Breaking News: Malaysia confirms its first H1N1 flu case, says top health official Ismail Merican.
Announcement: Stay tuned for TOC’s very special feature on Monday, 18 May. You shouldn’t miss it.
The following is Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister, Wong Kan Seng’s comments in response to media queries related to Aware.
Homosexuality
The Government’s position on this issue is clear. It was stated by the PM in Parliament on October 2007, and it has not changed. In his speech, PM said that Singapore is basically a conservative society and the conventional family, a heterosexual stable family, is the norm and the building block of our society. However, we recognise that homosexuals are part of our society. They have a place in our society and are entitled to their private lives. This is the way the majority of Singaporeans want it to be – a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values but with space for homosexuals to live their private lives and contribute to the society.
The Government was not going to be pressured into changing its position on homosexuality before the takeover of AWARE. Nor does the Govern ment intend to change its position now that the old guard has recaptured AWARE.
The debate on Sec 377A of the Penal Code showed how the homosexuality issue polarised our society. Advocates on both sides were passionate and vocal. In the recent AWARE tussle, homosexuality was clearly a major issue to both sides. This is unproductive and divisive.
Our society will not reach consensus on this issue for a very long time to come. The way for homosexuals to have space in our society is to accept the informal limits which reflect the point of balance that our society can accept, and not to assert themselves stridently as gay groups do in the West.
We live in a diverse, multi-racial and multi-religious society. Every group, whether religious or secular, has to live and let live, to exercise restraint and show mutual respect and tolerance. If any group pushes its agenda aggressively, there will be strong reactions from the other groups.
AWARE
Many Singaporeans were exercised by the leadership tussle in AWARE, and have expressed their views, for and against, in our newspapers and on the Internet.
The Government has been very careful in its comments, especially before the EOGM, as it did not want to be misunderstood as taking sides. Who controls AWARE is not important to the Govern ment. As I said, Government policy on homosexuality is settled, and will not change as a result of lobbying by pressure groups.
However, the Government was worried about the disquieting public perception that a group of conservative Christians, all attending the same church, which held strong views on homosexuality, had moved in and taken over AWARE because they disapproved of what AWARE had been doing. This raised many qualms among non-Christians, and also among Christians who believed that this was an unwise move in a multi-racial, multi-religious society. It was much more dangerous because now religion was also getting involved, and it was no longer just the issue of homosexuality.
I was grateful therefore that Dr John Chew of the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) issued a clear statement that the NCCS does not condone churches getting involved in the AWARE dispute. Leaders of different religious faiths have also come out to reinforce the NCCS message. Their statements provided clear guidance to their followers. I felt it was important for me to endorse the NCCS statement publicly, and explain the Govern ment’s deeper concerns. Had it not been for these sober statements from religious leaders, we would have had serious problems.
Rules Of Engagement
Religious individuals have the same rights as any citizen to express their views on issues in the public space, as guided by their teachings and personal conscience. However, like every citizen, they should always be mindful of the sensitivities of living in a multi-religious society.
All religious groups will naturally teach their followers to follow the precepts of their scriptures, to do good and to contribute to their society. The groups will naturally have views on social and moral issues. But we are not a Christian Singa pore, or a Muslim Singa pore, or a Buddhist or Hindu Singa pore. We are a secular Singa pore, in which Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and others all have to live in peace with one another. This calls for tolerance, accommodation, and give and take on all sides.
If religious groups start to campaign to change certain government policies, or use the pulpit to mobilise their followers to pressure the government, or push aggressively to gain ground at the expense of other groups, this must lead to trouble. Keeping religion and politics separate is a key rule of political engagement.
Political Arena Must Be Secular
Religious groups and individuals who hold deep religious beliefs are often active in social issues, and make important contributions to the well-being of our society. Individuals who commit themselves to social or public service are often motivated by their religious convictions. And many religious groups do good work serving people in need, regardless of religious affiliations. We welcome that. They set the moral tone of our society, and are a source of strength in times of adversity.
However, our political arena must always be a secular one.Our laws and policies do not derive from religious authority, but reflect the judgments and decisions of the secular Government and Parliament to serve the national interest and collective good. These laws and public policies apply equally to all, regardless of one’s race, religion or social status. This gives confidence that the system will give equal treatment and protection for all, regardless of which group one happens to belong to.
