Letter to the ST Forum - The key difference between homosexuality and abortion/capital punishment

6 Nov 07 - The Straits Times Forum

I REFER to the humorously written letter by Mr Peter Lee Peng Eng (Online forum, Nov 10), who commented that NMP Thio Li-Ann should also speak up equally fervently on other moral issues that the Singapore laws condoned in order not to be branded as a hypocrite.
Specifically, Mr Lee exhorted NMP Thio to speak up against abortion and capital punishment because 'Christianity does not condone killing another human being'.
To correct Mr Lee's confusion, I believe that most major religions do not condone killing of another innocent human being. Hence by logical extension, abortion is frowned upon by most religious orders.
Of course, strong emotive arguments abound between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, especially with regard to rape victims who become pregnant or when the mother's life is being threatened. On the other hand, most major religions also permit capital punishments though the conditions differ somewhat from religion to religion. As a secular society, we can certainly debate on which crimes are heinous enough to deserve capital punishment.
However, Mr Lee missed the point when he chose to lump the debate on Section 377A with that of abortion and capital punishment.
Perhaps he was too busy to read NMP Thio's parliamentary speech, so allow me to quote one section of her speech - 'It is true that not all moral wrongs, such as adultery, are criminalised; yet they retain their stigma. But adulterers know they have done wrong and do not lobby for toleration of adultery as a sexual orientation right.'
Similarly, those who had undergone abortion(s) or administered capital punishment (or committed adultery for that matter) are not thumping their chest with pride over what they had done.
In arguing for Section 377A to be repealed, the supporters in Singapore ultimately want homosexuality to be accepted by society and possibly celebrated (in future) as an alienable right, similar to race, language or religion. This is the key difference in this debate that Mr Lee should be cognisant of.

Letter to the ST Forum - Polarisation beginning to show

1 Nov 07 - The Straits Times Forum

BOTH sides of the recent Section 377A debate have claimed victory and selectively focused on relevant portions of PM Lee's speech in Parliament to back up their stands.
Rather than victory, I suggest that both camps have 'lost' in their recent effort to bring the moderate majority to their stated cause.
For those who supported the retention of Section 377A, and especially the deeply religious, this effort has alienated the moderate majority in their lop-sided emphasis on 'hating the sin' and neglecting the equal call to 'love the sinner'.
While they need not renounce their opposition to homosexual behaviour to welcome the gay and lesbian community, it is a reality that the religious have yet to adopt an openly consistent and compassionate approach with people with homosexual tendencies.
For those who supported the repeal of Section 377A, their insistence on labelling all those who oppose the repeal as bigots and right-wing religious fanatics did little to draw the moderate majority to them either.
The polarisation effects are beginning to surface. Mr Janadas Devan fired the first salvo in his satire piece tearing into Thio Li-Ann's logic and Andy Ho focused his spotlight on PM Lee's assertion that homosexuality is substantially inborn in one single edition of The Straits Times (Oct 27). Alex Au, the well-known gay activist whom the media always turn to for views on homosexual issues, has also taken off the gloves in his Yawning Bread website by portraying the 'religious right' as Ku Klux Klan and writing that there is no need to be civil to those who take an opposing stand from them. While I have my own reservations regarding Thio Li-Ann's fiery speech in Parliament, a local playwright and aspiring teacher's threat to desecrate her grave was not a civil way to debate the issue. More of these vitriol exchanges will cement the current battle line drawn in the sand and PM Lee's warning of a divided and polarised society will become a reality.
Let's maintain the pragmatism, cherish the space, respect the limits, live and let live.

The Irony of It All

Recently, the Repeal377A.com community came face-to-face with their silent majority counterpart in the form of Keep377A.com and Support377A.com. While the silent majority respected the rights of the LGBT community to their online petition efforts, this was not apparent reciprocated by the LGBT netizens as evident in the various smear postings seen on the two sites. Even the well-known, middle-of-the-ground, gay activist, Alex Au could not resist taking a swipe at the Straits Times for publishing "poor quality work" from people who opposed the repeal of section 377A.

The people at Repeal377A.com have decided to extend the deadline for the petition by 3 days from 19 Oct to 21 Oct 07 when the numbers were hovering around 6000+. If as Alex Au has articulated that this is not a number game, why the need to extend the deadline? In the latest few posts by Alex Au, instead of launching into his own diatribe, he has decided to refer readers to several blog sites (see here and here) to let them do it for him. Also, rather than admonishing the militant elements in the LGBT for vandalising the Support377A.com site, he decided to draw readers attention to one such post that signed off as "Jesus" with the comments "You christians are mad and crazy.". Finally, he topped it off with a picture of the Ku-Klux Clan to show what "extremist" Christians will do to deny LGBT their rights.

I decided to send a letter to him and till date he has yet to reply.

Good evening Alex.

I have been following the recent discussions on the repealing of Section 377A of the Penal Code. I have always seen you as one of the more mature and reasonable supporter of the LGBT community and, to be honest, I have enjoyed reading your postings although I do not agree with your world view.

However, your recent 2 postings are not what I expect of a person of your standing in the community. I can sense your frustrations at some of the more aggressive elements amongst those who support the retaining of section 377A but I don't think you should react to them or resort to posting a picture of the Ku-Klux Klan to label these people.

