As a married Singaporean man and father-to-be, I am alarmed by Ng E-Jay's letter, 'Be pragmatic, not xenophobic' (Online forum, July 21).

Mr Ng falsely assumes homosexuality is not wrong or only violates the delicate sensibilities of ultra-conservatives. This is inaccurate. The legal endorsement of homosexuality would violate the sensibilities of the vast majority of Singaporeans, who are called conservatives because they want to protect the status quo. Furthermore, mainstreaming homosexuality harms our common welfare.

Mr Ng wrongly used the word 'xenophobic' which indicates an undue fear or contempt for that which is foreign. The decriminalisation of homosexuality has nothing to do with xenophobia - that is a red herring.

If sodomy was decriminalised in Singapore, and I hope it never is, this would mark the first step in a political movement to push for broadening the homosexual agenda. Noting the developments in other countries, such as same-sex 'marriage', is not being xenophobic but prudent. We learn from good and bad examples. Disagreeing with developments in other countries is not contempt for all that is foreign, but a wise decision to protect Singapore by not blindly importing harmful developments.

Those activists in Singapore who want to mainstream homosexuality are becoming more militant. They want to push their agenda on Singaporeans step by step. Homosexuals enjoy individual rights, such as the right to vote, to go shopping and to hold a job, like all Singaporeans, and this state of affairs does not need homosexuality to be decriminalised.

Some homosexual activists argue that the state should not police what is private. However, if they are really concerned about protecting the private sphere and how law should not interfere with the bedroom, then why are they so aggressively trying to push homosexual acts out of the bedroom into the public eye by demanding that society recognise by law that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle? Really, they are trying to change public opinion or impose their views on those who consider homosexuality to be immoral and wrong. Furthermore, the law should rightly interfere with certain activities which take place in private spaces like the bedroom and home, such as incest, child and wife abuse. What is done in private can affect the broader community.

What is at stake is public morality, not pragmatism. The wisest solution is to keep Section 377A of the Penal Code and to maintain sound moral education in schools and homes. 

Andrew Lim Chia Wei

* * * * *

26 July 2007
Straits Times online forum

One of the issues being hotly debated today in Singapore is whether Section 377a of the Penal Code should be repealed, and whether consensual gay sex should be decriminalised. My objective in this letter is to contend that the homosexuality debate cannot escape a moral argument if our legislature is to respect the moral values of the majority of Singaporeans.

It is a known fact that multiracialism and multi-religiosity form the social fabric of Singapore. Indeed, as a multi-religious community, Singapore cannot ignore the religious component of its society. In its deliberation of the homosexuality issue, the Government is obliged to give due consideration to the majority voice.

According to Statistics Singapore, the majority of Singaporeans are not atheists, agnostics, or secular humanists without religious affiliations. In this country, the majority of Chinese are Buddhists (53.6 per cent), the majority of Malays are Muslims (99.6 per cent) and the majority of Indians are Hindus (55.4 per cent). Within our multi-religious society, a common consensus on this issue can only be achieved by being mindful of the morality of the religious majority.

As Assistant Professor Yvonne Lee had pointed out: 'The attention given to fundamental moral values of the majority of citizens by retaining S377A in its entirety strikes the right balance.' Therefore, the disregard of moral values of a large population of Singaporeans who subscribe to religious faith is not the solution to the homosexuality debate.

I recognise that the Singaporean Government has been gracious by giving credence to viable opinions of various minority groups. As homosexuals in Singapore are a minority, they should all the more avoid the disparagement of other minority, albeit opposing, views. These include those from the conservative sectors of various religions in Singapore. In his recent letter to the Straits Times forum, Mr Dominic Chua Kuan Hwee hinted that 'the prejudice of a small number of church leaders' should not dictate the position of other Christians.

How Mr Chua arrived at the conclusion, that a minority group of church leaders had indeed imposed their views upon the Christian majority, is baffling. Neither do we have any reproducible evidence to support his hypothesis. By applying the rhetoric of Mr Chua, I sense that the small minority group of homosexuals in Singapore is essentially promoting an agenda that would eventually dictate the conscience of the majority. Is it then reasonable to pressurise the religious majority to go against their moral convictions, and to accept homosexuality as being morally correct? Therefore, just as homosexuals cry out for tolerance and desire their voices to be heard, they should likewise encourage other minority groups within the nation to express their opinions, be they conservative or not.

