Below is the full transcript of NMP Professor Thio Li-Ann’s speech in Parliament.
Two camps championing two distinct criminal law philosophies are polarised over whether to retain or repeal s377A which criminalizes public or private acts of gross indecency between two men, such as sodomy.
The ‘liberal’ camp wants 377A repealed. They offer an ‘argument from consent’ –government should not police the private sexual behaviour of consenting adults. They opine this violates their liberty or ‘privacy’. They ask, ‘Why criminalize something which does not “harm” anyone; if homosexuals are “born that way”, isn’t it unkind to ‘discriminate’ against their sexual practices?
These flawed arguments are marinated with distracting fallacies which obscure what is at stake – repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties.
The ‘communitarian’ camp argues from ‘community values’ – these social conservatives want 377A retained, to protect public health, morality, decency and order. A Keep 377A online petition attracted over 15,000 signatures after a few days.
Like many, I applaud the government’s wisdom in keeping 377A which conserves what upholds the national interest. ‘Conservative’ here is not a dirty word connoting backwardness; environmental conservation protects our habitat; the moral ecology must be conserved to protect what is precious and sustains a dynamic, free and good society.
The welfare of future generations depends on basing law on sound public philosophy. We should reject the ‘argument from consent’ as its philosophy is intellectually deficient and morally bankrupt.
Sir, the arguments to retain 377A are overwhelmingly compelling and should be fully articulated, to enable legislators to make informed decisions and not be bewitched by the empty rhetoric and emotional sloganeering employed by many radical liberals, which generate more heat than light.
The real question today is not “if” we should repeal 377A now, or wait until people are ready to move. This assumes too much, as though we need an adjustment period before the inevitable. The real question is not “if” but “should” we ever repeal 377A. It is not inevitable; it is not desirable to repeal it in any event. Not only is retaining s377A sound public policy, it is legally and constitutionally beyond reproach. Responsible legislators must grapple with the facts, figures and principles involved; they cannot discount the noxious social consequences repeal will bring.
Debate must be based on substance not sound-bites. Let me red-flag four red herrings.
First, to say a law is archaic is merely chronological snobbery.
Second, you cannot say a law is ‘regressive’ unless you first identify your ultimate goal. If we seek to copy the sexual libertine ethos of the wild wild West, then repealing s377A is progressive. But that is not our final destination. The onus is on those seeking repeal to prove this will not harm society.
Third, to say a law which criminalizes homosexual acts because many find it offensive is merely imposing a “prejudice” or “bias” assumes with justification that no reasonable contrary view exists. This evades debate. The liberal argument which says sodomy is a personal choice, private matter and ‘victimless crime’ merely asserts this. It rests precariously on an idiosyncratic notion of “harm” – but “harm” can be both physical and intangible; victims include both the immediate parties and third parties. What is done in ‘private’ can have public repercussions.
Fourth, some argue that legislators should be ‘open-minded’ and decriminalize sodomy. However, like an open mouth, an open mind must eventually close on something solid. They urge legislators to be ‘objective’ and to leave their personal subjective beliefs at home, especially if they hold religious views which consider homosexuality aberrant.
This demand for objectivity is intellectually disingenuous as there is no neutral ground, no ‘Switzerland of ambivalence’ when we consider the moral issues related to 377A which require moral judgment of what is right and wrong – not to take a stand, is to take a stand! As law has a moral basis, we need to consider which morality to legislate. Neither the majority or minority is always right – but there are fundamental values beyond fashion and politics which serve the common good. Religious views are part of our common morality. We separate ‘religion’ from ‘politics,’ but not ‘religion’ from ‘public policy’. That would be undemocratic. All citizens may propose views in public debate, whether influenced by religious or secular convictions or both; only the government can impose a view by law.
Incidentally, one does not have to be religious to consider homosexuality contrary to biological design and immoral; secular philosopher Immanuel Kant considered homosexuality “immoral acts against our animal nature” which did not preserve the species and dishonoured humanity.
The issues surrounding s377A are about morality, not modernity or being cosmopolitan. What will foreigners think if we retain 377A? Depends on which foreigner you ask. Many would applaud us! Such issues divide other societies as well! The debate is not closed. A group of Canadians1 were grieved enough to issue an online apology to the world “for harm done through Canada‘s legalization of homosexual marriage”, urging us not to repeat their mistakes.
Singapore is an independent state and we can decide the 377A issue ourselves; we have no need of foreign or neo-colonial moral imperialism in matters of fundamental morality.
There are no constitutional objections to s377A
Sir, there are no constitutional objections to retaining 377A while de-criminalising heterosexual oral and anal sex. Three legal points are worth making.
First, there is no constitutional right to homosexual sodomy. It is not a facet of personal liberty under article 9. Nor is there a human right to homosexual sodomy though some like to slip this in under the umbrella of ‘privacy.’ Human rights are universal, like prohibitions against genocide. Demands for ‘homosexual rights’ are the political claims of a narrow interest group masquerading as legal entitlements. Homosexual activists often try to infiltrate and hijack human rights initiatives to serve their political agenda, discrediting an otherwise noble cause to protect the weak and poor. You cannot make a human wrong a human right.
Second, while homosexuals are a numerical minority, there is no such thing as ‘sexual minorities’ at law. Activists have coined this term to draw a beguiling but fallacious association between homosexuals and legally recognized minorities like racial groups. Race is a fixed trait. It remains controversial whether homosexual orientation is genetic or environmental, perhaps both. There are no ex-Blacks but there are ex-gays. The analogy between race and sexual orientation or preferred sexual preferences, is false. Activists repeat the slogan ‘sexual minority’ ad nausem as a deceptive political ploy to get sympathy from people who don’t think through issues carefully. Repetition does not cure fallacy.
Science has become so politicized that the issue of whether gays are ‘born that way’ depends on which scientist you ask. You cannot base sound public philosophy on poor politicized pseudo ‘science’.
Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder; there are numerous examples of former homosexuals successfully dealing with this. Just this year, two high profile US activists left the homosexual lifestyle, the publisher of Venus, a lesbian magazine, and an editor of Young Gay America. Their stories are available on the net. An article by an ex-gay in the New Statesmen this July identified the roots of his emotional hurts, like a distant father, overbearing mother and sexual abuse by a family friend; after working through his pain, his unwanted same-sex attractions left. While difficult, change is possible and a compassionate society would help those wanting to fulfill their heterosexual potential. There is hope.
Singapore law only recognizes racial and religious minorities. Special protection is reserved for the poor and disadvantaged; the average homosexual person in Singapore is both well educated, with higher income – that’s why upscale condo developers target them! Homosexuals do not deserve special rights, just the rights we all have.
‘Sexual minorities’ and ‘sexual orientation’ are vague terms – covering anything from homosexuality, bestiality, incest, paedophilia – do all these minority sexual practices merit protection?
Third, 377A does not breach the article 12 guarantee of equality. While all human persons are of equal worth, not all human behaviour is equally worthy. We separate the actor from the act. In criminalizing acts, we consider the wrongfulness of the act, the harm caused and how it affects the good of society.
Parliament has the power to classify; this involves a choice, like distinguishing murder and manslaughter. Classifications which satisfy the constitutional test of validity are called “differentiation”; only invalid classifications are called “discrimination.” Criminalising same-sex sodomy but not opposite-sex sodomy is valid “differentiation.” S377A does not target any specific actor; it would cover a heterosexual male experimenting with male sodomy.
Valid classifications must have a clear basis and be rationally related to a legitimate purpose. In serving public health and public morality, 377A passes constitutional muster with flying colours.
Public Health Argument
Sir, public health and safety is a legitimate purpose served by the 377A ban on homosexual anal and oral sex. Both these practices are efficient methods of transmitting sexual diseases and AIDs / HIV which are public health problems. These are not victimless crimes as the whole community has to foot the costs of these diseases.
Anal-penetrative sex is inherently damaging to the body and a misuse of organs, like shoving a straw up your nose to drink. The anus is designed to expel waste; when something is forcibly inserted into it, the muscles contract and cause tearing; fecal waste, viruses carried by sperm and blood thus congregate, with adverse health implications like ‘gay bowel syndrome’, anal cancer. ‘Acts of gross indecency’ under 377A also covers unhygienic practices like “rimming” where the mouth comes into contact with the anus. Consent to harmful acts is no defence – otherwise, our strong anti-drug laws must fall as it cannot co-exist with letting in recreational drugs as a matter of personal lifestyle choice.
Opposite-sex sodomy is harmful, but medical studies indicate that same-sex sodomy carries a higher price tag for society because of higher promiscuity and frequency levels. The New York Times reported that even informed homosexuals return to unsafe practices like bare-backing and bug-chasing after a health crisis wanes. A British Study showed that the legalization of homosexual sodomy correlated with an upsurge of STDs among gays. Common sense tells us that with more acceptance, any form of consensual sexual behaviour increases. Sodomy laws have some deterrent effect.
It is rational for the state to target the most acute aspect of a problem. The legal issue is not whether the state should be concerned with heterosexual sodomy but whether it is reasonable to believe same-sex sodomy poses a distinct problem. Medical literature indicates that gays have disproportionately higher STDs rates, which puts them in a different category from the general public, warranting different treatment.
The onus rests on opponents of 377A to negate every conceivable basis for treating homosexual and heterosexual sodomy differently. They cannot, because classifications do not need to be perfect and can be under-inclusive; valid classifications only need to “go some way” to serve the legislative goal, which 377A clearly does.
Public Morality
Sir, the power to legislate morality is not limited to preventing demonstrable harm. The Penal Code now criminalizes the wounding of both religious and racial feelings (s498).
S377A serves public morality; the argument from community reminds us we share a way of life which gives legal expression to the moral repugnancy of homosexuality. Heterosexual sodomy unlike homosexual sodomy does not undermine the understanding of heterosexuality as the preferred social norm. To those who say that 377A penalizes only gays not lesbians, note there have been calls to criminalize lesbianism too.
Public sexual morality must buttress strong families based on faithful union between man and wife, the best model for raising children. The state should not promote promiscuity nor condone sexual exploitation. New section 376D criminalizes the organisation of child sex tours. Bravo.
The ‘argument from consent’ says the state should keep out of the bedroom, to safeguard ‘sexual autonomy’. While we cherish racial and religious diversity, sexual diversity is a different kettle of fish. Diversity is not license for perversity. This radical liberal argument is pernicious, a leftist philosophy based on radical individualism and radical egalitarianism. It is unworkable because every viable moral theory has limits to consent.
Radical individualism would demand decriminalising consensual adult incest; but the Penal Code is not based on consent as s376F reflects. The state has always retained an interest in regulating conduct in the bedroom – the issue is which type?
Radical egalitarianism applied to sexual morality says the state should not morally distinguish between types of consensual sex. It exudes a false neutrality but actually sneaks in a substantive philosophy: Hedonism which breeds narcissism. This extols satisfying desire without restraint as a matter of autonomy. But some desires are undesirable, harming self and society.
The argument from consent ultimately celebrates sexual libertine values, the fruit of which is sexual licentiousness, a culture of lust, which takes, rather than love, which gives. This social decline will provoke more headlines like a 2004 Her World article called: “Gay guy confesses: I slept with 100 men…one of them could be your hubby.” What about the broken-hearts involved?
If you argue from consent, how can you condemn any form of sexual self-expression, no matter how selfish or hurtful? But, no man is an island. Ideas, embodied in laws, have consequences. Don’t send the wrong message.
The issues raised in the Petition fall apart on rigorous analysis.
Rule of Law vs. Rule of Good Law
Sir, government policy is not to pro-actively enforce 377A. Some argue that just keeping this law on the books will erode the rule of law. I disagree. It is not turning a blind eye on the existence of homosexuals here; it is refusing to celebrate homosexuality while allowing gays to live quiet lives. This is prudent, as it is difficult to enforce ‘bedroom’ offences; such intrusive powers should be judiciously used anyway.