Calm Down and Move On
I think the AWARE episode showed clearly how passions and emotions naturally run high when it concerns an issue or cause salient to people’s beliefs or interests. The EOGM was an emotional meeting with many heated exchanges. It was not a model of calm deliberation and patient consensus building. Both sides must now calm down and move on.
Impact On Civil Society
Singa poreans are becoming more educated and informed, and we are opening up more space for people to express alternative views. I have no doubt that we will see more tussles between people holding different points of view, often anchored in their personal convictions and beliefs, on issues which they consider vitally important.
Many different communities share this tiny island. If our diversity is not to become a source of weakness, we must manage such disagreements in a responsible and balanced manner. We can articulate our views passionately without denigrating others; we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable.
The Government has to maintain order, and hold the ring impartially. It encourages the development of civic society, and gradual widening of the OB markers. But it will not stand by and watch when intemperate activism threatens our social fabric.
The Internet
The need to behave responsibly applies no less to those who participate on the Internet. The fact that the Internet offers a measure of anonymity to an individual should not change who he is as a person and how he conducts himself. Ultimately he remains no less accountable for the consequences of his action in cyberspace as he does in the physical world. The two realms are part of the common social reality of our lives today.
Observing Balance And Moderation
I do not believe that those who are against homosexuality are afraid to speak out. However, I would caution restraint on both sides, for and against. We must not import into Singa pore the culture wars between the extreme liberals and conservatives that are going on in the US.
On the whole, our religious communities have played a positive role in our society. The maturity of our religious leaders and the restraint and sense of responsibility of their followers have helped to make this a communally peaceful society. We must keep it that way by observing the rules of engagement.
This applies also to the media. The media plays an important role reporting on the issues, the groups and the personalities involved. They need to do so dispassionately and impartially. MICA had analysed the volume, tone and objectivity of the coverage of the AWARE episode, and found it wanting in some respects. Some of the coverage was excessive and not sufficiently balanced.
There were indeed important issues at stake, such as the proper limits for religious activism. But the AWARE episode was surely not the most important challenge facing Singapore, deserving such extensive and even breathless coverage. Whatever happened in AWARE was not going to change Singapore, or the Government’s social policy.
Journalists should not get caught up in the stories they are reporting, however exciting the stories may be.
MICA has given this feedback to the editors.
———-
45) la nausee on May 15th, 2009 8.49 pm
“My view at present is that homosexual sex should be permitted, but that gays and lesbians should not be entitled to marry or adopt.”
I will go at least 1 step further and say ‘yes’ to marriage as well. If promiscuity was an issue, and the cause of high HIV transmission, then isn’t allowing marriage a form of encouragement/endorsement for them to be monogamous?
I won’t say ‘yes’ to adoption just yet though. Discrimination is still too rampant for any child adopted by a gay couple to have a normal life.
46) Curious on May 15th, 2009 9.08 pm
“btw, please define “fully human”. Does one need to embrace an alternative lifestyle to make one a full human being? Paradoxically, if so then majority of the folks in S’pore are not “fully human” because they reject fringe lifestyle. Does that make sense?”
Your mind seems twisted…. I suspect, it’s the ‘black and white’ mentality, the ‘if you are not with us, you are against us’ thinking…
Personally, I thought it obvious that his/her version of fully human, is to be able to have the chance to fulfill one’s dreams.
If the person’s dream is a traditional family, then s/he is able to be fully human when s/he fulfills it, or at least seen to be achievable.
If the person is gay, and wants a gay marriage/family, then s/he is able to be fully human when s/he fulfills it, or at least seen to be achievable.
re Orchid (post #37),
////Another thing I feel uncomfortable about is its leniency towards pastor Hong and group who have created so much anxiety and division among people of various religions, races and sexuality.
Not even a stern warning to them on this. It’s a cause for worry.////
it certain is worrying. it will in some ways embolden others to act in similiar fashion in future (with results far worse than this saga).
“Just like FT Indian Boss shouldn’t employed people of his own nationalities.
A Taiwanese Company shouldn’t employed all Chinese.”
I know of a ex-FT now a Citizen, opened a IT consultancy and getting contracts from type of company ;)
The employees in the project are all FT or FT originates.
I suspect hiring PR will suffice?
some please correct me if wrong.
