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.
———-
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
wow! Suddenly become flavor of e month again..I totally skipped e entire interview..it’s stating e obvious n u have all e religious leaders praising his insightfulness..ad nauseam!
I think where the govt stand on the issue of homosexuality is quite clear. This is just rhetorics.
Look at their policies. The only family institution that is recognised is a married couple, man and woman. This is what is based on if you want to apply for subsidies such as housing grants, etc.
Look at baby bonus. The bonus can be given if the baby is adopted. But must be man-woman relationship. Have one homosexual couple apply for it, and highly likely will be rejected because the family institution is not there.
The discrimination is everywhere.
Oh No! Looks like to goverment’s stand is not going to go down well with the GLBTs here who thought they had successfully turned the tide against the mainstream…tissues sales will go up as there will be lots of sobbing…:((
now back to the same closet…ah, no no no…I meant back to the corner (like Wong Kan Seng said) and continue your life there :((
A well-thought-through response from the Government.
I like it.
I would like to express how impressed I am about his emphasis on Accountability.
wow, solid leh. steady lah.
the government is basically telling the gay and lesbian community that beggars cannot be choosers. just deal with it.
which is sad, because if you are talking about asian values and conservatism, then this doesnt hold any water because hong kong, china and many other asian countries have already done away with 377A and other similarly antiquated laws.
we still seem to be stuck in a not so pretty stone age.
the government wants singapore to be a cosmopolitan and creatively connected society. to do this, they will need to cut apron strings and realise that cosmopolitan and creative people, many who are gay and lesbian cannot be instantly branded as criminals because of these laws.
just imagine – the upcoming mediapolis that the MDA is building. it’s likely that at least a quarter of the workforce there could be gay and lesbian. what then? do we say that they can contribute to our economy, work here, but sit down and shut up and dont say anything cos we are already giving you the space?
its sad, shameful, pathetic and totally going against the basic rights of humans.
what it does suggest is that the 377a is there for show
I agree with your view, beaware. GLBT have a vocie and it shoudl be heard. DPM’s tagline on more torlerance and restraint suggested that hegemonic powers of the heterosexual world still hold. But GLBT have to begin somewhere and I really hope pinkdot tomorrow can make a difference no matter how great the extent is. Its so timely yet diffcult for GLBT to make a pubklic voice at pink dot now that the Government has taken that faster move to re-address and affirm their stance way before pink dot event. It is as if Government has said its peace, albeit like a cautionary measure for GLBT not to rock the boat too much or face strong backlash from other groups, be they reglious or political.
whatever it is…its a new beginning for SG to sit up, shut up and be tolerant.
what has 377A have anything to do with human rights?
If you ask me i see this as our last line of defence before they try to push for legalisation of gay marriages which would be opening the worst pandora’s box our country has ever seen. Same sex parents adopting or having children. Look at the USA..
I do not think this has anything to do with discrimination but by the simple logic that naturally ordered family nucleus are the backbone of our society. Period.
Yeah sure, China HK dosent have this law as it is not as globalized and western influenced like Singapore.
This DPM says “The way for homosexuals to have space in our society is to ACCEPT THE INFORMAL limits blah blah blah…..”?? What rubbish!!! So he meant that when someone is charged in our criminal courts, the judge and all attending can wear t-shirts and shorts to attend, is it? That is being informal right?
“”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.”"
Cant get much clearer than that. There will be trouble!
//9) iliveinuk@uk.com on May 15th, 2009 11.25 am what has 377A have anything to do with human rights?
If you ask me i see this as our last line of defence before they try to push for legalisation of gay marriages which would be opening the worst pandora’s box our country has ever seen. Same sex parents adopting or having children. Look at the USA..
I do not think this has anything to do with discrimination but by the simple logic that naturally ordered family nucleus are the backbone of our society. Period.
Yeah sure, China HK dosent have this law as it is not as globalized and western influenced like Singapore.//
Keeping 377A is a violation of human right. You cannot label a person criminal just because of his biological trait. Period.
I don’t think it is simple logic. Even if you think it is so, you can always repeal 377A and then enshrine in the law that a heterosexual family unit as the nucleus of the society. Don’t you agree? Calling someone a criminal and asserting a certain family model are two totally different thing.
To be more specific, HK has repealed the law and they are very westernised, if not even more, having staying as a colony of England for a longer period even than Singapore. And why talk about “westernisation”? the origin of this 377A was from Victorian Britain and even they have already repealed this law. If this is not outright discrimination, then what is it?