We have other hard-to-police laws which embody communal standards of public decency, such as laws against nudity visible to the public eye, even if you are at home. Law is a Moral teacher and makes a moral statement; 6 years ago, Singapore symbolically blocked access to 100 porn sites, as a ‘statement of our values.’ We value our values, while remaining realistic.
A non pro-active policy does not mean 377A will never be enforced – who knows what another season may require? Policies can change.
Sir, citizens are not just concerned with the rule of law but with the rule of good law. Laws which violate core moral values will alienate many and bring the system into disrepute. Indeed, many citizens see keeping 377A as evidence the government is defending the right moral values, which lends legitimacy.
Criminalising Moral Wrongs – which?
Sir, it is true that not all moral wrongs, such as adultery, are criminalized; yet they retain their stigma. But adulterors know they done wrong and do not lobby for toleration of adultery as a sexual orientation right.
Homosexual Agenda and Social Consequences
Conversely, homosexual activists lobby hard for a radical sexual revolution, waging a liberal fundamentalist crusade against traditional morality. They adopt a ‘step by step’ approach to hide how radical the agenda is. Liberals never ask: what happens next if you repeal 377A. Responsible legislators must see the Big Picture.
Pro-gay academics identify 5 main steps in this agenda in their study of foreign jurisdictions.
Step 1: repeal laws criminalizing homosexual sex. They consider this “pivotal” to advancing the homosexual agenda. Why? Without this, they cannot advance in the public sphere or push for government funding and support for special programmes, such as the New York Gay High School. Governments don’t promote criminal activities. You need to change the criminal law before changing civil law.
But decriminalizing sodomy is only the tip of the iceberg which is 1/8 of an ice mass – we must see what lies beneath the water to avoid a Titanic fate.
Step 2 is to equalize the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sex; in some countries, this is as low as 13. Do we want to expose Sec 1 boys to adult sexual predators? To be sexually creative?
Step 3 is to prohibit discrimination based on ‘sexual orientation’. But would this not include all sexual behaviour? “Sex before 8 or else it’s too late” is the motto of the North American Man Boy Love Association. Should we judge pedophilia or be relativist and promote “anything goes” sexual experimentation?
Sir, to protect homosexuals, some countries have criminalized not sodomy but opposition to sodomy, making it a ‘hate crime’ to criticize homosexuality. This violates freedom of speech and religion; will sacred texts that declare homosexuality morally deviant, like the Bible and Koran, be criminalized? Social unrest beckons. Such assaults on constitutional liberties cannot be tolerated.
Steps 4 and 5 relate to legalizing same-sex marriage or partnerships, child adoption rights. This subverts both marriage and family, which are institutions homosexuals seek to redefine beyond recognition. Will MOE then commission a book copying the US “Heather has 2 mummies” called “Ah Beng has 2 daddies?” What if parents disagree with their kids studying homosexual propaganda?
Is legalizing same-sex marriage progressive? It is if you want a genderless planet where “husband” and “wife” are considered discriminatory terms, to be replaced by “spouse”.
We want to be able to say, Majullah Singapura, not Mundur Singapura!
Repealing 377A will further batter the institution of ‘marriage’ which we must bolster! This is because the arguments raised to challenge a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual sodomy, equally apply to challenge legal distinctions between lawful heterosexual marriage between man and wife and unlawful homosexual unions.
To reinforce the moral foundations of a pro-family policy that permits only heterosexuals to marry, it is permissible to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual sodomy. To say that 377A discriminates is effectively to say that marriage laws discriminate and are unconstitutional.
Legalising sodomy would set a bad example; by signaling approval, it may change both attitude and conduct; coupled with sexual hedonism, it makes a mockery of strong family values. 377A helps to protect against this harm.
Academic supporters of the homosexual agenda like my colleague Michael Hor argued online that even if 377A was not enforced, discriminatory policies against homosexuals could be built on the logic of its existence. But taking his logic, repealing 377A would mean the government would be less able to resist claims for homosexual marriage or for promoting homosexuality as a desirable lifestyle in schools, as this would be ‘discriminatory’.These foreign developments warn us that the advance of the homosexual agenda here is not remote.
To slouch back to Sodom is to return to the Bad Old Days in ancient Greece or even China where sex was utterly wild and unrestrained, and homosexuality was considered superior to man-women relations. Women’s groups should note that where homosexuality was celebrated, women were relegated to low social roles; when homosexuality was idealized in Greece, women were objects not partners, who ran homes and bore babies. Back then, whether a man had sex with another man, woman or child was a matter of indifference, like one’s eating preferences. The only relevant category was penetrator and penetrated; sex was not seen as interactive intimacy, but a doing of something to someone. How degrading.
It was only when marriage was invented by the Jewish Torah that the genie of sexual impulses was forced into the marital bottle, so that sex no longer dominated society – this discipline provided the social base for the development of western civilization.
Homosexuals as fellow citizens have the right to expect decent treatment from the rest of us; but they have no right to insist we surrender our fundamental moral beliefs so they can feel comfortable about their sexual behaviour. We should not be subject to the tyranny of the undemocratic minority who want to violate our consciences, trample on our cherished moral virtues and threaten our collective welfare by imposing homosexual dogma on right-thinking people. Keep 377A.
Democracy and Debate
Sir, we Singaporeans will continue to debate and disagree over controversial moral issues as they arise. We should make substantive arguments and not think with our feelings; the media should present both sides fairly, without bias.
However, I have noted a disturbing phenomenon over the 377A debate– the argument by insult. Instead of reasoning, some have resorted to name-calling to intimidate and silence their opponents. People with principled moral objections to the homosexual agenda are tarred and feathered ‘homophobes’, ‘bigots’, to shut them up. This strategy is unoriginally imported from foreign gay activists, which stifles creative thinking and intellectual enquiry.
When you shout, full of sound and fury, and call your opponents nasty names, this terminates public debate. No one wants to be called a bigot. But think about it – if I oppose incest, am I an incestophobe? If I oppose alcoholism, am I a winophobe? If having an opinion means you are bigoted, then we are all bigots! What is your phobia?
Where certain liberals accuse their opponents of being intolerant, they demonstrate their own intolerance towards their opponents! They are hoist on their own petard, guilty of everything they accuse their detractors of!
