I support the retention of Section 377A of the Penal Code - a law criminalising gay sex - to uphold our moral and family values.

The petition by Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong does not serve the interests of Singapore as a whole but only of one small sector.

In fact, the removal of this law will lead to the disintegration of our social fabric, the family unit, which the Government has been establishing pro-actively.

I believe that strong families will lead to a strong nation.

I fully support the Government in keeping Section 377A. Gross indecencies must be penalised.

For the survival of our nation and the welfare of the future generation, the petition by NMP Siew should be ignored.

Lim Poh Suan (Ms)

* * * * *

 
16 October 2007
 'Today' newspaper, Voices section

I write regarding the recent online campaign urging the Government to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, under which it is a crime for men to have sex with other men.

My wife and I have always tried to educate our children well. Morality and values are definitely two of the most important issues that we, as parents impart.

One good way for the children to take the cue from is the Singapore law and we teach them to abide by these.

We recognise that it is very much the responsibility of parents to educate our younger generation, and the Government's decision to maintain the status quo for Section 377A will greatly assist us in this.

RON CHONG KER CHUEN

* * * * *

17 October 2007
 Straits Times Print Forum

I am writing in response to the article, 'NMP to submit Parliamentary Petition to repeal gay sex law' (ST, Oct 12).

As a Nominated MP, Mr Siew Kum Hong is supposed to be non-partisan and should not be affiliated with any particular political group.

However, he has chosen to be the sponsor of a parliamentary petition to present the homosexual agenda.

While he is free to present his personal views on any issue, Mr Siew has overstepped the boundary as an NMP when he chose to represent the homosexual interest group.

MPs in Parliament have to run for election, look after their constituents' interests and represent their views. As an NMP, Mr Siew bears no such burden.

He should not adulterate the NMP role further by becoming the proxy representative of the homosexual interest group.

This is especially so as the Government has already taken one year to review the Penal Code, with input from various consultation channels, and taken into consideration the views of the majority of Singaporeans who are for maintaining family values and preserving Section 377A of the Penal Code.

Jenica Chua Chor Ping (Ms)

* * * * *

 
17 October 2007
 'Today' newspaper, Voices section

I read Mr Ron Chong Ker Chuen's letter, "Leave gay law unchanged" (Oct 16), with much disappointment.

Though I understand the importance of parents teaching their children to tell right from wrong, I feel that it is key to emphasise why we label certain acts as morally wrong (for example, they cause harm to others).

This is better than telling them not to do something just because the law says so or to perpetuate a conservative view.

At the same time, it is worrying that Mr Chong and parents like him fail to recognise the fact that by supporting Section 377A of the Penal Code, under which it is a crime for men to have sex with other men, he is inadvertently sending a message to his children that it is all right to discriminate against minority groups and impose laws regarding their private issues, which do not directly concern us or cause harm to other parties.

It would be rather unfortunate should our younger generation be brought up to support such prejudices and infringements on personal liberty.

While parents and educators play vital roles in shaping the moral compasses of our youth, it is ultimately more important ­ and increasingly more relevant in our ever-changing society ­ to give the youth the right tools and attitudes to make their own moral judgments.

We would be doing the younger generation a disservice if we were to simply impose our views and biases on them.

FELICIA TAN YING YI

* * * * *

 
18 October 2007
Straits Times Print Forum

Ms Lim Poh Suan wrote that repealing Section 377A of the Penal Code - a law criminalising gay sex - would threaten the family unit and 'lead to the disintegration of our social fabric' ('Removing Section 377A threatens family unit'; ST, Oct 16).

She forgets that gays are part of a family unit and many parents, siblings and other relatives - who are concerned that the law would discriminate against their gay loved ones - do support the call for the repeal.

In some ways, it is similar to interracial or inter-religious marriages - I have witnessed parents who were initially disapproving coming around after they got to know their child's partner and see the sincerity and realness of the relationship.

Section 498 of the Penal Code, which makes it an offence to entice, take away or detain a married woman with the intention of having illicit intercourse with her, will be repealed.

One may argue that repealing such a law would signal to society that adultery is acceptable, and this would threaten the family unit and children especially - more so than Section 377A, as it is applicable to all families.

The Ministry of Home Affairs explained that Section 498 concerns an archaic offence which is no longer relevant in today's context.