The singling out of a minority group of conservative Christians or extremist Muslims and to put them in a negative light would do little in our journey towards a common consensus concerning the homosexuality debate. The social fabric of Singapore depends upon mutual understanding and tolerance between various religious groups, and the intolerance of any religious minority would inevitably lead to disharmony, social fragmentation and religious apartheid. Furthermore, Muslims in Singapore are generally moderate in their theological perspectives.

We are likewise not living in the time of the mediaeval Crusades. Christians do not form a majority group in this nation, with only 16.5 per cent of Chinese and 12.1 per cent of Indians professing to be Christians. Pro-homosexuality writers like Mr Dominic Chua would have done better if he had addressed the statistically more significant religious groups, for example, the Islamic community, in his assessment of the influence of religions within Singapore's society.

We must admit that the homosexuality issue ultimately cannot escape a moral argument within an inherently conservative and multi-religious society. Various writers had attempted to argue for the decriminalisation of homosexual acts from a pragmatic perspective.

For example, consultant therapist Anthony Yeo had challenged the traditional definitions and values of the concept of family based upon pragmatic and experiential observations. Some of his questions were: 'Is there an ideal form of family life,' and 'Are parents from heterosexual marriages any safer for children?'

Mr Yeo's thought-provoking questions should perhaps result in more fundamental questions being asked concerning the definition of a family. For instance, 'Who should possess the authority to decide what constitutes an ideal family?', 'Should pragmatic considerations be used to redefine the family structure, apart from moral considerations?' and 'Should we follow the majority consensus of what makes up a family, or should we allow the cognoscenti to decide for us?'

Certain gay-rights activists had attempted to assert their unalienable right to homosexual intercourse based upon two arguments. Firstly, homosexual acts are private, consensual activities between mature adults; and secondly, such activities do not cause harm to other people within a society. Taking morality out of the equation, are we therefore to allow the private, consensual sexual activities between family members (incest), adult and children (paedophilia), humans and animals (bestiality), or human and cadavers (necrophilia)? After all, such sexual activities may be private, consensual, and confer no harm to other people. Furthermore, should we allow polygamous marriages as viable family units in Singapore? Taking the assertion of such unalienable right to the logical extreme, are we consequently obliged to legalise incest, paedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia and polygamy?

Finally, I conclude that the religiosity and morality of Singaporeans cannot be ignored in the homosexuality debate. Pragmatism alone cannot provide a satisfactory resolution to the discussion. Truth cannot be determined by merely the practical consequences of belief. Besides, a proposition that works does not necessarily mean that it is morally right.

If pragmatism is allowed to be the sole consideration in the legislation of laws, then several criminal activities might even be justified based upon various pragmatic bases. For instance, the poor might be justified to steal, or to embezzle his company for financial gains.

I therefore urge the Government to seriously consider the moral value system of the majority in its derivation of a common consensus concerning the homosexuality debate.

Dr Vincent Chia Wei Meng

* * * * *

26 July 2007
Straits Times online forum

I refer to the article by Mr Daniel Gaw, 'Intolerance of alternative lifestyles will create rifts' (Online forum, July 21).

I do not agree with his viewpoint that one has the right to one's moral beliefs and views but yet not be able to articulate it to others.

Where public debate about public policy is concerned, anyone can propose his or her views, whether from secular or religious convictions, on what measures and values are the best way to go and what best serves the common good.

Voicing one's beliefs and convictions is not equivalent to imposing them on others; after all, the Government will weigh all views and then make decisions; it is the only body with the power to 'impose' a view because it can make and enforce laws.

Those who seek to challenge traditional and family values bear the burden of showing why their arguments are worth considering. Can Mr Gaw show the superiority of his view, that homosexuality is acceptable and desirable rather than a threat to personal welfare and that of society?

