| Yawning
Bread. May 2007
What are these guys really saying? source: 'Today' newspaper, 21 and 22 May 2007
|
|
|
21 May 2007 'Today' newspaper. Letters.
WHY AN ANTI-GAY LAW? I refer to the report "What price, the pink dollar?" (May 19) by Jasmine Yin and Gracia Chiang. [1] There is no doubt that Section 377A of the Penal Code, a law criminalising homosexual activity between men, should be tossed out of Singapore's law books. We should not have to compare ourselves with other countries, but it may be good to know that Indonesia, China, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, the Philippines and many of our other Asian neighbours have no such law discriminating against gay men. I would think that some of these countries have societies that would be as, if not more, conservative than Singapore is. As to whether we would be able to retain Jeremy and his scholarly partner, I doubt the "law" has any real impact on their decision. New York, London and Hong Kong may be "more open" to gays, but there is still a sizeable chunk of the mainstream population who will not tolerate any public display of affection between two men. My point is, while the outdated law may still be around, it is not a real push factor that's chasing the gay men out of Singapore. Neither is it stopping gay men, who can contribute greatly to the economy, from coming to Singapore. Maybe some gay activists might refuse to step in or stay in Singapore as a matter of principle, but a majority of gay men, like straight people, take into consideration a low crime rate, clean living environment, a vibrant economy, language, and many other factors as the reasons for a stay-or-leave decision. John Tan * * * * *
21 May 2007
WHY AN ANTI-GAY LAW? Homosexuality is a lifestyle - not a mere idiosyncrasy - that carries overarching implications in our social and family spheres and even for our long-term demographic structure. The extent to which society embraces it determines the degree of its penetration in the recesses of society. Therefore, economic benefits aside, the one overriding issue in this "pink dollar debate" is the kind of legacy we wish to leave for the next generation. If we still wish to see our social fabric anchored in the nucleus family, the gay lifestyle should remain a subculture and not be a part of mainstream society. So long as it remains a subculture, we are conveying to our young the message that society still values the family culture. Although Section 377A of the Penal Code is said to be more honoured in principle than in observance, it should remain enshrined in legislation. Its abolition will mean that even the lawmakers, the elected representatives of the people, are according public space for such acts. Lai Yew Chan * * * * *
|
|
|
|
22 May 2007 Let's not get distracted by sex Sex is always an interesting topic, and the debate about homosexuality is no exception. However, before we get too distracted by sex, let me make two clarifications There is no law against homosexuals. People who are homosexual per se are not criminals. What has been said so far seems to suggest that a person is a criminal just by being homosexual in orientation. This is not true. Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code do not appear to solely target homosexuals. Section 377 is targeted at a specific sexual act, an act of "gross indecency" or an act "against the order of nature". These provisions will apply to anyone, regardless of sexual persuasion, if they commit such acts. Section 377A singles out "male person" as the potential perpetrator but since females too are homosexual, it suggests this section is not specifically targeted against homosexuals but a male perpetrator of any sexual orientation. Section 377 is even wider and applies to anyone having carnal intercourse with any man, woman or animal. We could argue that male homosexuals are more at risk of violating either Section 377 or 377A, or both, because the nature of their preferred form of sexual activity is more likely to result in such a violation and this, therefore, is grossly unfair to them. This is an entirely different issue, which nevertheless underscores the point that Sections 377 and 377A do not criminalise homosexuals but rather certain sexual acts, which may be the preference of male homosexuals, but is not their exclusive preserve. Homosexuality is not a crime, and the physical nature of the relationship is not the issue here. In my view, the real issue is about whether we are ready to legalise homosexuality and to understand the social implications and consequences of such a move - whether to allow them to marry, adopt children, apply for a flat, and so on. Let us not get distracted by the provisions of the two sections in the Penal Code or other more lurid topics. Instead, we should discuss if society is ready to accept same sex marriages, same sex parents, and all that may result from legalising homosexuality. Terence Teo
|
|
|
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
