In no particular order, these are what come to my mind:

In the last few weeks, the New Paper posed a number of gay-related questions to the new PAP candidates, some of whom have already been returned unopposed.

The first 3 PAP candidates were asked, "Last year, the application to hold Nation.05, a National Day party for gay people, was rejected as contrary to public interests. Do you think it was a right decision?

Zaqy Mohamed replied, "From a religious standpoint, I believe it was a right decision. But I do have acquaintances who are gay."

Denise Phua: "I am not in favour of homosexuality but sexual orientation is an individual decision."

Lim Wee Kiak: "I'm a doctor and I do not think that homosexuality is natural. If my son told me one day he is gay, I will honestly be upset. But I won't condemn it. We need to study the deeper underlying issues involved."

I have commented on these replies in the article First 3 PAP newbies don't deserve the gay vote. Lim Wee Kiak's reply I found most illogical.

Zaqy Mohamad has been returned unopposed in Hongkah, while Phua and Lim are standing in Jalan Besar and Sembawang GRCs respectively.

Another three PAP candidates were asked, "Do you know any gays? How would you include them in your politics?"

Hri Kumar said, "I have gay acquaintances. It is easy to say that gay people are discriminated against, but when you take a close look at policies and facts, the discrimination is not as stark as people think. Gay people have very similar aspirations as heterosexuals. The choice of their sexuality is just one aspect of who they are."

Ellen Lee: "I have a handful of gay friends. I do not think there is a special need for me to represent them because many of them are already very articulate and can do it themselves. But if they want to help me in my election campaign, I would not have objections. Their private lives will not be an issue."

Seah Kian Peng: "I do have friends who are gay. But I will not go out of my way to lobby for them because there are consequences to cover. I will focus on the bulk of the population first in order to best allocate resources."

Essentially, the latter two were taking the position that they would not do anything to serve the interests of gays and lesbian constituents.

Hri Kumar and Seah had walkovers in Bishan-Toa Payoh and Marine Parade respectively. Ellen Lee is contesting in Sembawang.

Yet another 3 were asked "Is Singapore ready for a gay MP?

Fatimah Lateef: "It is up to the people to elect one. That way, we will know if Singaporeans are ready."

Alvin Yeo: "The PAP looks for substance but is also sensitive to the feelings of the people."

Liang Eng Hwa: "Definitely not. We still hold Asian values. I don't think representing the younger generation is just about addressing the gay issue. Personally, I don't think homosexuality is a right value."

All 3 were returned unopposed on Nomination Day. Fatimah in Marine Parade, Alvin Yeo in Hongkah and Liang, who gave the most ignorant answer of the lot, in Holland-Bukit Timah.

Yaw Shin Leong: "There would definitely be silence at first. I'd need to absorb the shock. But then, I'd tell him 'Son, I know you know best."

Lee Wai Leng: "I would accept it because I encourage diversity. To me, it is just another sexual orientation and it is nothing to be ashamed of."

Eric Tan: "I would accept it. In any case, I shouldn't be shocked if he is my son. I am not a blind parent."

The first two are standing in Ang Mo Kio GRC, while Tan is standing in East Coast GRC.

My reading of the replies is that while individually, the PAP candidates had differing opinions, they were all constrained by party policy not to say anything that would suggest any change in current policy. No encouragement must be offered to gay Singaporeans to think they will be treated any differently than at present.

However, a candidate could offer a homophobic opinion if he held one. Gay-friendly opinions, on the other hand, were not permitted by the party. In other words, the PAP's policy position, in my estimation, is somewhere between homophobic and non-committal.

It's harder to read the significance of the Workers' Party candidates' replies, primarily because the sample was smaller. Personally I am inclined to think that the views were genuine rather than party-dictated. This is because if a person is homophobic, it is usually very difficult to find the words to say something gay-friendly. It's one of those things that cannot come out of one's mouth, or if it does, it will come out wrong in some way or other.

A classic one would be, "Oh, I have no problem with race; some of my best friends are coloured."

Speaking of party positions, it is worth noting that the very second paragraph of the Singapore Democratic Party's manifesto says:

As a nation, we must not only show tolerance but also acceptance of our fellow citizens regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or political persuasion. Discrimination of our fellow human beings has been one human frailty that has wreaked much destruction and misery.

(Emphasis mine.)

I think it is very courageous of the SDP to say so in their manifesto. The sad thing however, is that they have candidates only Bukit Panjang and Sembawang GRC.

Coming back to the New Paper's questions, it struck me that the last one, posed to the Workers' Party, echoed an open letter that People Like Us sent to Members of Parliament in early 2004.