Aiyo why dont you ask why arent the Woman’s Charter be repealed too? Very discriminating to men hor, especially in modern singapore.
55) Wudang on May 16th, 2009 1.28 am
“Aiyo why dont you ask why arent the Woman’s Charter be repealed too? Very discriminating to men hor, especially in modern singapore.”
well, that has been on my mine.
@Curious,
My view is that homosexual sex in a committed same-sex relationship is on the same moral footing as heterosexual sex in a committed opposite-sex relationship that does not involve marriage. Neither is particularly damaging to ‘family values’. There is no particular family which suffers, unlike in the case of adultery.
But incest, aside from its genetic consequences, does destroy a family (the one which the individuals belong to). It substitutes a sensual, insistent eros for the incomparable tranquility and warmth of familial ties, and thus robs people of their social/emotional anchor. And it increases the likelihood of a gross breach of trust, as between parent and child or between elder and younger siblings. Incest, IMO, is therefore morally wrong in a way that homosexual sex is not.
But even if we believe (as you do) that homosexual sex is morally wrong, we may (contrary to established wisdom) still defend a legal/moral right to do what is morally wrong. The law often does this, where the right is supported by some greater countervailing good.
For example, a court may, enforcing a contractual right, order that a bank can repossess the house of a mortgagor who has defaulted on his loan, even if this is distributively unjust or the mortgagor did not fully comprehend the document he was signing. What is upheld is the freedom to enter into voluntary bargains.
Or the law may prevent any doctor from treating a patient who has refused to give her consent, even if that refusal seems unreasonable and suicidal, and even if the patient’s family is dependent on her and wants her to be treated. The individual patient’s autonomy is respected even if it leads to bad consequences.
Or the law may allow a rape victim to be ruthlessly cross-examined on her sexual history and moral character, in order to protect the accused’s right to a fair trial.
So even if we think homosexual sex is morally wrong, we may still conclude that an individual has a right to decide (to a certain extent) how to lead his or her intimate life. The moral wrong of homosexual sex (like the moral wrong of adultery) is not sufficiently serious to trump the individual’s right to privacy against the State.
@lobo76,
My own proposal is for a two-tiered approach.
Civil unions, based on the concepts of ‘love’ and ‘intimacy’, for same-sex couples and for opposite-sex couples who do not plan to have children. As you said, the State has an interest in promoting stable, monogamous relationships, although less powerful than its interest in encouraging people to start families and raise children.
Marriages, based on the concepts of ‘procreation’, ‘family’ and ‘child-raising’, for opposite-sex couples who plan to have children. The state has an interest to promote procreation and child-raising within a stable social unit. Failure to have children within a certain time-frame will cause a marriage to be converted into a civil union, which confers less benefits.
Suggest to push for section 666a, as a companion law to section 337a.
“to maintain the secular nature of Singapore society, all acts which are religious in nature and groups which are found on religious beliefs are deemed illegal….. ”
And we can have the government to promise not to police that act actively.
52) lobo76 on May 16th, 2009 12.26 am
Why the personal attack? I thought the TOC webmaster forbids this.
You claim that “If the person is gay, and wants a gay marriage/family, then s/he is able to be fully human when s/he fulfills it, or at least seen to be achievable”
What if the person has a predilection for consensual, adult incestuous relation to feel complete and be able to function as a full human being, will you also defend him/her?
IMO if a person really wants a gay marriage/family then he should have the intestinal fortitude to make a decision to move to a jurisdiction that allows it, just like the Pilgrims made that decision to move to America to escape the religious iniquity in Europe.
I fully concur with WKS’s broad point that this whole debate has been overly emotional (with some exceptions), divisive and to a large extent stirred up by the press. Quote:
“This applies also to the media. The media plays an important role reporting on the issues, the groups and the personalities involved. They need to do so dispassionately and impartially. MICA had analysed the volume, tone and objectivity of the coverage of the AWARE episode, and found it wanting in some respects. Some of the coverage was excessive and not sufficiently balanced.”
The point about the excessive volume of coverage, repeating the story day after day, creating a soap opera with pictures linking person X to person Y etc is well made. Without the instigation of certain journalists in the mainstream English media, this would be a storm in a teacup, to be sorted out by the protagonists themselves. Instead it became a proxy war between two camps in society. The media enjoys a high degree of influence and has to guard its impartiality carefully.