One of my colleagues, a young professor, suffered these vicious tactics when the Straits Times published an article this May where Yvonne Lee argued against repealing 377A. This well-researched, cogent article so incensed homosexual activists that they flooded her with a torrent of abusive, lewd emails and wrote to her head of department calling for her to be removed from her job. This appeared to be a co-ordinated campaign.
We academics are used to disagreement, but why write to her employer and threaten her livelihood? Why vilify someone and seek to assassinate their personal and professional reputation? I hope the House joins me in deploring these malicious attacks which also assault academic freedom. She is owed an apology. I would be ashamed to belong to any academic institution that cravenly bowed down to such disgraceful bully-boy tactics.
This August, I had my own experience with this sort of hysterical attack. I received an email from someone I never met, full of vile and obscene invective which I shall not repeat, accusing me of hatemongering. It cursed me and expressed the wish to defile my grave on the day 377A was repealed.
I believe in free debate but this oversteps the line. I was distressed, disgusted, upset enough to file a police report. Does a normal person go up to a stranger to express such irrational hatred?
Smear tactics indicate the poor quality of debate and also, of character. Let us have rational debate, not diatribe, free from abusive rhetoric and tantrum-throwing. As Singapore approaches her Jubilee, My hope for the post-65 generation is that we will not become an uncivil civil society borne from an immature culture of vulgarity which celebrates the base, not the noble.
I speak, at the risk of being burned at the stake by militant activists. But if we don’t stand for something, we will fall for anything. I was raised to believe in speaking out for what is right, good and true, no matter the cost. It is important in life not only to have a Brain, but a Spine.
One of my favourite speeches by PM Lee, which I force my students to read, is his Harvard Club speech 2 years ago where he urged citizens not to be “passive bystanders” in their own fate but to debate issues with reason and conviction. I took this to heart. To forge good policy, we need to do our homework and engage in honest debate on the issues. Let us also speak with civility, which cannot be legislated, but draws deep from our character and upbringing. Before government can govern man, man must be able to govern himself.
Sir, let speaking in the public square with reason, passion, honesty, civility, even grace, be the mark of a Citizen of Singapore.
Eve:
If homosexual men were chauvinistic in general, most of them would call laws which actually give women a lower social status.Yet time and again we see that the same people who call for the lower status of women in countries like Saudi Arabia tend not to be homosexuals, but homophobes. Everyone who has spoken out in favour of keeping marital rape as an exception to our laws is clearly a straight man.And far from shunning women, and being unpopular with them, gay men seem to be favourite shopping buddies with straight women all the time.
Common sense should inform you that homosexuality as a cause of male chauvinism is utterly inexplicable, especially in the context of the modern world. But your comments reveal that you are more willing to follow the authority of some middle-american conservative talk show host than your real life experience- if you’ve met any gay people, that is.
Re: the Kant point.
I didn’t know that Kant thought homosexuality is immoral, but I suppose that is consistent with some of his ethical theory in general.
But two points:
a) In Kant’s time, homosexuality wasn’t properly understood: i.e. there was no recognition that it was dispositional, rather than merely discretely intentional.
b) Kant also, notoriously, considered masturbation to be immoral. Incidentally, so does the Catholic church. Why does Thio not therefore argue for the criminalisation of masturbation? INDEED, Kant clearly thouht that heterosexual sodomy, oral sex AND sex with contraception were all immoral.
The real effect on the ground is that people like Otto Fong are regarded as “criminals”. It doesn’t matter that by ALL accounts, including from the PM himself, Mr Fong is an excellent teacher.
I fail to understand, indeed I am flabbergasted, that the govt could retain the law without the slightest sense of hypocrisy and empathy and understanding.
Now, since Mr Fong is legally and lawfully regarded as a criminal, is he allowed to teach our kids?
This is just one example of how the law brings things into disrepute. Have you guys noticed something? That the MOS for Law and Home Affairs did not address the legal questions posed to him during the debate. I guess it’s easier to sidestep the whole legal mess.
So, can we ask the MOE: Why are they allowing a “criminal” to teach our kids?
It appalls me that someone who is as sincere, open, honest, and an excellent teacher is, by law, regarded a “criminal”. Can anyone with a clear conscience say he is? Yet here we are.
I also fail to see how those who use the moral argument against the repeal of 377A could possibly support the hypocrisy in the law. The only way they could do that is to subscribe to the view that hypocrisy stands above conscience.
I’m disgusted. Simply disgusted.
Never have I been so shameful to say to others that this bunch of people are Singaporeans.
Suffice to say, we are Singaporeans. In my heart, those that claim to lead the country, because they lack the will to right a wrong, have forfeited their right to call themselves our fellow citizens.
If Singapore ever goes to war, will our government expect our gay Singaporean ‘criminals’ to take up arms and defend the country and the government which has pronounced them criminals in the first place?
Another legal question which Mr Ho would avoid answering.
Benjamin:
1. That one cannot exclude religion from law.
I agree with Prof Thio’s point, which she has made several times before, that strict secularism is indefensible. You do not arbitrarily exclude secular ideologies such as utilitarianism, libertarianism, free-market economics etc., from public debate and public policy. Similarly, you cannot arbitrarily exclude religious ideologies, a priori.
The acid test for exclusion is not some “belief in a higher being” (some religions are not even founded on such a belief). The acid test is whether the ideology is one which other citizens can reasonably accept. Religion is excluded only to the extent that some of its claims are ones which large parts of the society cannot reasonably accept.
2. Public Health
Prof Thio’s point that the gay population has disproportionately high STD rates (the statistics are ambivalent) might still justify targeting them. The more pertinent issue is whether ‘targeting’ the gay population necessarily implies criminalizing gay sex.
Obviously not. A whole range of policy responses is available. A more sensible and effective way to ‘target’ the gay community is through public awareness campaigns, counselling, and so on.
3. Public Morality
If ‘public morality’ is the intersection of the moral values of every single person in the country, then it is public morality all the same.