Mr Gaw expresses concerns that rifts will be created as a result of intolerance towards alternative lifestyles. However, the truth is that rifts already exist; in fact, it is the homosexual activists who are worsening this rift by undermining public morality through justifying and pushing for their cause. If all they wanted was to be left alone, why are they pushing for more public space and for us to accept that homosexuality is morally the same as heterosexuality when we do not accept this?

Mr Gaw's view is that as long as one's actions does not affect or undermine the general good of others or cause demonstrable harm to others, one has the liberty to lead the kind of lifestyle that one so desires. However, how do we define harm in this context since the law also criminalises acts without demonstrable harm? An example would be evasion of tax. It may be hard to demonstrate harm but the law still punishes it. Some harm like rape is obvious while other forms of harm take time for the ill effects to show. Therefore, we should be wise and learn from the mistakes of others like groups of Canadians who regret allowing same-sex marriage or the Americans who regret liberal abortion laws. These contentious issues are still not settled in the West and their societies remain split on such public issues.

Let us not pay the same price that would cause us the pain of regret of not learning from the mistakes of others.

Yu Yin Wei (Ms) 

* * * * *

26 July 2007
Straits Times online forum

I am disturbed by Mr Chua Chee Hiang's letter, 'Gay men and lesbians are Singaporeans too' (Online forum, July 21).

It makes many emotional statements based on questionable assumptions. As a married Singaporean man, I am deeply concerned by the call for equal rights for people with different sexual behaviour or perversions as this implies there is no difference between the social norm of heterosexuality and homosexuality, which deviates from the norm.

Mr Chua wrongly assumes that the Pledge does not apply to homosexuals. The Pledge applies to all Singaporeans. It affirms the importance of harmony among all races and religions. Although it mentions 'equality', surely this does not mean that all forms of sexual behaviour come under legal protection? 'Sexuality' involves some degree of choice and is not the same as one's race or sex, which is an inborn and natural trait.

In fact, what do we mean by 'sexual orientation" which the Pledge never mentions? It is such a broad term and can cover anything from homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, pederasty and bestiality to paedophilia, bigamy and adultery. Those who talk about non-discrimination on the basis of 'sexual orientation' are aggressively pushing a radical social agenda which tries to remove moral distinctions between heterosexuality and homosexuality. But, if all sexual orientations are morally equal, why should we penalise incest, bigamy or disapprove of adultery, sado-masochism, et cetera? We should just throw up our hands and say 'anything goes" when it comes to sexual (im)morality.

I resent how Mr Chua arrogantly dismisses as a prejudice all forms of principled moral objections against mainstreaming homosexuality. Politically inclined homosexuals and lesbians, and their liberal friends do not have the right to impose their controversial moral views and their own prejudices on the rest of us.

Each of us has an equal right to marry - but marriage is regulated by four prohibitions: we can only marry unmarried persons, of the opposite sex and who have come of age, with no bloodline objections. Also, all of us enjoy the same tax and social benefits. All men, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot legally sodomise another man.

Mr Chua is asking for special consideration for homosexuals which nobody else gets. It is dishonest to say 'we just want to be understood". At present, homosexuals can lead a quiet life if they want to. But it is those pushing for the homosexual agenda who are making this a public and political issue in order to gain social acceptance of a controversial sexual behaviour. This will threaten family values because a model of Man-Man is asserted as a good and wholesome alternative to Man-Woman-Child. Unless we want to change our adoption laws, we cannot legally endorse the message that two men can be good lovers and adoptive 'parents'. This kind of immoral propaganda is both insidious and harmful.

Tolerance does not mean we tolerate what is wrong. Tolerance is not the ultimate value. Singaporeans need to know the accepted norm before we can decide how far deviations from it should be permitted. This should be discussed rationally and clearly and not through emotional statements which distort the issue.

To evoke National Day as Mr Chua does is just pure emotionalism. We must remember the values that made us a strong nation, one of which is sound family values which Mr Chua's assumptions attack. 