The hurtful disrespect shown to many of those involved on both sides, spiteful name calling etc (regardless of whether we agree with their views or not) shows that we are not yet mature enough as a society to be debating these sensitive issues. I fully agree that it is time for both sides to agree to disagree, recognise that there are fundamental beliefs involved here and move on.
57) la nausee on May 16th, 2009 2.57 am
I appreciate that it is your view “that homosexual sex in a committed same-sex relationship is on the same moral footing as heterosexual sex in a committed opposite-sex relationship that does not involve marriage” but it is a bridge that leads to nowhere for the former relationship.
If you say that Incest “is therefore morally wrong in a way that homosexual sex is not” then why is it all religions excoriate both as nefarious and in Singapore gay marriage and sodomy are against the law?
How can that be morally right and how can you “still defend a legal/moral right to do what is morally wrong”?
If you are a lawyer and you represent a gay client who has been charged under 377A can you legitimately defend him or even lead him to believe that you can successfully defend him in a court of law?
When you talk about breach of contract which ends in a foreclosure what has that got to do with gay sex morality? Under the law if one breaches a contract, the remedy is damages and both parties go back to where they were as if the contract never existed. That has always been the case since 1066.
In cases like the Jehovah Witness which don’t allow blood transfusion, the law does intervene to save lives and “the individual patient’s autonomy” is overruled.
This is the same reason why it is illegal to take one’s own life and why euthanasia is also not allowed in most countries even with the patient’s consent.
I don’t agree that “even if we think homosexual sex is morally wrong, we may still conclude that an individual has a right to decide (to a certain extent) how to lead his or her intimate life.” If something is morally wrong it cannot be morally right in the next breath. If 377A is in force how can gay sex be legal?
To claim that “The moral wrong of homosexual sex (like the moral wrong of adultery) is not sufficiently serious to trump the individual’s right to privacy against the State.” must be the understatement of the week.
Gay anal-sex is a threat to public health, decency and order. That is why it is not allowed under 377A.
In Singapore, according to MOH statistics, the percentage of gay Aids victims exceeds the percentage of heterosexual Aids victims by 25 times, or 2500%.
IMO, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome for the society at large. Can you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that same sex marriages and gay sex will produce a good outcome for Singapore?
Curious, I suggest you spend your time and obvious intellectual prowess on other more worthy matters besides homosexuality. E.g. you can campaign for adultery to be made a crime in Singapore, for it is a sin. I am sure there are thousands more adulterers than gays, and they cause more hardship and sufferings. What about lesbian sex? Our law doesn’t seem to say that it is a crime.
You keep comparing gay anal sex to “incest, pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality”. (What imagination!) I presume you know that anal sex and oral sex between heterosexual adults have been de-criminalized in Singapore since 2007. I am curious to hear your views on this.
@Curious,
In the first place, the ‘public health’ rationale is merely tacked on to 377A as an afterthought. The true legislative purpose of 377A is to conserve ‘public morality’; it criminalizes “gross indecency between males”, and this includes non-penetrative forms of intimacy where there is a negligible risk of STDs (e.g., intercrural sex, mutual masturbation, intimate forms of fondling/touching).
Secondly, in my view, the public health concerns of homosexual sex are far better addressed not through criminalization, but by de-criminalization, which will allow for safe-sex awareness campaigns to be openly conducted without their being regarded as an abetment to commit a crime. This was the view of Action for AIDS when it opposed 377A in 2007.
But I see that we’re basically rehashing the 377A debate, and dredging up the same familiar arguments. So let’s just desist for now, shall we? ;0)
Btw, you may be interested to know that the law’s position is that a patient is entitled to refuse all medical treatment even if it leads to his or her death, regardless of what reason is given (for example, his religious convictions). The only exception is where the patient is certified to be of unsound mind. So the Jehovah’s Witness is entitled to refuse a blood transfusion, because that’s what the patient’s rights to privacy and autonomy entail: doctors aren’t allowed to invade our bodies without our consent, even if they justifiably believe that the intervention is for our own good.
