In response to Mr Kenneth Vaithilingam's letter, 'MP should reflect people's views on homosexuality (Online forum, July 20) [1], not only his own' with regard to Mr Baey Yam Keng's stand on homosexuality, let it be on the record that I agree with my MP's view that Section S377A should be repealed.

British actor and gay man Ian McKellen was quoted in this newspaper on July 18 as saying 'Well, I feel a little bit guilty because the law you have in Singapore was one that was left behind by the British colonial forces and it's taken us an awful long time to get rid of it in Britain. So I'm very sympathetic to the situation here.'

What is it that keeps us from repealing an archaic law, one that Britain had abolished 40 years ago in 1967 and Hong Kong in 1991?

As a woman, Section 377A will have no bearing on me. Nevertheless, I can't see how not repealing the said law will make for a better society.

On the contrary, dragging this debate out as if we were in the dark ages is in fact preventing us from spending our efforts and resources on more worthwhile causes where there will be real beneficiaries.

Coming back to Mr Vaithilingam's letter, I don't think it would be a sure defeat for Mr Baey should he run for a single-constituency ward based on his opposition to Section 377A despite the letter writer implying otherwise.

However, should that time come, I'm certain there would be other similarly pertinent issues for voters to consider aside from Section 377A which I believe should be dealt with without delay if indeed we are a First World country.

After all, which other First World country has laws against private consensual sexual activity between adults of any gender or sexual orientation?

Tan Yen Ling

* * * * * 

21 July 2007 
Straits Times online forum

I am just a 40-year-old layman and father of three young kids, who may not understand the full social implications and legal intricacies of legalising homosexuality.

However, I would like to share my personal brushes with individuals who practise homosexuality. They are situations, experiences and places that those my age can identify with, recall being a witness to it or even personally encountered.

As a Pri 3/4 pupil, my friends and I would visit the River Valley Swimming pool (opp Liang Court) and I did not understand why there were more guys sunbathing in skimpy trunks than swimming, with some spending more time in the changing room when the pool is out there.

Another incident broke that innocence. Having my hands full from buying noodles for my parents, I walked into a lift with 'faulty lights', only to have the hands of a man grope my private parts suggesting we masturbate together. Shocked beyond words and too small to retaliate, I elbowed his hands away and ran out as soon as the doors opened.

Many today are aware that some gays are the affluent, 'respectable, professional type', so the above stories seem locked in the distant past.

However, my next brush with these 'respectable types' only shows that their 'baits/lures' might be more upmarket but their depraved desires are hardly concealed.

In the early 80s, I trained with some swimmers in the national water polo squad in Queenstown pool. There appeared a middle-aged, half-balding, Volvo-driving man who would hang around these young secondary-school boys, especially in the changing rooms after training.

He would often buy drinks and joined in some of their activities. Some have had their inner thighs stroked and received 'indecent proposals' from the man. On another occasion, I spotted the same man 'chatting up' a teen usher at a meeting. From the closeness and way he sat, I knew he was up to the same tricks and cautioned an older teen to warn the usher.

Some might recall the effeminate male who manned the ticketing office at the old National Stadium Gym. Many, myself included, were openly approached by him. Once he even boldly stretched out his hands to touch my private parts in full view of other users. This was in the mid-80s and I was then a poly student... have they gotten bolder?

I believe so. Many gays today have no qualms about putting their faces to their voices, as seen in the recent forum.

There is a rapid proliferation of their sexual activities, which I believe some trainers in gyms can attest to. Being an infrequent neighbourhood Safra gym user, I was not immune to their advances.

In the past two years , I've had to report three cases of inappropriate behaviours in public toilets. One involved a man who stood in front of the urinal for about 30 minutes (until I reported him to security), all the while casually peeping at an occupied urinal next to him. I was then helping my one-year-old son in the toilet of the busy neighbourhood shopping centre.

The other two cases I reported involved men who bathed and soaped endlessly in the quiet, corner cubicles of public toilets in Katong and Queenstown pools. As male toilets are door-less, these men would often casually parade around stark naked.

I should know they are in the toilets for a suspiciously long time because I train as a triathlete in the pool.

Why do I divulge these personal encounters?

