In the article, 'Most with Aids virus don't know they have it' (ST, July 18), Senior Minister of State Balaji Sadasivan announced that a study of 3,000 blood samples in government hospitals showed that 1 in 350 samples was positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) which causes Aids. The male to female ratio of these cases was 15:1.

What conclusions can we draw?

The 15:1 ratio means that the HIV epidemic is still confined mainly to the high-risk groups (concentrated epidemic) and has not spread to the general population (generalised epidemic). If it were already in the general population, the ratio would be much closer to 1:1.

Therefore we still have time to do something before the situation gets worse.

Who constitutes these high-risk groups?

Data released by the Ministry of Health on HIV last year showed two groups of men were responsible for approximately 83 per cent of HIV cases.

53 per cent of the cases were men who contracted HIV via unprotected high-risk heterosexual sex. This group was infected overseas or by local unlicensed prostitutes; our licensed prostitutes are screened for HIV.

30 per cent of the cases comprised men having sex with men (MSM). Based on the prevalence of 2.8 per cent of men being homosexual or bisexual, there are about 67,000 men in Singapore who engage in MSM.

I highlight this second high-risk group as it is a matter of public interest and concern, given the ongoing debate on the review of the Penal Code relating to Section 377A.

Extrapolating from the infection rate of 1 in 350 and 15:1 ratio of males to females, the conclusion is that among men who indulge in MSM, about one in 20 has HIV and does not know it.

This means that someone who indulges in MSM and has 20 sexual partners would have exposed himself to HIV.

A survey conducted in the United States has shown that 75 per cent of homosexual men have more than 100 sexual partners and 28 per cent of them have more than 1,000 partners.

I feel that not enough has been done to warn our youth that leading a 'gay lifestyle' is not cool. On the contrary, it is very unhealthy. There is a very high risk of contracting not only HIV but also a slew of other sexually transmitted diseases.

Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang

* * * * *

The Ministry of Home Affairs banned a public forum scheduled for yesterday which would have featured a talk on the topic, 'Sexual orientation in international law, a case for Asia', saying that it was contrary to public interest.

The forum was to have been open to one and all who are interested to hear views and opinions related to society. How could it be against public interest?

I am a straight member of the public who wants to understand issues that sexual minorities confront, especially in an Asian country like Singapore.

Another reason cited for the ban was that 'foreigners should refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of Singapore', a reference to the invitation to a foreign-based speaker to participate in the forum.

I believe that views and feedback from foreigners can improve our society and make Singapore stronger. This is important for Singapore as a cosmopolitan country, open to talents from all over the world.

It is a pity that the forum was banned, depriving people like me of the education and awareness it could have given with respect to minorities in our society.

Should we subject ourselves to censorship due to the vague notion of public interest?

What then is public interest?

Instead of a ban, restrictions such as an age limit could have been imposed. A small compromise from the authorities would go a long way for education and awareness.

Ho Chi Sam

* * * * *

 
8 August 2007
Straits Times Online Forum

I refer to the comment piece, 'Redefining marriage: Where to draw the line?' (ST, July 30), by Mr Tan Seow Hon.

The primary argument says that because it is difficult to redefine marriage, we should abandon the effort and retain its traditional definition. Several secondary arguments are offered to show it is indeed difficult to redefine marriage.

Difficulty is not a sufficient ground for abandonment. If so, mankind would never have invented the light bulb, the airplane, nuclear power and many other things. Indeed, difficulty is often presented as a challenge to achieve - a conclusion contradictory to abandonment.

The secondary arguments ignore historical examples of marriage being defined and practised in forms other than heterosexual monogamy.

In ancient Greece, love between men was ordinary. In The Symposium, Apollodorus casually remarks that Aristodemus 'was at the party because he was, I think, one of the people most in love with Socrates at the time'.

Shortly after, Phaedrus begins the discussion on love. He says: 'I would claim that there is no greater benefit for a young man than a good lover and none greater for a lover than a good boyfriend.'

In ancient China, and even until the mid-20th century, wealthy men commonly had several wives. It is said that Tibet once had a social system of one woman, many husbands. These marriages are respectively called 'polygyny' and 'polyandry'.

These historical examples clearly show that heterosexual monogamy is not the only possible way to define marriage.

The opposing argument says that because the Constitution guarantees every person equality before the law, therefore every person is entitled to marry whomever he pleases.

The law is not unconditional in identically treating everyone. The law discriminates. Movies classified 'PG' may be viewed by anyone, but movies classified 'R21' may be viewed only by those above 21.

Equality before the law means everyone is subject to the same set or system of laws, not that everyone is entitled to the same specific provision in law.

However marriage should be defined or redefined, better arguments are needed to do the job.

Lau Kwong Fook

* * * * *

 
10 August 2007
Straits Times Print Forum

I refer to Mr Ho Chi Sam's letter, 'Why is gay forum against public interest?' (ST, Aug 8).

Apparently, this forum was not banned in its entirety, as Mr Ho claimed. Its organisers, a self-professed homosexual lobby group, reported on their website that 'the event will still go on. The topic may be altered slightly, but will still focus on the law and sexual orientation'.