The same right to privacy arguably insulates citizens from the State in respect of their intimate lives, unless the moral wrong is sufficiently serious to justify the use of coercive force (e.g., pedophilia). So you’re mistaken that the liberal/GLBT camp has the onus of proving that gay sex “will produce a good outcome for Singapore” . It’s the State and the conservatives who must show that gay sex will produce a bad enough outcome such that the State is entitled to override its citizens’ rights by intervening in their private lives through the criminal law. The right to privacy always creates a presumption against criminalization.
Also, as a footnote, under the law, the mere withdrawal of medical treatment is not regarded as euthanasia (assisted suicide). Euthanasia requires the doctor to take a positive act, e.g., injecting potassium chloride into the patient’s vein.
62) Gemini on May 16th, 2009 12.47 pm
You suggested that I should “campaign for adultery to be made a crime in Singapore, for it is a sin.”
Why don’t you also suggest that while I am at it, I should also campaign for gambling (as in casino ,toto, horse racing and 4D) and binge drinking to be made a crime, not forgetting fornication (sex outside marriage) and sinful thoughts? Where will it all end?
Do we stone to death all adulterers as they do in some countries in the Middle East? Do we execute all gays as they did in Nazi Germany?
NO, Singapore is a civilized country and we tolerate the gays to live their own lives and obey the law like everyone else.
In Section 46 of the Women’s Charter, which incidentally was based on Article 159 of the Swiss Civil Code, the moral principle is well codified into four
characteristics of the marital relationship and these are:
1 Upon the solemnization of marriage, the husband and the wife shall be mutually bound to co-operate with each other in safeguarding the interests of the union and in caring and providing for the children.
2 The husband and the wife shall have the right separately to engage in any trade or profession or in social activities.
3 ) The wife shall have the right to use her own surname and name separately.
4 The husband and the wife shall have equal rights in the running of the matrimonial household.
Therefore both spouses have a duty to ensure the well being of the union and if one strays and commits adultery this is a ground for divorce.
In the case of TPY v DZI the wife was adulterous and the husband sued in tort for damages from her paramour. This was not allowed by J. Rubin.
As you can see the “sin” of adultery is well taken care of in the Family Law Court under the Women’s Charter.
Curious, I agreed that you are twisted. What is right in your christian teachings and values cannot be used to frame our law structures in Singapore. Singapore is a multi-religions secular society, the ministers said it, PM said it, the public wants it this way. You comments that since it is homosexual is immoral, it should be illegal.
You view of immorality is different from others. You made sweeping statements involving ALL RELIGIONS that homosexual is wrong…. HAVE YOU CHECK IT OUT. Why is it that only the christians like you are so against it.
You even said that those whose lifestyles is not mainstream …. actually you mean those who live their lives NOT ACCORDING TO YOU STANDARDS should go to another country. WHO ARE YOU TO MAKE SUCH STATEMENT? Are you the owner of SIngapore? Are you the King? Who gives you the right to say this? Actually if you are not happy here because the Law is not framed on the christian law …. You can go live someway else…. we like it this way.
59)Curious
“What if the person has a predilection for consensual, adult incestuous relation to feel complete and be able to function as a full human being, will you also defend him/her?”
Isn’t that a Biblical thingy? Adam and Eve, and then there was Noah and his family, … plus the animals on the Ark…
On a personal note, that is against my own values. But yes, I would defend the right for people to do something I disagree with (that doesn’t harm others). That’s what democracy is about right?
Not sure if it was Voltaire who actually wrote it.. but the quote goes:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
62) Gemini on May 16th, 2009 12.47 pm
Oh, sorry , I forgot to address your other pointed question.
You said “I presume you know that anal sex and oral sex between heterosexual adults have been de-criminalized in Singapore since 2007.”
Why presume when this is common knowledge?
If you wish to hear my views on this you don’t need to go very far. Just looking at the statistics put out by the Ministry of Health is enough for a rational bystander to agree that gay sex is a veritable threat to public health, decency and order.
In case you overlooked the statistics, in Singapore, according to MOH, the percentage of gay Aids victims exceeds the percentage of heterosexual Aids victims by 25 times, or 2500%. What more evidence do you need?
The following link is an attempt to look at AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) as laid out in their Basic Instructor Guide (version 3, released in July 2008) which serves as a framework for the facilitation of their workshops.
A very good write up By Alan Wong.
http://www.vtaide.com/blessing/AWARE-cse.htm
//67) Curious on May 16th, 2009 6.47 pm
If you wish to hear my views on this you don’t need to go very far. Just looking at the statistics put out by the Ministry of Health is enough for a rational bystander to agree that gay sex is a veritable threat to public health, decency and order.