The crucial question is, what kind of positive moral claim is Prof Thio advancing, what kind of public morality is she advancing? In gist, it is that sex is bad, unless it occurs in the context of marriage, procreation and child-raising. Fine, but if indeed you aim to combat sexual promiscuity, then target those who are sexually promiscuous, and not those who are homosexual. Sexual promiscuity is independent of sexual orientation, surely. Moreover, if heterosexuals form the bulk of the population, then surely it is heterosexual sexual promiscuity that poses a greater threat to the institutions of marriage and family. Section 377A targets the completely wrong group of individuals, even accepting Prof Thio’s moral claims.
I’m a straight liberal here. Thought it best to state my ground.
I don’t have all the answers, but I think the whole question of whether to repeal 377a is not important. If at all, it is but a symbolic step – what is more important is that the “homosexual condition” is now recognised and not a taboo discourse. I neither mean that in the pejorative nor as some medical / psychiatric condition. Instead, I mean the social challenges that our gay kin endure growing up. How ironical is it to be referred to as “gay”?
Perhaps many in the anti-repeal camp may now benefit from better understanding of that. It is especially troubling when views demonstrating a flippant disregard of the “homosexual condition” are given such high profile airing and becoming the basis of legislation.
Even more insidious is the insinuation that being gay is an indulgence of the bored upper-middle classes.
I reserve my doubt that such conservative sexual attitude don’t do any harm to the society.
As we know, family unit nowaday tend to be small. Often, the only child is a daughter. As the population age, there will be many old people that are handicapped and require care including hygienic care. I wonder how many man with extremely conservative attitude towards sex can handle the idea that their daughter have to do the body hygiene maintenance for them? This includes looking at them in full nidity and holding for genital organs, folding back the foreskinto clean and to maintain hygiene? Will these men or their daughters rather chose to die to having to live in this inevitable situation?
Etrepoursoi,
I believe that there’s been a misunderstanding somewhere, so I’ll have to clarify it. I’ll proceed along the way you have described matters: separation of religion and law, public health, and public morality.
I argued that the exclusion of religion from law is necessary, to prevent believers of one religion from imposing their views on society. You said that the test for exclusion is whether the people can reasonably accept a proposition. The key word here is ‘imposed’, that is, forced upon other people. If the people do accept it, then whether or not it has religious origins is irrelevant, because it is a non-issue to the people. But in this case, because the law is imposing an essentially conservative, Judeo-Christian (British law in the 19th century was based on the Bible), view on the people, and that a significant portion of the population reject its view, there is a case for separation of religion and law in this context.
And, for the record, religion is defined as “The expression of man’s belief in and reverence for a superhuman power or powers regarded as creating or governing the universe.” (Reader’s Digest Universal Dictionary) Therefore, religions are founded in a belief in a higher being or beings of some kind.
Now, for the public health argument. What I meant to say was that her argument is logically inconsistent with public health strategy. I will further add that what she is doing is advocating overly-harsh measures in the name of public health. There may indeed be a disproportionate number of gays with STDs, but the main source of STD transmission is still heterosexual sex, according to the figures I have cited above. One cannot cure an outbreak by attacking an anomaly with more gusto than the source, because the latter is still around to continue harming others, no matter how diminished it may be. If she were to advocate Section 377A for this purpose, then it is illogical, because she is leaving the source relatively untouched. Other policies, as you have mentioned, are surely more effective than outlawing it altogether.
Next, the public morality argument. The dispute here is not be about the existence of whether or not there is a public morality. My definition of public morality was to argue that there was a possibility of a ‘public morality’ to exist in spite of all the different interpretations of morality. But in that intersection of moral codes, the people would naturally feel roughly the same way on a particular subject. The onus is on her to prove that this incidence is true in the case of homosexuality before she can bring up that argument before Parliament and expect the public to agree. In this case, it is not true, because the public clearly do not have a common attitude towards homosexuality. Therefore, her argument based on public morality cannot possibly stand.
I do not dispute the rest of your argument. In fact, I support it, for the same reasons you have cited.
A Nobel Laureate has resigned cos he questioned the blacks intelligence. Let us see what the academia in NUS do to their peers who call the gay group a ‘human wrong’, who ‘pushed straws up their noses.’ and who does not see any need to apologise cos she’s got a brain and a spine as well.
Familyman,
I don’t think your comparison of blacks and gays is appropriate. One is a race, and the other is choice of lifestyle.
Nevermind…just ignore what the body of evidences that science has to say for your own purpose…..
People seem to have great difficulty understanding the meaning of academic freedom. Academic freedom is not the same as freedom of speech: it is the freedom to espouse whatever views and opinions and findings you find convincing — but WITHIN the boundaries of academic rigour. That is why we have admissions standards: if we were really so free in academia, Harvard should open wide its doors to anyone and everyone who wishes to enrol. It doesn’t: and I have yet to read the howls of protest about how that violates academic freedom.
The objection of many to Thio Li Ann’s and Yvonne C L Lee’s writings is not for the views expressed therein. Well, we do object to them — and indeed we are justified in subjecting them to public vilification. But we would not be right in pointing to them as a reason for Thio and Lee to be removed from their teaching posts. HOWEVER, their writings also betray a shocking lack of clear thought and argument, a willingness to suppress relevant evidence, and an obvious unfamiliarity with the wider literature on the subject. This is either intellectual dishonesty or academic sloppiness, both of which are reasons to remove an academic from his/her post.
I hope that is clear.
To be fair, I applaud her for speaking her mind and do not wish her to lose her job for it. But I really wish that if she is aware that she has insulted some mother, sister, sister in christ, brother in christ, father, who has a family member who is gay, she will quickly come ‘out’ and apologise for it. If not, I will continue to love her as a person, but just abhor her actions and her words, as a God fearing Christian myself. Ms Thio, may God bless you.
Oh do shut up Ms Thio…you talk too much and discriminate a lot!
Disgustingly flawed, ungrounded and biased speech. Her points are weak and far from enough to make an entirely well-rounded argument to properly convince me.