Regretfully, the organisers had not posted the forum's programme on their website. However, Fridae.com, an Internet portal providing services aimed at homosexuals, posted an article attributed to the foreign speaker concerned, which presumably contains the gist of what he intended to convey.

This article argues for the repeal of criminal laws against unnatural sex by using foreign precedents and international law in certain ways, noting that decriminalisation paves the way for the next step in the agenda, i.e., to redefine marriage.

It presupposes that the repeal of such laws benefits our society, and, in so doing, sidesteps the very issue that we are trying to work out for ourselves, i.e., whether decriminalising homosexual conduct serves or undermines Singapore's interests and well-being.

Mr Ho introduced the expression 'sexual minorities', a term coined by political groups in countries like Canada and the United States to lobby for special (rather than equal) rights for self-professed homosexuals.

Attempts had been made to extend such special rights, to the point of banning religious texts like the Quran and Bible as 'hate literature' for 'incit(ing) hatred against sexual minorities' because these texts categorically reject homosexual behaviour.

An uncritical importation of such politically charged and legally loaded terminology not only confuses but also endangers the racial and religious harmony that Singapore has laboured to enjoy and keep.

While a group of people may be a numerical minority as a social fact, that cannot be the sole or conclusive criterion for conferring legal recognition as a minority at law, so as to merit the enjoyment of additional protection or privileges.

Under Singapore law, the only legally recognised minority groups are racial and religious groups. Sexual preferences do not qualify as a marker for special legal protection.

Lastly, I fail to see the relevance of Mr Ho's confession of being 'straight' in the context of a rational and informed debate in matters of public interest. What matters is the substance and veracity of what is being said, not the identity of the speaker.

Angela Thiang Pei Yun (Ms)

* * * * *

 
10 August 2007
Straits Times Print Forum

In his letter, 'Beware the high-risk 'gay lifestyle' (ST, Aug 8), Dr Alan Chin mentions that a US study showed that '75 per cent of homosexual men have more than 100 sexual partners and 28 per cent of them have more than 1,000 partners'. As no citation was given for these figures, it took some sleuthing before I discovered that they are from the book by Alan P. Bell et al, Homosexuality: A Study Of Diversity Among Men & Women (1978).

Other studies on the number of partners of gays have contradicted the figures. Gebhard and Johnson (1979) found that 8.4 per cent of gay males had over 500 partners in their lifetimes.

Jay and Young (1979) reported that 12.5 per cent had over 500 partners.

Outside the United States, McManus and McEvoy (1987) found that 14.5 per cent of gay respondents outside London and 22.5 per cent in London had over 500 partners.

All of these figures are significantly smaller than the 28 per cent reported for the percentage of gays with more than 1,000 partners - even 22.5 per cent is only for those with over 500 partners.

I urge that readers who write to the ST Forum be more careful with regard to their selection of studies to back up their arguments.

Li Bihui (Ms)

* * * * *

 
10 August 2007
Straits Times Online Forum

I refer to the letter by Dr Alan Chin, 'Beware the high-risk 'gay lifestyle' " (ST, Aug 8). The writer seeks to draw attention and conclude that a gay lifestyle is one of the two key 'unhealthy' factors that will encourage the escalation of HIV into epitomic proportions.

The importance of the other 53 per cent, coming from heterosexual vectors and the remaining 17 per cent, the vector for which is not mentioned, is downplayed and no fair warning is given of educating the other 70 per cent of what constitutes a healthy lifestyle.

Which, in my opinion, is the most important to focus on. Fashionable 'gay bashing', tolerance of 'promiscuous heterosexual lifestyles' and such negative and non-constructive perspectives serve no purpose other than to create social and emotional fissures in our fragile national bedrock of solidarity, a key to our survival.

I urge everyone to seek a positive perspective and approach. Educate people on what is a healthy sexual lifestyle, and incentivise emotionally and socially for them to make the healthier choice.

There is, in my opinion, never a right or wrong choice. There is only your choice, my choice and our choice and whether the choice benefits only you or more than just you.

Tiong Yuen Wai

* * * * *

 
10 August 2007
Straits Times Online Forum

In his letter on HIV in Singapore (ST, Aug 8), Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang included figures quoted from a survey done in the United States showing that 28 per cent of homosexuals there have had more than 1,000 partners. To me, that figure is disproportionately high.

If Dr Liang is going to use such surveys to back his argument that being gay is dangerous, then he needs to quote his sources and I would question who the group was that undertook the survey and what their political agenda is.

Also, if Dr Liang is genuinely concerned about lowering Singapore's HIV figures, he would suggest more sex education across all ethnic groups and sexual orientations.

It is extremely dangerous to impressionable young minds to suggest that gays are more likely to contract HIV when the truth is we are all just as likely if we do not practise safe sex.

If Singapore wishes to expand its population and attract educated foreigners in order to compete with cities like London and New York, then Singaporeans have to stop being afraid of homosexuality for the simple reason that there is nothing to be afraid of.