In case you overlooked the statistics, in Singapore, according to MOH, the percentage of gay Aids victims exceeds the percentage of heterosexual Aids victims by 25 times, or 2500%. What more evidence do you need?//
Hey Curious. According to your logic, shouldn’t we just legalise lesbian marriage and criminalise heterosexual anal and oral sex since there is almost no lesbian HIV victims while heterosexual anal and oral sex still carries certain significant threat of HIV infection. Using some simple maths, the percentage of straight Aids victims exceeds the percentage of lesbian Aids victims by infinity times. Moreover, heterosexual anal and oral sex don’t carry the benefit of procreation. I am quite you agree with my argument!
@Curious (#64), as I stated in my post (#63, which you may have missed), even if something is morally wrong, that might not be a sufficient basis for criminal penalties. The onus is always on the State to show that the harm sought to be prevented is a grave and real one, and that criminalization is both a necessary and proportionate response.
Your description of the legal consequences of adultery elegantly proves that point. Adultery constitutes a ground for divorce under civil law. But it does not attract criminal penalties: section 498 of the Penal Code, which dealt with ‘enticing’ a married woman with the intention of having illicit intercourse with her, was repealed in 2007 without much fanfare, even as conservative groups campaigned for the retention of 377A. Why not criminalize adultery? Because that would be an unnecessary and disproportionate response to what is admittedly a serious social and moral problem.
The same applies to 377A. Criminalization of homosexual sex is neither necessary nor proportionate, given that the threat of STDs would most effectively be dealt with through avenues other than the criminal law.
Curious, let me put in prospective you point in all this argument
1…. That it is morally wrong for Homosexuals to be themselves.
2…. That it is illegal for Homosexuals to be themselves.
3…. Homosexual should not have sex, if they do they should have heterosexual sex
but cannot have Homosexual sex.
4…. It is illegal to have homosexual sex between 2 man, so the government should actively execute the 377A can put all gays into jail.
5…. the government should investigate and do spot check on man so that they will not have homosexual sex.
6…. Since lesbian sex is not illegal, it is okay even if it is also an abomination in the bible.
7…. All homosexual should leave Singapore and go someway where it is more tolerable for them.
The above are all that I gathered from your numerous twisted comments….
65) Joel Low on May 16th, 2009 6.29 pm
You can call me anything you like, Joel, but at least I am not a hero-worshipper. I can think for myself.
Your dribble that “What is right in your christian teachings and values cannot be used to frame our law structures in Singapore” shows ignorance because since Singapore is a common law jurisdiction, many areas of law, such as tort, equity, contract law, trust law, property law and administrative law are largely judge-made and most, if not all of these early English judges held Christian values.
And even today there is a tendency to consider decisions from other nations in the Commonwealth such as Australia and Canada, which also have Christian values.
But you are wrong to refer to my alleged Christian teachings. If you care to review my posts you will notice that I never professed to be from the Christian faith.
To say that “Singapore is a “multi-religions secular” society is an oxymoron, which is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms.
To be correct just say Singapore is a secular state but under Article 15 of the constitution “Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it.”
Again you are wrong when you claimed that I said that since “homosexual is immoral, it should be illegal.”
Under Singapore law homosexuality is not illegal. That is why we see so many of the GLBTs turned up at the May 2 EGM to support the old guards and also probably at the pink dot shindig on Saturday at HL park.
For your info, it’s gay sex act that is illegal under 377A of the penal Code.
If you don’t think that all major religions disapprove of homosexuality then name one that distinctly approves it.
Again you are wrong to attribute me as saying “those who live their lives NOT ACCORDING TO YOU STANDARDS should go to another country.”
I said “IMO if a person really wants a gay marriage/family then he should have the intestinal fortitude to make a decision to move to a jurisdiction that allows it.”
That is like saying if your asthma is so unbearable due to high humidity here then why not move to Sedona in Arizona or Kalgoorlie in West Australia where the air is dry and is likely to cure your condition. But no one is forcing you to do anything. It’s only a suggestion. The decision is yours and yours alone.