In any case, we should not be arguing about whether homosexuality is “normal” or whether it goes against the forces of nature. The fact remains that homosexuality existed, exists and will continue to exist as long as the world still spins. So instead of debating over the normality of this lifestyle choice or identity that homosexuals have chosen, why don’t we find a way to deal with it FAIRLY and JUSTLY so that we as a society can live peacefully knowing that we are accepted for who we are? S377A has been in place for the past 40 years in Singapore and yet I don’t see STD rates decreasing or stagnating. Homosexuals are among us and they will continue to live their lives the way that they want to, because they have every right to. So instead of criminalizing their activities (which obviously is not making all of us into martyrs anyway), why not give them some peace of mind? They are as part of our Singaporean society as the person next to you. Don’t push them into a corner and label them like they’re a degenerate species of human life because their lifestyles differ from ours.
Thio’s speech just saddens me. For someone who has a doctorate and has attended Harvard, Oxford AND Cambridge, her thought patterns don’t reflect the level of development that I expected of her. And if this is the kind of weak argument that the government is going to choose to stand by as a benchmark for what is our ‘national interest’, then I fear for Singapore’s future.
Repealing S377A would be a major step in gaining support from the majority. Support that the PAP desperately needs if they even hope to retain their citizens in the years to come. But I suppose that’s just too treacherous a move because a repeal WILL result in a depraved, exploding pool of festering immorality, corruption and degradation, RIGHT?
Belletrist,
Something else which concerns me is the reported “thumping of chairs” in approval by the MPs in Parliament at the end of Thio Li Ann’s speech.
I am quite amazed (and sad) that MPs would find her speech deserving of such overwhelming approval. Even if one were to be against repeal, would one be “thumping” one’s seat in approval of her speech – with its foul and vile description of the sex act, not to mention her penchant for over-exaggeration and alarmist diatribe?
For me, the debate in Parliament over S377A showed to me the kind of people we have in Parliament and the calibre of their thinking.
As you, I too am concerned for the future of our country – if we keep sending such people, with their doctorates from Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford but devoid of empathy and EQ, to Parliament.
This episode has revealed the depth and character of our MPs, or lack thereof.
re: thumping of support – the religious lobby does have widespread support on this issue. it is unfortunate that superficial associations with religion has the effect of engendering an “us” and “them” mindset. by emphasising differences, people identify more strongly with their belief system, which perhaps may compensate for other aspects in which they feel lacking. not unlike the irony of the closet homophobe.
the difficulty of maintaining a doctrinal distinction between fornication and sodomy is the achilles heel of the religious argument. i may be venturing into controversy here, but surely the doctrinal charges are directed against promiscuity and licentiousness, which though deserving of rebuke does not disqualify from compassion.
Yes, Andrew – Like you, I was much perturbed by the reported thumping of chairs. If a large majority of the MPs in Parliament were indeed doing that in support and recognition of that speech, then it is a major cause for concern over the future governance of this country.
If it were true, I really hope it was because they were carried away by the emotions and the sound and fury of the speech, rather than being in total agreement with the arguments made and the logic (or lack thereof) exhibited.
In the newspaper report, it was stated explicitly that PM did not thump his seat. I am curious whether he was the only one, or were there others like him?
Then, I read somewhere (sorry, forgot where) that the newspaper report was not accurate. Rather, it was her lobbyists and supporters who were thumping their seats in the public gallery.
Wonder if there is any actual video footage of the supposed chair thumping by the majority in the House? Or are there people who were present during that Parliament session to clarify the situation one way or the other?
If she could flag 4 red herrings from MP Siew Kum Hong’s speech, we could easily pick out 3 times more from her speech. Half-truths and whole lies. The point about how anus is not designed for sexual pleasure is totally ridiculous. Should we ban oral sex next since technically, it’s not designed to receive the male (or female for the matter) sex organ either? Also, AIDS does discriminate. Only people do. The fact that it is perhaps prevalent amongst the male gay community has more to do with bad sexual practices than sexual inclinations per se.
This speech is another clear example of how harmful religion is, and how it turns smart people into blathering idiots.
Compassion:
With regard to the doctrinal issues here, it’s complicated. Thio doesn’t seem to have a coherent stance on this. She follows some kind of bizarre natural law tradition, going by her repeated use of the Perverse Use argument (which, by the way, has been abandoned by even the most hardcore natural lawyers, since it is clearly flawed). But presumably then she has to fall back on a more instrumental teleological perspective: sex and family life are goods which relate to procreation and the bringing up of children, etc.
But in that case, clearly she ought to be in favour of laws restricting oral and anal sex for straights, in addition to prohibitions on birth control. But she isn’t.
Indeed, I think her tortured attempts to justify prohibiting gay anal and oral sex BUT NOT straight anal and oral sex reveal the truth about her: for all her ostensibly intellectual arguments against homosexuality, at heart her opposition is not grounded in some kind of philosophical or even religious conviction about the evil of homosexuality, but rather in a visceral fear and loathing of gays.
Kris Lee: “Yes, Andrew – Like you, I was much perturbed by the reported thumping of chairs. If a large majority of the MPs in Parliament were indeed doing that in support and recognition of that speech, then it is a major cause for concern over the future governance of this country.”
Isn’t it clear that the majority of the MP’s support 377A. You may be perturbed, but these are the elected representatives of the people. You have your opinion, and the MP’s have theirs. To each his own.
More of the irrational and pathological hatred of gays exhibited by evangelical christians who blame everything that goes wrong in the world on gays- from Katrina to war dead to 9/11
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12071434/
When she is not based on anything philosophical or religious conviction as evident in the incoherence of all her stance on various issues, but all is based on loathe and fear of gay: there is one word to describe her. Bigot!
This not name-calling. By definition, it is just as it is.
Aginst repealling 377a says:
I have been reading about gays and homosexual people and I’m very confused really. Can somebody please enlighten me on what do they do sexually.
Correct me if I am wrong on these assumptions:
1. Homosexuals and gays are male people who who carry out
sexual intercourse using the penis and anus.
2. In a homosexual or gay relationship, one male person acts as the female and the other male as the male.
3. Is there any record of homosexual four legged animals?
To the last question, if it is a “no”, are not human beings worse than animals?
S.H.Lew,
In a gay relationship, usually one guy would be the ‘top’ who will penetrate into his ‘bottom’ partner’s anus. There has been proofs that animals do engage in homosexual activities i.e. they are gay and lesbian animals.