How is it that Section 498 is deemed 'no longer relevant in today's context' but Section 377A is still relevant?

Tan Yen Ling (Ms)

* * * * *

 
18 October 2007 
Straits Times Print Forum

In her letter, Ms Lim Poh Suan implies that gays destroy family values. I would like to correct that view.

Family values are challenged when there is infidelity between husband and wife, when parents are too busy working to take care of children, when parents inculcate the wrong values in their children, when family members do not learn to think.

A family is not broken up just because a friend, a neighbour or even a relative is gay. It is absurd to blame parenting failure and family problems on external forces and the Government.

Repealing Section 377A is about love and compassion, and seeing all people as equals.

Let not religious dogma deny fellow Singaporeans their right to exist.

Chua Chee Hiang

* * * * *

 
18 October 2007
 'Today' newspaper, Voices section

I am concerned about the recent petition to Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which forbids men from having sex with each other in public or private.

I am not against homosexuals; I recognise that they are as human and Singaporean as I am. As citizens, they already enjoy the same rights as the others.

But what they are pushing for now is the Singaporean majority's approval of their behaviour. It is clear the majority does not covet the agenda that gay activists are pushing for. If Parliament repeals Section 377A, we will be unwittingly consenting to such behaviour.

Health factors are another reason why Singapore must not repeal Section 377A. Studies in the United States, Australia and Cambodia have shown that men who have sex with men are most vulnerable to HIV.

I am most unwilling to see society degenerate with the legal approval of homosexual behaviour and fully support the Government's decision to preserve the law.

RENAE SIM PEI PEI

* * * * *

 
18 October 2007
 'Today' newspaper, Voices section

I refer to Felicia Tan Ying Yi's letter ("Teach youth the spirit of the law, not just its letter", Oct 17). Ms Tan talks about the importance of giving the youth the right tools and attitudes to help them make their own moral decisions, which I fully agree with.

However, I believe the most basic tools take the form of laws, which, beyond being a strict taskmaster, serve to reflect the consensus of the wider population.

Morality is not a black-and-white issue but if Section 377A prohibits "gross indecency", some sort of moral compass is needed here.

The problem is that not many people want to recognise that "gross indecency" is exactly what the term implies.

CHARIS LEE TING LI

* * * * *

 
18 October 2007
 'Today' newspaper, Voices section

I refer to the letters from Ron Chong Ker Chuen, "Leave gay law unchanged" (Oct 16), which I read with sadness and dismay, and Felicia Tan Ying Yi's "Teach youth spirit of the law, not just its letter" (Oct 17), which I agree with.

I have two sons who have been brought up to be responsible young men contributing to society. I respect the rights of conservative and religious people to bring up their children in their own traditions.

But Singapore is a secular state. Our legal system is based on secular principles rooted in a diversity of cultural traditions. We should teach our children these principles.

It would be a mistake to insist that criminal law upholds one group's moral values at the expense of another's. We should tell our children the Government endeavours to create an environment with maximum space for individuals to live their own private lives without trampling on others.

Our children should learn that homosexual citizens contribute to building a democratic society based on justice and equality, as stated in the Pledge. So, should they not be entitled to "happiness, prosperity and progress" too, instead of being criminalised?

Furthermore, why should anyone be concerned about what is happening in other people's bedrooms?

I write in response to Ms Jenica Chua Chor Ping's letter, 'NMP overstepped role in championing gay cause' (ST, Oct 17).

While Mr Siew Kum Hong is supposed to be non-partisan as a Nominated MP, the non-partisan nature of his appointment refers to neutrality where party political affiliation is concerned.

It does not mean that he should remain non-partisan on matters of great public interest, such as the debate on whether Section 377A of the Penal Code should be repealed. Otherwise, what would be the value of appointing NMPs?

Indeed, the constitutional provision for the appointment of NMPs in 1990 was made to ensure a wide representation of community views in Parliament.

This being the case, there is nothing wrong with NMPs choosing to represent community views that they believe are valid and justified.

Thus Mr Siew, in sponsoring the Parliamentary Petition to repeal Section 377A, has in no way overstepped his role as an NMP.

In fact, considering that Mr Siew is a 'straight' man and has therefore no cause to be associated with homosexuality, his willingness to represent that community's views in relation to the repeal, in the face of widespread opposition, is admirable and should be applauded.