66) lobo76 on May 16th, 2009 6.30 pm
//On a personal note, that is against my own values. But yes, I would defend the right for people to do something I disagree with (that doesn’t harm others).//
Are you then saying that though it is against your own values you would defend a
person who has a predilection for consensual, adult incestuous relation?
But why are you ready to defend someone who breaks the law?
And no it was not Voltaire who actually wrote “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
It was “invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude. It appeared in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre”. (source : Wikipedia.)
Curious,
I am disappointed that you have missed my points entirely. I suggested that you campaign for adultery to be criminalized because you appear indefatigable in your crusade for the enforcement of morals.
Since we no longer stone adulterers, why then do we criminalize sex between homosexuals? Precisely as you said, if we were to interpret the Bible literally, and punish all the sins described therein, where will it all end? We would probably have to stop teaching science in school, since it teaches that the earth revolves around the sun, and men evolve from the apes. These were once considered heresies by the Church.
My question on anal sex relates to “heterosexuals”, not gays. Your other points have been eloquently addressed by WeiHan, la nausee, Joel Low and others.
The government acknowledges that gay people are a part of society, they contribute, and they are entitled to live their lives. It is therefore inconsistent, and discriminatory, to criminalize sex between homosexuals. To put it bluntly, how would gay people live their lives without sex? Are they to be celibate? The position became even more absurd when the government de-criminalized oral and anal sex between heterosexuals, which were once treated as crimes against the order of nature.
The reason for the existence of section 377A Penal Code is historical. We inherited Section 377A from archaic English colonial law. The same law has been repealed in England itself, and most of the former British colonies. Surely England is even more Christian than Singapore, and the other Asian countries are just as conservative as Singapore if not more. Suppose section 377A was never introduced by the British, we would probably not have it in the Penal Code now.
Please don’t bother to answer. It is futile to reason with you, and I won’t reply to any of your further comments.
69) WeiHan on May 17th, 2009 12.01 am
//”According to your logic, shouldn’t we just legalise lesbian marriage and criminalise heterosexual anal and oral sex since there is almost no lesbian HIV victims while heterosexual anal and oral sex still carries certain significant threat of HIV infection. //
You are absolutely right that the incident of lesbian HIV infection in Singapore is TODAY very low. Who knows what will transpire in the future?
You also said “Using some simple maths, the percentage of straight Aids victims exceeds the percentage of lesbian Aids victims by infinity times.”
According to MOH statistics the percentage of gay male Aids victims exceeded the percentage of female Aids victims by 210 TIMES or 21,000 % in 2007!!
I guess you could call that “infinity”. No objection from me there.
This is another indictment for the reckless, bare-backing, bug-chasing, cruising gay sex, which is probably why it is still illegal under 377A of the Penal Code.
As for lesbians marring in Singapore I am sorry to say that the Women’s Charter gets inconveniently in the way.
Marriage in Singapore is between a male and a female, with many restrictions too. For example a male cannot marry his mother’s daughter, etc. See Schedule One of the Women’s Charter for more.
If you argue that ” heterosexual anal and oral sex don’t carry the benefit of procreation” and therefore the law against hetero anal and oral sex should not have been repealed, I won’t agree with you because heteros do reproduce, although it could be more if we wish to replace ourselves and save Singapore from extinction.
But if you said that the said acts are also a threat to public health then I may agree but the threat is nowhere near the threat posed by gay sex. That is a fact.
Curious … thank you for shooting yourself in the foot.
Answer me, are you denying you are a Christian?…. I just want to know. I am curious.
However you want to play with words and use alarming and untrue figures….. you are anti-gay and you felt Singapore must be based on the Christian law. However, it must go through your personal approval first. You cannot accept people who value things differently from you nor can you accept anyone to have their freedom of choice. If you have the guts to rebuttal everyone who disagree with you and make them look like a fool, HAVE THE GUTS TO ADMIT YOUR STAND. You are a fundamentalist… a dangerous one. STOP DENYING.
75) Curious on May 17th, 2009 2.31 pm
//As for lesbians marring in Singapore I am sorry to say that the Women’s Charter gets inconveniently in the way. //
We are not talking about whether there is a law getting in the way. According to your previous logic, actions that don’t pose threat to public health can be legalised. I was challenging you that why don’t we legalise lesbian marriage then. You can always rewrite the women’s Charter to allow lesbian marriage.
