I refer to the article, 'Decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error' (ST, May 4), by Assistant Professor Yvonne C. L. Lee.

I struggle to understand why The Straits Times decided to print such a hysterical, homophobic and bigoted diatribe.

Perhaps some irony was intended in juxtaposing such a blatant pro-discrimination essay against the front-page article in the same edition highlighting the progress Singapore's Tripartite Alliance For Fair Employment Practices has made in issuing new employment guidelines to end discrimination in the labour field.

However, as a member of the National University of Singapore legal faculty teaching Constitutional Law, Ms Lee's assertions should be questioned in greater detail before being accepted as facts by your readers.

Before labelling a segment of otherwise loyal, tax-paying (and presumably NS serving) citizens as traitors bent on destroying the tender multi-racial fabric of Singapore society, perhaps Ms Lee can answer what exactly about a homosexual person we should fear?

It cannot be, as the writer claims, for public health reasons. For Ms Lee must surely know that heterosexuals and not homosexuals are the cause of the majority of sexually transmitted diseases throughout the world.

Perhaps the writer has misunderstood moves to decriminalise homosexual sex as a cover for a broader multi-step process to transform 'a crime into an alternative lifestyle' in Singapore.

Otherwise, can Ms Lee point to any public, private or any campaigns that have been pursued to lower the age of consent, change the marriage laws or otherwise legalise paedophilia or bestiality in Singapore?

Will the writer expose these unseen forces bearing such evil intent - closet homosexuals within the Government; well-meaning heterosexuals in civil societies; Third Way communists; al-Qaeda perhaps?

Finally, Ms Lee defends, as 'free speech', the right to vilify a segment of society under the guise of religious freedom. In the countries she mentioned (Canada, United States, et cetera) such speech may be 'protected' so long as it doesn't perpetuate a violent act.

However, will Ms Lee provide us with any legal, legislative or other evidence to show what in Singapore's legal history since Independence would give any support to her assertion that a right to a similar freedom of speech would be allowed here?

Ms Lee believes that so long as homosexuals lead private lives and don't 'foist their homosexual acts on the public' (whatever that means), she is apparently willing to tolerate them in Singapore society.

This generous conclusion, however, is undermined by the writer's own confused logic, unsupported claims of impending societal disaster and apparent prejudice against certain members of Singapore society.

Brian Selby

* * * * * 

I write with regard to the recent discussion on the issue of homosexuality. Homosexuality, until recently, was regarded as a disease.

A disease is defined as an impairment of health or condition of abnormal functioning.

Homosexuality certainly fits the definition of a disease as there is an increased mortality rate mainly from Aids; the life expectancy of a homosexual and bisexual male is up to 20 years shorter compared to a normal male (R.S. Hogg, et al, 'Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men' International Journal of Epidemiology 1997).

There is also an increased morbidity rate, with a greater risk of suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, including Aids, and increased risk of psychiatric illnesses such as depression, suicides and drug abuse.

Simply put, being a homosexual (statistically speaking) puts one at risk of suffering from poor health and dying early.

In 1973, homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

The question we have to ask is How did this come about? One would think that the APA would not have taken such a step unless there was strong scientific evidence to justify such a move.

A review of the history of events shows that the decision was not based on scientific evidence, but in fact was the response of an organisation under siege by gay activists. Ronald Bayer's book, Homosexuality And American Psychiatry The Politics Of Diagnosis, documents the political nature of this battle over DSM.

Dr Bayer defends this move by APA, saying 'Psychiatry may, under certain circumstances, act upon society, using its cultural influences to challenge social values and practices.'

It is clear from this that the removal of homosexuality from DSM was a political settlement and not due to scientific evidence. Thus, homosexuality should still be regarded as a disease.

The question is, if homosexuality is a disease, can it be treated?

There have been numerous documented cases of people who have changed their sexual orientation.

Dr Robert Spitzer, who was very much involved in the 1973 removal of homosexuality from DSM, found in a 2001 study, that 'there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians'.

It follows from this that homosexuality is neither a fixed trait nor is it immutable.