Unlike the Repeal377A.com, the Keep377A.com and Support377A.com sites have been subjected to smear postings from what I suspect are the more aggressive elements in the LGBT community. Instead of admonishing these people, you have decided to focus on the fraud element (by posting the comment from Caleb of Young Republic) and highlight the lack of credibility of the signatories. Perhaps you should pause to look at the "Jesus" signatory that wrote "You christians are mad and crazy". Perhaps it's from someone who wants to vilify the LGBT community but then perhaps the LGBT community should pause and reflect whether indeed it could have come from within.

There are a vast majority in the middle that wants to conduct this debate in an open and rationale way. By doing what you have done and influencing those who look to you for leadership and guidance, I can almost see a future where there will be greater polarisation between the 2 camps in Singapore. I don't think that this is something you, I or any of the moderate majority want to see happen in Singapore.

Let us debate this issue frankly and responsibly without malice and venom, whatever the provocation from extremist from both ends.

Alex Tan

The Desired End-State of Repealing 377A

I sent this letter to the Straits Times Forum just before the parliamentary debate on the Penal Code review but it was not published.

I refer to South Africa’s journey towards removing all forms of discriminations especially for their lesbians, gays, bi-sexual and trans-gendered (LGBT) community (ST, 19 Oct), and the recent petition attempts in Singapore to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code.

It took the South Africans ten short years from the repeal of their sodomy laws to the official sanction of the LGBT’s rights to civil union and adoption. Should the Singapore government accedes to the present repeal petitions or similar initiatives in the future, there is a need to comprehensively lay out the roadmap for the full integration of LGBT within the societal and legal frameworks. While the LGBT community has tried to assure Singaporeans that they will push for further LGBT rights only when society becomes more receptive, it did not stop the community from aggressively seeking the repeal of section 377A despite the current lack of societal receptiveness. The experience of countries like South Africa has also shown that the championing of additional rights for the LGBT community is not that far out in the time horizon. Hence it is important for these rights issues to be debated openly and critically now as part of the repeal initiative. Some of these issues include the minimum legal age for men having sex with men (MSM), the assimilation of LGBT world view into our education system and the media, the structure of possible future civil unions between members of the same sex and adoption procedures for such couples, to list a few.

While it is true that the non-criminalisation of lesbianism did not open these “flood-gates”, I half suspect it was for a lack of vocalisation by the lesbian community and solidarity considerations with their gay counterparts that these issues have yet to be championed. It will be naïve to think that the repeal of section 377A will be an end in itself purely for equality and acceptance. Let us bring to the table all the necessary implications for such repeal and avoid a “slow-boil” outcome if we are serious about according equal rights to the LGBT community in Singapore.

The Eye of the Storm

By the end of monday, Parliament pulled the curtain, albeit temporary, on the issue of the repealing of Section 377A criminalising homosexual sex between males in private or public. The Straits Times quoted Siew Kum Hong who said the move to retain homosexuality as a crime was a “pity” and “a lost opportunity”. He added that “keeping Section 377A shows up Singapore as being behind the rest of the world”.

The LGBT community was naturally excited when the Penal Code was put up for review earlier after more than 23 years in 1984 even though the government had made it clear back in Nov 06 that Section 377A was not up for change. They had lobbied hard in all quarters for the repeal of Section 377A, roping in politicians, lawyers, foreign activists and a retired bishop no less. Their hopes were lifted when even Lee Kuan Yew spoke on several occasions to local and foreign media of his support for the law to be eventually removed.

In these early times, the LGBT community has yet to voice their views but I can foresee that the “right-wing” Christian community will be blamed for putting unequal and unfair pressures on the government against the repeal and have succeeded to “blackmail” members of Parliament who are Christians to speak on their behalf. The previous national debate on casinos in Singapore rubbished this idea that any interest group has the clout and power to influence the government to do anything against their wishes. In the end, the pure economics out-weighed the social evils of gambling. The government doggedly presented their case to the public on the economic merits and assured the people of their resolve to tackle all the unintended social fallout from the casinos.

The truth of the matter is that the government of the day must take into account the views of the majority or risk losing their mandate. However detestable this may be to people, it is the reality of life, the law of the jungle if you would. The internet commentaries and voices may give the impression of a general support for LGBT but this is an illusion. It is akin to going to a bar to prove that people generally like booze. The astute amongst the community did suggest that in order for Section 377A to be repealed, they must argue the economics of the case. This suggestion has touched a raw nerve of some in the community who felt insulted to be treated in terms of dollars and cents. They trumped the need to give equal civil rights to all, regardless of sexual orientation.

The non-repeal of Section 377A should not lull Christians into complacency. In fact, Christians should critically reflect why they have been singled out for criticism by the LGBT community. Rising above the ranting, there is one useful lesson for Christians to take home.

And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on, sin no more." (John 8:12)

Remember Jesus’ response to the women caught in the act of adultery? Have Christians been so zealous in telling LGBT to “sin no more” that we forgot to say “I do not condemn you”? In our quest to respond to the more vocal sections of the LGBT community, we could have unwittingly alienate those within that are still desperately trying to find answers. Individually and collectively as a Church, we need to do better to reach out to these confused souls and counter the massive propaganda of the world. This means having the moral courage to speak out for the truth and reflect the reality of homosexuality.

We are in the proverbial eye in the storm and the LGBT community will quickly find another vehicle to drive their cause and sought to find means to bring social pressures on the government and community at large towards their cause. While we continue to be the “salt and light” of the world, we also need to relate better to the individual LGBT around us and seek to do what Paul has exhorted Christians to do:

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. (1 Corinthians 9:19-22)