I appeal to the government authorities not to decriminalise homosexuality. The pressure comes from the rise of the 'pink dollar' with many big businesses chasing these big spenders. However, for every classy 'Orchard Road' type gay endorsed, there will be countless other 'heartland' types soliciting sexual favours from unwary youngsters in the neighbourhoods.

As a father, I realised that my children are not so safe anymore when I had to teach my Pri 1 boy then, that he must lock the cubicle door before he does his business and never use a urinal when he is alone in a public toilet without dad.

Is that what Singapore has become? What will the future be like for our children?

Benjamin Ng Chee Yong

* * * * *

 
21 July 2007 
Straits Times online forum

I refer to Dr Ang Su Yin's letter, 'Homosexuality: Legalising something that is not right does not make it right' [2]. In her letter, Dr Ang related her experience of gay culture in San Francisco, including having her schedule being disrupted by a gay parade.

Some perspective is needed here. Decriminalising gay acts in Singapore would not in itself lead to gay culture being practised as openly here, if the authorities set the tone right. There is a clear difference between decriminalising homosexuality, and promoting it as a lifestyle alternative.

Dr Ang, as well as many others, seem to be of the view that homosexuality is immoral to begin with. Such a mindset would only serve to marginalise Singapore in the global age.

Homosexuality is undeserving of being considered a crime, because, by itself, it does not harm anyone, except possibly the delicate sensibilities of ultra-conservatives.

The most pragmatic solution is to recognise the rights of homosexuals as individuals, but continue to provide strong moral foundation in our schools, and discourage gay culture from being practised openly.

Ng E-Jay

* * * * *

21 July 2007 
Straits Times online forum

I refer to the debate on the validity of using religious beliefs to justify the criminalisation of homosexual acts.

Everyone has the right to his or her own religious and moral views. However, in a multi-religious society like Singapore that is founded on secular principles, no one should attempt to impose his or her private religious beliefs onto others. This includes questions of morality.

To illustrate this principle, allow me to refer to Christian teachings. In the Christian Bible, it is unequivocally written that the worship of other gods is a sinful act. Thus, most Christians would believe that the adherents of other religions are mistaken and are worshipping false gods. Yet, they would be unjustified in campaigning for the criminalisation of other religions, because ours is a secular society, not a theocracy. Indeed, all Christians recognise this and do not attempt to prevent other people from following their religion.

The same should apply to homosexual acts. As a Christian, one can privately believe that homosexual acts are sinful. One can teach one's children that it is an immoral act. But one should not attempt to force everyone to adhere to one's own religiously-based moral beliefs.

If one really wants to advocate the criminalisation of homosexual acts, then one should use secular reasoning to justify one's stance, rather than treat it as self-evident that gay acts are immoral and unacceptable (the latter of which seems to be the tack many letter-writers to the forum have taken).

Our sense of morality should govern our own actions. As long as other people's actions do not affect us, we have no right to demand that they adhere to our moral sensibilities.

We can believe that they are wrong, we can attempt to persuade them of the error of their actions, but we should not try to restrict their liberties to suit our own beliefs.

Such a course is one of intolerance and tyranny, and would serve to create rifts between the diverse peoples of Singapore.

Thus, just as we allow everyone to follow his or her own religious beliefs even if we sincerely think they are wrong, we should also allow everyone to pursue his or her own preferred lifestyle even if we believe it to be immoral, as long as the pursuit of the said lifestyle does not cause demonstrable harm to third parties.

Daniel Gaw Wai Ming

* * * * *

 
21 July 2007 
Straits Times online forum

I refer to the discussion on homosexuality on Talkback (938 Live) with guest MP Mr Baey Yam Keng on the morning of July 18. Like an overwhelming majority of the callers, I am against decriminalising homosexuality.

I question the reason for the Government's push towards acceptance of homosexuality. It is a fact that homosexuals are presently not hindered by the law. The authorities do not make arrests related to this matter as long as it is consensual and done in privacy.

Therefore decriminalising homosexuality really does not make any practical difference to the homosexuals.

Mr Baey mentioned that the Government is trying to keep up with the changing world landscape. But since when has the Singapore Government taken this stance?

We have always taken pride in the view that Singapore cannot simply follow other nations. We set our own rules and policies due to our unique context and circumstances.

Our Internal Security Act, the ban on chewing gum and the death penalty are all examples of how we are different from other nations. Why are we singing a different tune in this case?