Koh Yan Sang 

* * * * *

I refer to Mr Dominic Chua's letter, 'S'poreans need to be more historically conscious and reflective in debate on homosexuality" (Online forum, July 21)

In cautioning others to be 'more historically conscious and reflective" when it comes to trusting religious voices, one would expect the writer himself to live up to what he advocates. However, he fails in this as his own letter is lacking in historical awareness and reflection.

To support his argument that religions (especially Christianity) have been wrong on issues, the writer states that '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".

It is true that the Church has at times been complicit in failing to challenge slavery and apartheid but this stems from a failure to live up to the teachings of Jesus Christ, including the tenet that 'there is neither slave nor free", as all men are equal in God's sight.

However, when Christians do live up to the teachings of Christ, they bring liberty and blessing to society. If the writer wishes to invoke history as a basis for argument, he should at least provide a complete and accurate account of such events.

It is unfair and misleading to state that Christians have supported slavery and were silent on apartheid without mentioning the major role that Christians subsequently played in the abolition of slavery and apartheid. The historical record demonstrates that Christians like William Wilberforce led the anti-slavery movement; in nearer times, Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu opposed apartheid, motivated by biblical teachings that oppose racism as, with the Fatherhood of God, comes the brotherhood of man.

History indeed has much to teach us and shows that religion has been, and can be, a powerful force for beneficial social reform. Like secular philosophies such as fascism and communism, religion can also be misused and bring human misery. Fair commentators would point this out.

Everyone is entitled to participate in public discourse, but where historical facts are relied on in public debate, these should be presented fully and accurately, not selectively. Otherwise, half-truths will distort and undermine public debate.

Mr Chua's call for Singaporeans to be more historically conscious, to know the facts and to fairly present the whole truth, is, as demonstrated by the deficiencies in his own article, clearly justified.

Soh Chai Lih (Miss)

* * * * *

26 July 2007
Straits Times online forum

I refer to the article, 'What will the future be for our children if we decriminalise homosexuality?' by Mr Benjamin Ng Chee Yong (Online forum, July 21).

I can see how Mr Ng may be disgusted with his observation of men (supposedly gay) loitering in the changing rooms of swimming pools, peeping at other men at the urinals and the physical abuse (molest by other men) he himself experienced during his youth. For that, he calls for continued criminalisation of homosexuality as he fears for the safety of his children.

What about the less than desirable sexual expressions of heterosexuals that we are all too familiar with? Girls are taught to avoid taking the elevator alone with men, and tough night curfews are usually set for them as parents fear their daughters may fall prey to molesters and rapists. Parents advise their daughters against skimpy bikinis so as not to attract advances of men with questionable intentions. And we all know the hanky panky that goes on in some KTV lounges, not to mention the open solicitation of prostitutes that line the streets of Geylang. These are sexual activities of straight people, yet no one has called for the criminalisation of heterosexuality.

As much as the proposition of criminalising heterosexuality may sound absurd, most straight people do not realise that they are applying the same untenable line of argument when they call for the continued criminalisation of homosexuality. Surely not all heterosexuals are molesters and rapists. Likewise, not all homosexual men go around molesting young boys in elevators. If all homosexuals are to be criminalised for behaviours of the minority among them, then the same should apply to the heterosexuals.

In discussing the repeal of Section 377A, straight people have to re-examine the fundamentals of their own sexuality. Firstly, they need to understand their basic sexual urges and how the urges are expressed or contained. While the majority are able to contain and express their sexual urges in ways that are not harmful to others in society, there is a minority who are unable to restrain themselves. Homosexuals are no different.

Secondly, straight people need to realise how fundamental their sexual orientation and preference are to their being. Most heterosexuals would say that they were not influenced in their adolescent years into liking people of the opposite gender. They are just naturally inclined that way. It's not something they have to decide. It is also not something they can change even if they want to. Likewise, homosexuals will tell you that their sexual orientation is not something they choose or can change.

Key to the debate on Section 377A is realising the commonality between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Homosexuality is as fundamental to gay people as heterosexuality is fundamental to straight people. Only when straight people learn to see gay people in this light will we make progress.