See What if your own son or daughter is gay?

All the MPs interviewed by reporters -– Sin Boon Ann, Arthur Fong, Teo Ho Pin, Gan Kim Yong and S Iswaran -– gave utterly absurd answers.

Broadly speaking, there were two types of replies given by them. One type was to cast gay demands for equality as demand for special rights, and on this basis, dismiss them.

Logically, equality is not a special, additional right. It does not give something to one group that others do not have. Yet, framing it as special rights is a common response among those who feel threatened by the loss of their own dominance. For example, men faced with demands by women for equality often describe women's demands as "special rights" or "extra privileges". The dominant ethnic group in a society often sees demands by minorities for true equality (e.g. language classes for their children, land to build places of worship) as "special rights" too.

Articulating an objection to a minority's request in this way simply reveals the perception of threat, which in turn demonstrates the fact of the dominant group's power and privilege. It thus validates the substantive complaint that there is concentration of power and an absence of equality.

The other type of response in the MPs' replies was that society was not ready. This is strange because equality is a civil right; it does not depend on "readiness" or acceptance by others. For example, expressing an unpopular political opinion is a civil right; the majority doesn't have to agree with you before you are allowed to speak your mind. Marrying a person of a different race/religion is also a civil right. Most Singaporeans are still uncomfortable about their sons and daughters "muddying the bloodline" but the state does not enforce their prejudices.

The MPs' answers -– that we "cannot push ahead of what wider society is able to support" -- simply revealed their failure to grasp the concept of civil rights.

Which of course, is no surprise, in so, so many areas.

Why did People Like Us write to the MPs in January 2004? It was sparked off by the suggestion that month by Ho Peng Kee -– who is standing again in Nee Soon East -– that while the review of the Penal Code would likely decriminalise oral sex, it would only be in situations between a male and a female. Oral sex between 2 persons of the same sex would still remain criminal.

This, People Like Us felt, was blatant discrimination. What's so difficult about decriminalising it for everybody? How does it hurt heterosexuals if homosexuals are also doing what heterosexuals are doing?

Hence, People Like Us asked in their open letter, what MPs would say to their sons and daughters who might be gay (the same question that the New Paper posed to 3 candidates in 2006). And hence, the silly replies from the MPs as discussed above.

This episode might have occurred more than 2 years ago, but it remains cogent. The Penal Code has still not been amended. Sin Boon Ann is standing in Tampines GRC, Teo Ho Pin in Bukit Panjang and Gan Kim Yong ("the mere statistical presence of homosexuals among us does not make it the right thing to do") in Chua Chu Kang.

And it should be noted, none of the MPs the reporters contacted actually dealt with the question: what if your own son or daughter is gay?

Although 11% of Singaporeans have had gay sex (see the article 11% of Singaporeans have had gay sex), I don't think that those who are exclusively or predominantly homosexual make up 11% of the population.

This question of numbers and percentages is very contentious and bedevilled by definitional problems, but without going into a thicket of studies, the general ballpark figure that most researchers (other than those from fundamentalist Christian organisations, who claim to be researchers) are comfortable with would be in the 5 – 8% range.

In cities, it tends to be higher, as much as 14% in Calgary, Canada, for example, because gays and lesbians tend to migrate to cities. Urban anonymity tends to provide more safety for minorities than small hometowns.

Say we assume a prevalence rate of 7%. This means any child born has an 7% chance of being homosexual. If you have only one child, the chance that he or she is homosexual is 7%.

If you have 2 children, the chance that at least one of them is homosexual is 13.5%. If you have 3 children, the likelihood goes up to 19.6%. In other words, one fifth of families with 3 children would have a gay or lesbian child.

Consider too, extended families. If you have siblings and they are married too, with their own children, then counting sons, daughters, nephews and nieces (on both your spouse's side and your own), there may be 10 – 12 children altogether. What's the chance that at least one of them is gay? With 10 children, that probability is 51.4%. With 12 children, the probability is 58.2%

That is to say, the majority of adults will have at least one gay son, daughter, nephew or niece in their extended families.

* * * * *

The gay issue of course is not a life-and-death one. But it is not inconsequential either. Homophobia drives talent away. Our media may not highlight it (do they dare point out that any government policy is head-in-the-sand?), but many of Singapore's brightest have left, never to return, because being gay, they felt suffocated here. There is one little story in the blog Mr Wang Bakes Good Karma.

It just seems so senseless to perpetuate homophobic laws and policies when it costs nothing to live up to ideals of true equality. It's a start that the New Paper found the courage to ask gay-related questions of candidates. It would be better if candidates from all parties one day gave sensible answers.

© Yawning Bread