that the scientific uncertainty over whether homosexuality is natural or not is a good reason for not jumping the gun in criminalising it; (2) that homosexuality should be criminalised only if there is harm done to society; and (3) decriminalising homosexuality does not send a signal of approval - it merely reflects respect for individuals' choices.

As much as I see the force of his arguments, I believe he is mistaken on points (2) and (3).

Firstly, decriminalising homosexuality does send a signal of approval. To quote the late Justice Murray-Aynsley 'What the law does not forbid it allows, and what a law allows is, I think, justified by law.'

It sends a message that society now condones and justifies homosexual activity and hence we should all be more liberal in considering homosexual behaviour to be part of what humans are. Is this not the crux of the argument by homosexual lobbies - to push for abolition of Section 377 so as to provide for social approval?

Secondly, it is following from this approval that actual harm to society may be done. Because society may now see homosexuality as being justified, it gives gay and lesbian groups and lobbies a platform from which they can promote and champion their cause. They would become more overt and push for further societal approval of their activities.

Once this moral gatekeeper in Section 377 is removed, our societal values may be turned on their head.

I am not advocating an extremist stand against homosexuals and neither do I share Mr Jonathan Cheng's castigation of homosexuals as being 'hedonistic'.

This is my stand Let homosexuals be homosexuals. As far as it is a lifestyle choice, let it be so and let them continue in the privacy of their homes without interference from the law.

There is no need to decriminalise homosexuality. But the Government should continue with its practice of not invoking Section 377 and should also ensure that it is not used to persecute homosexuals. It is enough that Section 377 remains to send the signal that society at large still does not approve of such behaviour.

Tang Shangjun

* * * * *

Mr Choo Zheng Xi ('Justify why gay acts should remain criminal'; ST, May 1) asserts that while individual liberties can be constrained to prevent harm to society, Section 377 should be abolished on the grounds that gay acts harm no one. Following this line of argument, laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets and motorists, seat belts, would have to be repealed because no harm is caused to others when they fail to do so.

Therefore it is not always the case that clear harm to other people has to be proven before a particular law is enacted. H.L.A. Hart, the 20th-century philosopher, pointed out that the harm principle is justified only if most people make their choices in the ideal fashion - 'with adequate reflection or appreciation of the consequences'.

In the real world, many external forces exert their influence on individuals. Professor Tan Seow Hon once argued in an article regarding the issue of unnatural sex that 'when longstanding laws rooted in morality are repealed, the effect on members of society who are hitherto neutral, and on impressionable youths, may be disastrous'.

Decriminalising homosexuality is as much a moral stance as criminalising it. By decriminalising homosexuality, we are necessarily sending out a signal of approval because we have engaged one moral world view - that autonomy is an absolute value - when this view is in contention among different world views. Section 377 should be abolished only if there are rational reasons for choosing that world view over another.

Istyana Putri Ibrahim (Miss)

* * * * *

Much has been said about MM Lee's recent comments on the possible abolishing of laws with regard to homosexuality.

The purpose of my letter is not to argue the merits or flaws of such an action but to look at the basis upon which decisions such as these are being made.

It is my contention that the value which is esteemed above all else in our country is wealth, material wealth and that is an extremely dangerous ground to be on.

We are taught this in subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, ways.

As an example, MM Lee said this and I quote 'They tell me that homosexuals are creative writers, dancers. If we want creative people, then we have to put up with their idiosyncrasies.'

If I may have the liberty of paraphrasing this statement, I would put it this way 'If they can contribute to the economic bottom-line, their lifestyle does not matter.'

The still recent debate over the integrated resort issue is another example. One justification of having an integrated resort (make that two actually) in Singapore is that if we do not have them, we would lose out to other countries which do have them.

Lose out in what way? In revenue of course. We can have more jobs, more tourists, more... money. The fallout from people who may get addicted, the families who may suffer as a result et cetera, these are but minor considerations that can be dealt with.

'We must be realistic' or 'we must be practical' is more important than 'we must do the right thing'. It is not surprising that a me-first (maybe a me-only) mentality is prevalent here.

It is not surprising, therefore, when I take the lift and find litter scattered all over the floor, I squeeze onto the bus trying to find space to get on and find that the back of the bus is still relatively empty, I read the papers and discover rich people scurrying for cheap books meant to bless the poor, and so on.

Of course, some would take exception to what I am describing and say that this generalisation is overly simplistic and I cannot draw a conclusion from these observations. And they would probably be right. However, the purpose of my writing is to force us to think about what is truly important in life.

The family in Singapore is not well. I think this is a statement that needs little justification.

Even while the family is deteriorating, we are about to introduce another factor that truly bears upon the family (namely, the homosexual issue).

While we are out earning our wages, our children are at home being brought up by maids (and this is in no way a slur on the job that they perform).

If we persist in this philosophy of life, we may indeed find that our country remains on top of the economic pile but has lost its very soul.

I conclude with words from an ancient book of wisdom 'What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?'

Aaron Ho Chien Kwok

* * * * *

Considering that Singapore is striving to be an inclusive and open society, I was dismayed to read the bigoted statements in Mr Jonathan Cheng Hern Sinn's letter, 'MM's comments have me and family worried' (ST, May 1).

To purport that the legalisation of homosexuality will compound the problems of Singapore's declining birth rates and the breaking down of families is not logical.

Is the writer trying to suggest that by outlawing homosexuality, homosexuals will somehow be forced to become heterosexual and set up 'normal' families with children and thus solve the abovementioned social problems? This is a ludicrous proposition, given that it has already been established that homosexuality is a propensity that one is born into.

What perturbs me the most is how the writer takes a prejudiced view that all homosexuals lead promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyles.

Such a wild and unsubstantiated accusation vilifies an entire community that has contributed as much to Singapore's growth as has heterosexuals.

Are 'promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyles' exclusive to homosexuals? Furthermore, would the writer like to vouch that all heterosexuals do not carry STDs and thus are of no risk to the general population, as he condemns homosexuals to be?

A teacher teaching his wards that being homosexual is normal seems to me like an effort to educate the young that everyone has the right to be treated equally. Does the writer deem it morally acceptable then for it to be taught that only heterosexuals are normal and being homosexual is thus abnormal?

I believe it is not simply 'criticism' that riles homosexual communities. It is the bigotry and scorn heaped upon them by some sections of society that cannot tolerate anyone being different from what they deem to be the norm, as the writer has so blatantly demonstrated in his letter, which exposes the writer's deep seated personal bias against homosexuals.

Knowing homosexual friends and peers has convinced me that homosexuality does not make them any different from anyone else, nor does it make them the scum of society that some people might paint them out to be. Their continued persecution holds no place in a forward-thinking society.