Actually, in many species in the animal kingdom, only one dominant male in the community has “breeding” rights. of course, other males will constantly seek to challenge the dominance of the dominant one and seek to perpetuate its own offspring. until one actually succeeds, it is anybody’s guess what the rest do to satisfy themselves.
the dominant male in some species may also bugger submissive males as a display of dominance.
it’s on NatGeo – nature documentaries don’t lie.
of course, this begs the question whether similar behaviour in humans may be justified on grounds that the animals do it too. not insinuating one way or the other. moral, ethical question – don’t have all the answers here………
Let me attempt to clarify some of the mis-perceptions about Christianity that may arise on the recent debate about homosexuality, and the appropriate stand Christians may adopt on this issue.
As Christians, we love all sinners, but not their sins. Be it gays, or terrorists, they are welcome to go to church/God as they are- to seek the Truth, and be transformed into Christ-likeness. We would first of all preach the Gospel (Good News), then focus on the issue of sins later.
Majority of Singaporeans still do not share the Christian values, principles. Hence, it may not serve God’s kingdom very well by putting the cart before the horse. In fact, by attacking homosexuals harshly, we may cause them to alienate God permanently.
We should take care not to add more stumbling blocks to the non-believing world.
Hi Paul,
Very sensible view. The problems are:
Few people have the chance to explore / build this kind of personal relationship and understanding before the recent debate. When the debate came, they felt they had to act.
This “first of all preach the Gospel (Good News), then focus on the issue of sins later” approach only works at individual level. When the debate came, it became a group vs group issue. There was a time factor to press the views before the Parliament debate. There was no luxury of time to work out that “first of all preach the Gospel (Good News), then focus on the issue of sins later” approach.
To not “add more stumbling blocks to the non-believing world” will require the pro-377A group to keep quite, knowing full well that the gov will not move on this issue. But not everyone has the temper to “hold your fire”. When someone fire the first shoot, all hell broke loose.
Regards.
Sarek
Is the non-repeal of S.377A a pre-requisite to spreading the Good News? Does it mean that if it is repealed, Christians would or must somehow stop doing so?
More fundamentally, should Church not be separate from State?
Hi Caesar,
The answer to both questions is “No” and my post never suggest anything like that.
You should say “religions should be separated from the State”. In this regard, PAP is using “conservative values” to cover a broad groups of people as one of its excuse to side step the repeal request.
Regards.
Why is this bigoted woman receiving threatening letters?
There is nothing wrong with abiding by “conservative values” of the majority. If the “conservative” majority in Singapore wants to criminalise it, they have the prerogative of the vote without having to justify their moral or religious standpoint to anyone – that is their democratic right.
It is quite different to harness this majority “conservatism” to criminalise the activity, where it is probable that such “conservatism” does not go to those extremes. Could it be the “conservatives” merely disapprove but do not wish to see anyone being physically punished? As the ST review journalist so aptly put it, do not ask, do not encourage.
Let’s create a very simple parallel, where the essence of what is being debated can become clearer:
Imagine a young child drinks too much pop soda. Most would approve of a parent taking the child aside and sternly explaining that too much of that gives you tooth decay and obesity. How many would approve the parent grabbing the bottle, smashing it on the floor, hollering at the child and finally taking one big slap?
Both reactions evince disapproval, but express it in vastly different ways.
My main objective is to bring in focus the right approach to be adopted by Christians, and hopefully to correct some possible mis-perceptions among the Singapore public on Christianity’s stand toward homosexuals, though my focus may not necessarily be in direct reference to the recent repeal-S377A saga.
Christians’ foremost mission in this Earthly life is to present their lives as good testimonies, and/or to preach the Good News, putting God’s kingdom in upmost prority (i.e. getting souls saved into God’s Kingdom).
All others’ concerns, be it public morality, ethics issue or as such, however noble they are, should perhaps be regarded as of secondary importance, particularly if in the process of pursuing so, may indirectly/directly obstruct the process/aim of preaching the Good News/expanding God’s Kingdom. (Though I must say God is not exactly after numbers primarily.)
God’s heart is toward all sinners, be it great or small; He only hates sins. The Good News must be preached first, then the issue of sins to be dwelt thereupon.
Essentially, no man needs to clean himself up before taking a shower/bath.
And yes, Church and (secular) State should always be separate.
Regards.
Paul says “And yes, Church and (secular) State should always be separate.”
It’s interesting that most religious people will agree with this. But all over the world there’s this pattern of interference by Christians in particular to interfere. From the objections towards teaching of Evolution in American schools to the Pope condemning the distribution of condoms in Africa. Christians seem to fundamentally like to interfere.
Besides if religion is so good and moral why seperate from state? Is this an implicit admittance of the fact that religion ain’t such a “good news” perhaps.
Regarding this Besides if religion is so good and moral why seperate from state? Is this an implicit admittance of the fact that religion ain’t such a “good news” perhaps., one need to understand the original intent of Church and (secular) State should always be separate. Please read:
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/misc/first_amendment.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
Stated in the first link:
Originating back to 1791 when the United States Constitution was officially ratified, the drafters granted freedom of and from religion to those who wished to be part of America. However, as time passed, this freedom of and from religion began to take on new interpretations that the original drafters of the Constitution may not have foreseen.
The original intent was to protect the people’s rights to follow a religion or their rights not to be part of a religion from state interference. Today, this intent of preventing the state from interfering with people’s religious freedom, is being used to block religion related activities from the state, for example morning prayer in state funded school. The table is turned to interpret the intent as denying religious influence to the state.
The issue here is when should we deny individuals from exercising their political rights to influence the state? Can we identify and say that since that particular personal values are rooted from religious belief, the individuals can’t exercise their political rights?
That is a good point. Well argued! There is indeed no way to tear the religious impulse from an individual’s actions. Singapore has not yet had religious institutions per se trying to force the issue. Lets hope it stays that way =)
Democracy is the right to elect one’s government, NOT the right to impose majority views on contentious moral issues on others, ESPECIALLY when a fundamental interest is at stake.