By decriminalising homosexuality, the Government is in fact promoting it. It is sending out the message that 'there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and homosexual sex acts'.

This is a very strong signal that will encourage many more people, especially children and youths, to try out homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. I shudder to think of the consequences.

If we do not check ourselves, we will soon have pornography in the newsstands, sex shows on TV, sleazy shows and strip clubs in town. Is that the kind of Singapore we can bring our children up in?

I urge our government leaders to respect our Asian values, principles and, most of all, the views of its very own citizens and what it calls 'stakeholders'.

Brian Tan Cheow Eng

* * * * *

 
21 July 2007 
Straits Times online forum

Dr Andy Ho's article, 'The homosexual debate Let the religious have their say too' (ST, July 19), takes the stance that religious arguments should be permitted to enter into the realm of public and legal discourse, in a spirit of 'friendliness''.

This position is problematic. 'Friendliness' involves mutual courtesy, which is not the stance taken by most right-wing religious groups when it comes to the gay debate.

Is it possible for a gay person to sit down and have a discussion with a conservative Christian who has labelled him as an 'abomination'?

Two more crucial points need to be registered. Firstly, those religious persons who are most vocal in their opposition to granting gay people any social space have shouted down more moderate voices within their own religious constituencies.

One might compare this to the radicalisation of Islam in the Middle East - alternative views within the same religion are given no credence, and the extreme position (that violence and terrorism are acceptable expressions of 'faith' in the case of radicalised Islam, and that homosexuality is a social evil in this case) comes to be regarded as the benchmark of orthodoxy.

Religions in Singapore - Christianity in particular - thus need to be more self-reflexive about how they have arrived at particular positions on social issues. There is, after all, no agreement on the issue of homosexuality within the global Anglican communion, yet the Singaporean Anglican leadership is firmly on the conservative side.

If the prejudice of a small number of church leaders dictates the overall position of their congregation, then should that prejudice be allowed to persist?

Secondly, religions have been wrong on issues before. Global Christianity has, in the past, drawn on scriptural passages to support the practice of slavery. Churches, too, were silent on the issue and practice of apartheid.

History has much to teach us. Religions have long been complicit or even active in the oppression of minority groups, especially when they are the religions practised by a powerful majority. They gain much from doing so - by identifying a minority group that they can pinpoint as 'sinful' or as somehow 'other', they build group solidarity.

The same spirit that condoned racial exploitation today rears its ugly head in condemning homosexuality.

Such voices should doubtless be allowed to participate in public discourse, but Singaporeans need to be more historically conscious and reflective, when it comes to trusting these voices.

Dominic Chua Kuan Hwee

* * * * *

 
21 July 2007 
Straits Times online forum

Gay people are Singaporeans too whether you think they are natural or not according to your religion or social perception.

As National Day draws near, remember our national pledge. It should apply to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

To me, being a Singaporean comes first, everything else; religion, race, language, personal and social customs, and sexuality, et cetera, second.

Let not religion nor individual prejudices divide us as a people. Everybody is entitled to his or her point of view, but when you are out of your home and in the public, it is time to put the differences aside and regard your fellow Singaporeans as fellow citizens who have a right to exist as human beings in their own way. No one should impose his or her personal and religious point of view on others. Preach tolerance and acceptance, practise it too; there is no need to persecute others just to defend your own views.

MM Lee has been enlightened enough to see the plight of ordinary gay citizens suffering from religious and social persecution to make his public statement on homosexuals. The Government has already lifted legal persecution through the non-application of Section 377A. Gay men and lesbians do not want to tear up the fabric of society, they just want everyone to understand, to each his own.

Gay men and lesbians are Singaporeans too. Family values are best protected and taught by responsible parents who do not place blame on external factors.

In the public, as a society, we are one people, one Singapore; regardless of race, language, or religion. Remember the pledge.

For the longest time, homosexuals had been frowned upon, prosecuted by law, right to marriage denied, and not even allowed to be portrayed in a favourable light in the media due to censorship regulations and law.

How long are the Government and the heterosexual citizens going to deny the pledge of justice and equality to homosexual citizens?

Or are homosexual Singapore citizens a sub-citizen of this nation that the pledge does not cover?