Dr Peter Goh Kok Yong 

* * * * *

We refer to the letter from Bishop Dr Robert Solomon, 'Rev Dr Yap doesn't speak for Methodist Church' (ST, July 19).

Likewise, we know that neither The Methodist Church in Singapore (MCS) nor the National Council of Churches in Singapore (NCCS), of which Bishop Solomon is the current president, speak for all Christians in Singapore.

It is worth pointing out that there are diverse views on the issue of Section 377A and homosexuality among Christians in Singapore, including individual church ministers and lay Christians in NCCS' own member churches.

The leaders and members of the Free Community Church strongly support the repeal of Section 377A. We affirm that same-sex relationships are consistent with Christian faith and teachings, when lived out in accord with the love commandments of Jesus.

Instead, it is discrimination based on sexual orientation and homophobia that are inconsistent with Christian teachings.

The debate among Christians in Singapore, within and beyond MCS and NCCS churches, is far from over.

The constructive thing to do is for us to engage in meaningful dialogue to increase our collective understanding of the issues at hand.

Dr Peter Goh, Vice-Chairman, Free Community Church

* * * * *

26 July 2007
Straits Times online forum

I THINK that the debate on the legalisation of homosexuality in Singapore naturally pivots around the nature of homosexuality and, as a 'homosexual', I would like to contribute to the debate.

Research has shown, and my own experience also tells me, that being gay or straight is not like choosing what colour of socks to buy. It can be an innate part of the personality, like being tall or short.

Indeed, research studies are increasingly yielding evidence suggesting a biological basis for homosexuality in a minority of individuals. Do you really think that in countries such as Saudi Arabia where homosexuality is punishable by death or imprisonment, people would choose it?

As a Christian, I dislike sexual immorality and despise corruption of the young as much as any decent person, but I don't think such evils are unique to homosexuality: You only have to walk past Yangtze cinema in Chinatown to realise this.

Children should, of course, be protected from all forms of inappropriately adult material and allowed to grow up in peace. However, simply informing them impartially that a minority of people are gay will not magically transform them, just as telling short people about tall people will not make them tall.

I don't think many people really understand what it is like being gay. Heterosexual people take for granted the strong social and family structures which contain and nurture their relationships. Gay people often have to hide their nature and relationships from parents and family and exist in a painfully lonely and marginalised nether world.

The legalisation of homosexuality will offer a degree of acceptance to a hidden and suffering minority of Singaporeans. It will not open Pandora's box, it will close it.

Dr Daniel Emlyn-Jones
Oxford, United Kingdom

* * * * *

I refer to the letter, 'Homosexuality: Legalising something that is not right does not make it right' by Dr Ang Su Yin (Online forum, July 19).

I have a colleague who goes to church. She has a daughter who is just starting her university years in Australia. She, too, attends church.

Recently her daughter went with a group of girlfriends to a bar where 'there is really good music'. After they ordered their drinks, they realised that they were the only girls there. It was a gay bar. However they let 'their hair down' and had a jolly good time. Later she reported to her mum in Singapore that she 'has never felt so safe in the company of so many men'.

Like Dr Ang who is a paediatrician, I too am a medical doctor. However, I am involved in the care of people at the other end of the spectrum - the older people in the community and the people dying at home. I have learnt that good 'doctoring' comes with letting go of our personal judgmental attitude and learning to see our fellow beings in our care, as no different from ourselves in mental and physical sufferings as well as in happiness.

I used to be an avid reader of science fiction and my all-time favourite is the classic called The Chrysalids by John Wyndham. The novel, in a post-apocalypse era, describes the lives of the inhabitants of a rural place called Labrador. They practise a form of fundamental Christianity. Individuals not conforming to a strict physical norm are either killed or sterilised and banished to the Fringes, a forbidden area still rife with animal and plant mutations. I will leave it to you to read this exciting fiction and find out the conclusion. I have always wondered why this novel did not make it to the big screen.

Perhaps if Dr Ang would put her prejudice away and get to know gay people, it will help to remove the 'monstrosity of fear' that obstructs the development of compassion that is essential in the practice of 'good medicine'.