By this logic, if 90% of the population were anti-semitic, then the government would be justified in forcing Jews to wear yellow stars, forcing them into concentration camps, etc.
This impose majority views argument is called majority tyranny. The constitution need to safeguard the minority rights against majority tyranny. For example, in USA, someone can challenge certain law as unconstitutional and it eventually settled by the supreme court.
The topic is well debated, if only people take time to read through arguments from both sides. I really doubt if there is any argument not being covered.
Hi Gilbertng,
I believe most major religions are good and moral. The problem is they hold strongly divergent views on certain fundamentals/doctrines, such that despite sharing some similarities in basic moral principles, the diversity of it all tend to create potentially divisive forces (if it is not already so) in societies.
Also, primarily because of man’s imperfections, it may be better to continue separation of church and state, even for societies that are overwhelmingly Christian.
There is essentially nothing wrong in the ‘Good News’ as found in the Bible, but yet again due to man’s weaknesses, things can go terribly ‘off-track’ even in the midst of well-intended practices/behavior found among christian organizations/schools.
There is a huge difference in being religious, and being true to the spirit/true to God.
By the way, the ‘Good News’ found in the Bible is: God forgives all our sins through His Son’s death on the Cross for Man, and one has to willingly accept this Gift.
Problem is some of us find this silly (esp. for those who think they are wise/righteous by themselves); too good to be true; or keep insisting on more miracles or ‘scientific’ proofs needed before they would believe.
Essentially, Christianity (or any other religion) is a matter of faith.
thio has debased herself with her invectives and diatribes. friends, straight or gay, singaporeans and foreigners, were surprised at her vituperativeness. you can be againt the legalisation of same-sex sodomy but you can do so in a reasoned, reasonable and sensitive way. but not her. its quite sad that she has degenerated into that level.
You’re jumping straight into the pit of assumption that homosexuality is immoral.
how is it immoral when people can’t chose their sexuality and who they like.
you can’t just declare something immoral when morality doesn’t exist much in human society in the first place.
I have read a lot of sub-standard logic, in my 53 years, but never anything so puerile.
A fledgeling Law Graduate could blow holes the size of Earth into these “arguments” – and many have done just that – because they are:
1) spurious – identifying homosexuality as a disorder is tantamount to saying the Earth is flat, just because it saves having to explain gravity on a sphere.
2) prejudice in the author is never a good argument, in law
3) it seems to me that, if anything, nature confirms with unerring frequency, that homosexual behaviour is a) common, b) not genetically dictated and c) desirable in many contexts – overpopulation, co-opting a larger number of non-breeding adults into young-rearing without depriving them of healthy sexual and emotional companionship…
I could go on, but this person has spent so much time creating her own, self-sustaining virtual reality, I doubt she can hear sense.
Best accept what is self-evident in her own world… just as Neanderthal succumbed to its inadequacy to deal with changing environmental conditions, she and her kind will become extinct, owing to a similar arteriosclerosis of the intellect.
When the oceans rise and food/fuel become scarce, we shall thank the Gods for the likes of her, because they will BE food and fuel!. LOL!
OMG
an ELECTED MP? shame on you – what morally repugnant is:
1) pre-labelling the opposing sides arguments before she explains why they are apparently “empty rhetoric and emotional sloganeering”;
2) unabiasedly and unashamedly throwing about “empty rhetoric and emotional sloganeering” e.g. in “but “harm” can be both physical and intangible; victims include both the immediate parties and third parties. What is done in ‘private’ can have public repercussions” – she makes absolutely NO attempt to explain HOW it apparently can have public repercussions;
3) “Responsible legislators must grapple with the facts, figures and principles involved; they cannot discount the noxious social consequences repeal will bring” – what facts, figures and principles? she hast laid down ONE fact, nor figure, NOR principle.
the flaws in her argument (if it may still be labelled that – an ‘argument’ is one where one makes an claim AND supports it with evidence or facts to swing the opinion that way – as far as any untrained/uneducated eye can tell she has not laid down ONE piece of supporting evidence to support ANY of her claims) are too numerous to extol in this one spot… shocking
methinks this phoenix shall rise at the aware egm, behind the mentor who has groomed her for this moment of reckoning. they will not rest until every gay person is thrown into prison and rehabilitated to become a mindless minion of their hegemonic ambitions. and then they will propagate a whole race of celibacy, which in the younger thio’s case is possibly a result of having none, and never getting any. but that isn’t the point. a new race shall emerge in this social genocide. that my dears, was the reason for this diatribe 2 years ago. even hitler had his podium set up via his fuhrer before he stepped upon it.
My religious beliefs says that lefthanded-ness, public nasal excavation and the use of soap is sinful, unnatural, and against God.
Now where do I sign up to shove it down everyone’s throats? Where can I get the law changed so that those horrible immoral soap-users especially can be put in jail for their filthy habits? Using soap is like sticking a straw into your ear to make a phone call. So unnatural.
If you are not with me, who is of course on the side of the one and true God as defined by my holy book, you are against God and deserve to be put in jail.
This b i t c h is out of her freakin’ MIND.
*Sigh*
There is almost no debate on this thread at all! Almost everybody is a syncophant of the Pink Lobby1 What is the purpose of opening this thread for conversation at all?
There is really too much Thio-bashing going on here!
Please guys, remember that this is a political speech, not an academic lecture.
Hi Arix #116,
Don’t you know that Thio Li-Ann’s position on S377A is also at odds with the Law Society [of Singapore]? The Law Society, in its submission to the Ministry of Home Affairs on the amendment of the Penal Code, noted:
“… the criminal law’s proper function is to protect others from harm by punishing harmful conduct. Private consensual homosexual conduct between adults does not cause harm recognizable by the criminal law. Thus, regardless of one’s personal view of the morality or otherwise of such conduct, it should not be made a criminal offence.”
Professor Michael Hor of NUS Law Faculty goes to great length to elaborate the mismatch between criminal law and public morality and why S377A should be repealed. This has nothing to do with your narrow-minded position that the repeal will bring liberals and conservatives to the discussion table. You can read his arguments here. It was published on TOC in October 2007.