yax-351 oral sex - letter in zaobao

Translated by Ken Lee	Translated by Kalachakra	Translated by AltaVista
Amendment to the Oral Sex Law should not have Double Standards By Shen Siyuan		Revises the mouth junction law not to be supposed to have the double standard * Meditates far
According to Section 377 of the Penal Code of the land, the act of oral sex is considered "against the order of nature", and is illegal. Section 377A further classifies homosexual acts as criminal.	According to penal code section 377, oral sex belongs to the so-called "unnatural sexual acts" and is illegal. Section 377A takes a step further to criminalize homosexual acts.	According to our country criminal law 377th, the oral bank of communications for so-called belongs to "the non- ??? behavior", is illegal. The criminal law 377a festival further decides as the homosexuality behavior the indictable offense.
The Government is at present reviewing this Section of the Penal Code. The act of oral sex between a consenting couple of opposite sex above the age of consent in private may be legalised. But this is restricted to a couple of opposite sex, excluding those of the same sex.	The government is presently reviewing this penal code. Consensual oral sex performed in private premises between an adult male and an adult female may be legalized. However, this amendment is limited to heterosexual oral sex and does not include homosexual oral sex.	At present, the government is carrying on the self-criticism to this criminal law. Already grown-up pair of men and women in the situation which is willing, will carry on the mouth junction to the private possibly by the legalization. But this item revises only is restricted in between men's and women's mouth bank of communications is, but not including homosexual.
In view of such a narrow amendment full of double standards, our society and legal system risk sending a negative message.	With such a narrow and double-standard amendment, our society and legal system may send a signal with negative impact.	To is so narrow and also has the double standard the revision, our country society and the legal system possibly sends out has the negative influence information.
First, an amendment of this nature may be viewed as an act of discrimination against homosexuals, consciously, on the part of the government, via its legal system. While it may be argued that Section 377 and Section 377A were inherited from the 19th Century British Victorian era, the use of which on anyone, including gay people, has been rather rare of late.	Firstly, such amendment risks being viewed as a conscious institutional discrimination against homosexual people by the legal system. We may argue that section 377 and section 377A were inherited from the 19th century Victorian legal system, and is presently seldom used to prosecute anyone including homosexual people.	First, such revision will have the possibility to regard as will be official on own initiative through the legal system to the homosexual the discrimination. The people may debate called the criminal law 377th with the 377a festival inheritance to the English 19th century Victoria time legal system, very little has quoted this law to raise now controls any person, including homosexual.
But Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee's recent suggestion to only decriminalise consensual oral sex between a male and a female could well be interpreted as a conscious act by the powers that be to institutionalise and legalise an act of discrimination against homosexuals.	However, the recent suggestion by Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee to only legalise heterosexual oral sex may be viewed as a conscious official decision to rationalize and institutionalize discrimination against homosexual people.	But Associate Professor He Bingji recently proposed only lets the opposite sex loving between the mouth bank of communications for the legalization suggestion, has the possibility therefore was considered was official on own initiative to the homosexual the discrimination institution, the rationalization decision.
The argument that Singapore is a conservative Asian country as the basis for the decision doesn't hold water, as many Asian countries and economies, including the PRC, Japan, HK, Taiwan, even Indonesia - with its Muslim majority - do not criminalise homosexual oral sex between consenting adults.	Citing Singapore as a conservative Asian society as an excuse for the decision is unconvincing because among all Asian countries and regions including China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and even Indonesia, a country that has a majority Islam population, do not encode homosexual oral sex between adults as a criminal offence.	Is a conservative Asian society does take Singapore as this decision reason does not have the persuasive power, because in the middle of each Asian country and area, including China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, even Indonesian this the country which to Moslem is in the majority, all for does not list as adult's between homosexuality mouth bank of communications the indictable offense.
By way of comparison, it exacerbates the perception that, via our legal system, we now discriminate against gay people consciously.	In comparison, the view that Singapore is consciously discriminating against homosexual people through the legal system stands up ever more glaringly.	In comparison, this intensely ?? our country determination to discriminate against homosexual's view through the legal system.
Second, saying that societal moral standards as the basis for this decision also sounds dubious. Imagine, if we are willing to decriminalise oral sex between a married man who is also a father with a girl who is only sixteen while rendering the same act between an adult homosexual couples who are in love illegal, what kind of moral standards are we sending?	Secondly, citing moral standard that the society can accept as an excuse for the decision is similarly unjustifiable. Consider this, we are willing to legalize oral sex between a married man who is a father with a 16 year old girl but on the other hand we want to prosecute a homosexual couple who are in love for performing oral sex. What are we communicating? Moral standards?	Second, the moral standard which can accept by the society does untenably for this decision reason similarly also. Suppose, we are willing to let a married also already manner father the man identical already reach 16 year old female students' mouth bank of communications are the legalization, actually must the homosexuality adult's mouth junction sex act which loves a pair punish. What do we transmit are, moral standard?
In fact, an amendment that is full of double standards like this will give a negative influence to Singapore's international standings. Such a narrowly-defined amendment gives the impression that we are tolerating irresponsible heterosexuals, whilst targeting homosexuals and indict them at the same time. Surely this doesn't sound right.	In fact, such a double standard amendment will adversely impact the standing of Singapore's legal system in the international arena. This narrow amendment will make our legal system look like a system that can tolerate irresponsible heterosexuals yet penalize homosexuals and further criminalize them. Obviously, this is extremely unreasonable.	Actually, like this has the double standard the revision to be able to have the negative influence to the Singapore legal system in the international on status. Such narrow will revise causes our legal system to look like the picture will be may tolerate irresponsible opposite sex loving, actually will have to cope with the homosexual to punish at the same time by the crime punishment. Obviously this is very unreasonable.
In the process of giving voice to a narrow moral issue let's not endanger the more critical sanctity of the legal system by enacting laws that result in dubious moral outcomes and which can be interpreted as conscious acts of unfair discrimination.	In the same while we are giving voice to arguments that are based on narrow moral standard, we should clearly recognize that making double standard law based on dubious moral argument would endanger the sanctity of our legal system and its position that uphold justice and equality.	While gives the narrow moral standard for basis argument sound, we also must clearly know, by will not have the persuasive power the moral argument making to have the double standard the law to harm the legal system sacred fair status.