//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.//
I don’t understand how keeping 377A is “informal limit”. It is a formal limit. If the government really believe what they said “reflect the point of balance that our society can accept”, then they should take away the formal limit and allows thing to evolve naturally. No?
Has Singapore ever charged gay couples for breaking the law on Section 377a? No. So why are you so uptight about an ineffective law that is never meant to be enforced? If virginity can be a mindset, legality of homosexuality can be too; and more real than virginity as I would say.
Why must the GBLT community force the government to repeal this act to just so they can practice healthy sex in peace; while outraging mainstream/religious groups? Why must you force your value and lifestyle to be accepted?
Listen to the government.. be thankful, shut up and be patient.
//not to assert themselves stridently as gay groups do in the West.//
The government is thinking too highly of themselves. If not because civil groups have pushed for changes, slavery may still be legal in united states today;blacks may still not be allowed to marry whites; and that is true for all civil rights progress. Since when throughout history has any governments been champion for human rights, civil rights?
aiyoyo
remember MAS went to m’sia truly asia… from the toilet?
not sure if this elite explain on this issue already?
aiyoyo
I am sick of hearing about Singapore being a conservative society. What does it mean? I can’t see how the repeal of section 377A would be a threat to our conventional family system, or to the fabric of our society which is supposed to respect and tolerate diversity. Does the government actually believe that our society will fall apart and chaos will ensue if section 377A is repealed? Do the majority of Singaporeans really care, or is the government afraid of influential lobbyists like Thio Li Ann and the Christian church?
The gays are not pushing any agenda; they are merely asking for fairness and basic rights. It is the Christian fundamentalists who are persecuting the gays and using them as a means to spread their power.
The duty of a government is to lead and do the right thing, not to bow to so called consensus and the pressure of lobbyists. The government has acknowledged that gays are a part of our society, and are entitled to lead their private lives. It should therefore have the courage of its convictions, and de-criminalize sex between homosexuals. Section 377A is a relic from our English colonial law, which has been repealed in most progressive countries including England itself. Yet we are still living in the colonial days, and now the government has said that we will stay that way for a very long time to come.
“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.”
Am I the only person who finds this line extremely sinister? Is MICA’s “feedback” a euphemism for a reprimand from the Government to the MSM for not being “nation-building” enough?
The AWARE saga has been so exciting largely due to the coverage of the MSM, particularly the Straits Times. (Online media did help too, but the ST was the one who uncovered the story first.) For once, they should be given the credit for highlighting an issue close to so many people’s hearts and galvanising hitherto apathetic citizens on both sides of the issue. The Government has no business telling the MSM what it should or should not report on, or how “objective” it should be.
//14) WeC on May 15th, 2009 12.42 pm Has Singapore ever charged gay couples for breaking the law on Section 377a?//
Yes. Police also use to entrap gays until there are active protests that they stop doing.
I wish that Wong Kan Seng and his PAP government will live up to what they preached in the conduct of their relationship with their political opponents and those who are critical of the PAP government. The need for diversity and tolerance and respect for different viewpoints should cover all aspects of Singapore. Even more so in politics and leaderships.
First, to address the conservative arguments:
@iliveinuk.uk.com (#9),
“If you ask me i see this as our last line of defence before they try to push for legalisation of gay marriages which would be opening the worst pandora’s box our country has ever seen. Same sex parents adopting or having children. Look at the USA..”
Conservatives often try to construct a ‘gay agenda’, as if we’re forced to adopt an all-or-nothing approach towards homosexuality. Why can’t the State legalize MSM (note: lesbian sex is not criminalized) and refuse to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages? The state may justifiably claim that marriage is a public institution for encouraging procreation, and thus, that its benefits should be extended only opposite-sex couples. The state cannot justifiably claim, however, that it has an interest in regulating who one chooses to sleep with in the privacy of one’s bedroom.
@WeC,
377A, like any other penal law, carries with it the weight of society’s moral condemnation. This is all the more so with an explicitly moralistic law like 377A, which targets “gross indecency”. Society is pronouncing its judgment on the wrongness of an act, backed by the steel of law. If that judgment is incorrect or misplaced, then clearly one should feel aggrieved, whether or not that law is actively enforced.
Second, WKS reiterates the government’s preference for “a model of calm deliberation and patient consensus building”. But political discourse in a democratic state does not, and should not, consist of vapid pleasantries exchanged over tea and muffins. Real lives and real issues are involved, genuine interests and rights are being trampled on. We must therefore accept a wide margin in tolerating vigorous, impassioned dissent.
iliveinuk@uk.com :
This is not a matter of legalising gays. The question is, why are they being singled out?