I am asking you not to repeat this circular logic again. We are arguing whether a certain law is justifiable to be retained in the book. So please don’t use this circular logic that because certain law in the book prohobit certain acts, therefore certain act is wrong by its very nature.
//This is another indictment for the reckless, bare-backing, bug-chasing, cruising gay sex, which is probably why it is still illegal under 377A of the Penal Code.//
I agree with La nausée that: “even if something is morally wrong, that might not be a sufficient basis for criminal penalties. The onus is always on the State to show that the harm sought to be prevented is a grave and real one, and that criminalization is both a necessary and proportionate response.” In other words, the said threat pose by gay sex is insufficient ground for the state to intrude into the private life using law to criminalise the act.
I will also argue that even if gay sex really pose a threat on public health, at least the threat is still confined within consensual party. Why do we not criminalise smoking then? It is way more harmful and it always affect unwilling passive victims who will inhale the second hand smoke.
//If you argue that ” heterosexual anal and oral sex don’t carry the benefit of procreation” and therefore the law against hetero anal and oral sex should not have been repealed, I won’t agree with you because heteros do reproduce, although it could be more if we wish to replace ourselves and save Singapore from extinction.//
Are you saying that because heteros reproduce, therefore they are entitled to anal and oral sex? Because heteros reproduce, it doesn’t matter anymore whether the anal and oral sex they are engaging will pose threat to public health? Because heteros reproduce, it doesn’t matter anymore other form of recreational sex will reduce reproduction rate? All of a sudden, it is whether one has reproduced that will dictate whether he is entitled to anal and oral sex legally and not whether the act itself pose any public harm or carries certain merit. How about heteros that cannot reproduce? Are they then illegal to engage in oral and anal sex. How about bisexuals (or even gays) who have reproduced through heterosexual sex , are they then entitled to gay oral and anal sex legally? Your point is bizzare and out of the point that naturally lead me these questions.
dear everyone,
i am very sorry to see that you guys are still entangled with curious, all of you bright, logical and articulate people out there.
if you want intelligent, logical and fulfilling debate, it wont be with this guy, so guys cut it, you can never logic with a siao one. just ignore him and go appreciate other intelligent posts even though those might not be of the same opinions.
63) la nausée on May 16th, 2009 2.53 pm
Correction : “It all boils down to MENS REA which means that “the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty.”
73)Curious
“Are you then saying that though it is against your own values you would defend a
person who has a predilection for consensual, adult incestuous relation?
But why are you ready to defend someone who breaks the law? ”
Yes. Because Laws are not prefect. They have been changed, and are still changing today, which reveals its imperfection.
It is up to each of us (who is supposed to be able to think critically) to reflect upon them, and Act, or to a lesser extend, make some noise (as I am doing ^-^) for its change when it is wrong.
p.s note that if this ever come to pass, I would still object them having children as the risk factor is empirically proven to be too high for the child (who is unable to give consent)
84) Curious
76) Joel Low
Correction :” YES, I am denying I am a Christian. I am NOT a Christian!”
If, whenever anyone claims his/her sexual need is endowed by nature and anyway/anywhere/anyhow they get their needs fulfilled are justified, it could be hell for humanity.
The Chinese has a saying; ‘The first and greatest evil is sexual gratification’.
Curious,
can i recommend some soothing & calming music to go with your scheduled Yoga session?
j/k oni lah… :P
seek peace (not the other poster with that nick) & you will find it. you are not at peace with yourself, therefore not at peace with many other people.
you have to learn to let go, live & let live. live your life as you choose, let others have their choice also mah.
82) patriot on May 18th, 2009 12.23 am
“If, whenever anyone claims his/her sexual need is endowed by nature and anyway/anywhere/anyhow they get their needs fulfilled are justified, it could be hell for humanity.
The Chinese has a saying; ‘The first and greatest evil is sexual gratification’.”
err… patriot, you can pretty much substitute ‘sexual need’ for anything.
e.g
claim that their religion is the ONE, and everyone must follow?
claim that their moralistic value is the ONE, and everyone must follow?
or simply.. ‘materialistic need’ where they anyway/anyhow must have it. Then you can insert the saying that ‘greed/money is the root of all evil’. lol
the point is when you make such extreme statements (with the inclusion of the words “anyway/anywhere/anyhow”, the statement itself became unsupportable liaoz.