Now the story gets more interesting! The letter (in Chinese) submitted to Lianhe Zaobao bore a striking resemblance to an earlier letter, written in English by Clarence Singham, to the Straits Times. The Straits Times did not publish his letter. Clarence does not speak Chinese, and did not ask anyone to send a translated version to LianheZaobao. Nonetheless he is happy that at least Zaobao highlighted the issue.

Here is Clarence's original (unpublished) letter:

The state of the law as it currently stands criminalises carnal intercourse against the order of nature by both men and women in Section 377 of the Penal Code. Section 377A further criminalises homosexual acts. While it is good news that the Government is considering decriminalising oral sex between a male and female over the age of consent, such a restricted amendment will send negative signals about Singaporean society and our legal system.

Firstly the amendment risks being viewed as a conscious institutional discrimination against gay people by the legal system. While we may argue that Section 377 and Section 377A were inherited from our British Victorian heritage, the suggestion by Professor Ho Peng Kee to only decriminalise consensual oral sex between a male and a female could send a clear signal that our legal system is now making a conscious decision to discriminate against gay people in Singapore.

This is further exacerbated when we bear in mind that almost all of our major East Asian neighbours, namely the PRC, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand and even Indonesia do not criminalise homosexual sex between consenting adults. The point about Singapore being a conservative Asian society seems archaic when all our major East Asian neighbours except for Malaysia, no longer treat consensual adult homosexuality as a matter of concern in their own penal codes.

Secondly the amendment being considered results in dubious moral outcomes. While we may accept that the laws of the land reflect the moral mores of a society, it seems strange that we are willing to decriminalise oral sex between a married man who is a father with a girl who is only sixteen while rendering the homosexual adult having sex consensually and responsibly, a reprehensible criminal. What kind of morality does this enshrine in our laws? Indeed would not such an amendment adversely impact the standing of Singaporean law in the the international arena? The amendment will make our legal system look like a system that excuses the bad behavior of irresponsible heterosexual adults yet penalizes homosexuals even when they are behaving responsibly. Surely this is a clear example of the tyranny of the majority.

In the process of giving voice to a narrow moral issue let's not endanger the more critical sanctity of the legal system by enacting laws that result in dubious moral outcomes and which can be interpreted as conscious acts of unfair discrimination.

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None