The basis of this whole argument is tolerance in diversity. We talk about tolerance with regards to race and religion. What about tolerance in gender or sexual tendencies?
If homosexuals commit a crime of theft or murder, then he/she should be penalised. But just because he/she is a homosexual, should he/she be penalised also?
Is it fair or unfair?
it’s sad to see so many people condemning the existence of gay people.
gay people, by asking for a repeal of 377A, are not asking for additional legislation for gay marriages. it;s all about equality and balance, non discrimination and not being judgemental. why repeal one part of the law but not another? why claim that you want singapore to embrace change, modernity and welcome creative people from all over the world to set up shop in singapore when you will brand them as criminals when they arrive, formally or informally?
just because you dont enforce a law doenst mean that it;s not a law, and that gay and lesbian people continue to live in singapore under a threat of being one day persecuted by the law, should some one decide to do so.
no one in the gay and lesbian community is asking for special treatment. just equal treatment.
one of the most poignant and compelling plays ever written about the subject of sexuality and religion, equal rights between gays and straights is eleanor wong’s wills and secession. it’s pretty objective and non judgemental in its treatment and writing, and goes deep into the personal and deals with two sisters – one gay and one straight and how they cope with religion and sexuality.
if only the christian fundamentalists, homophobes and anti gay camp get a chance, they should go watch it. it’s a play that should be seen by everyone and continued to be staged for every generation to come.
I hate to say it, but then again, my infamous words are “I told you so.”
Gays, being gays, because they push too hard, have now set themselves back to where they started – just like the S377A case.
Why can’t gays take my advice that they shouldn’t push others against the wall? To get people to respect your rights, you have to respect the rights of others as well.
Dear Solo Bear
No one is pushing any one against the wall. Right now, gays and lesbians technically have no rights in the first place, so what respect is there?
is condemnation of gays and lesbians by the vocal christian fundamentalists, homophobes and bigots a sign of respect in the first place?
no one is asking for respect. just an end to discrimination.
Hello Fellow Secularists,
In the end, we prevailed with Home Affairs Minister WKS. Secularism dictates that every group is allowed to have political, economic and social space in Singapore, including victimised Homosexuals and intolerant Christian Right extremists.
Whether Section 377A stays will depend on how mainstream values change and the fight with the Christian Right only just begun. They will resist the liberal influence on mainstream values and the liberals will respond back. Since the Christian Right is an organised front, then Liberals have to work together in an coordinated effort to undermine the Christian Right agenda.
How can WKS and our government have the audacity the say tell us to be tolerant of others who are different when the government itself discriminates a minority (homosexuals) ? It not right that a government thinks it is perfectly alright for the majority to impose its views/standards/morals on a minority group. If Singapore is to remain inclusive and secular, then it should do away with such discrimination (criminalising homosexual acts) , and teach its citizens to respect people of all walks of life, religion, beliefs, culture and sexuality. Leave the condemnation of homosexuals to those religions that condemn them. Singapore has a long way to go from being inclusive.
So AWARE Old Guard, GLBT,
You won back AWARE. But the GODs have spoken
“Homosexuality is not normal”
GLBT, OG do what you are best at: rant impotently, and bay for the moon. You not like COOS. They have power and balls.
Hi A Tan,
There are as many Gods as there are toilet bowls in Singapore. So please refrain from saying the Gods have spoken. I don’t have a speaking Toilet Bowl, do you?
I agree with beaware.
Let’s not confuse the issue – it is not about homosexuality per se. Let’s also leave religion out of it. The issue at hand is discrimination and prejudice. Pure and simple. One needs only to look at history to see how discrimination and prejudice has caused much pain in society.
Exclusions based on race, ethnicity, skin colour are now all rightfully frowned Why then should there be exclusion based on sexuality ? Is this any different ?
//smallvice585 on May 15th, 2009 3.44 pm Hi A Tan,
There are as many Gods as there are toilet bowls in Singapore. So please refrain from saying the Gods have spoken. I don’t have a speaking Toilet Bowl, do you?//
Be careful smalldevice. Some of the so-called Gods are actually naughty powerful spirits floating around…like the one that has spoken to Thio Li-Ann.
@Solo Bear (#24),
“Why can’t gays take my advice that they shouldn’t push others against the wall? To get people to respect your rights, you have to respect the rights of others as well.”
Except that no competing “right” which the majority has is being disrespected by GLBTs. The rights of the heterosexual majority (to marry, start a family, raise their children, and speak their minds) are not be encroached upon by the mere fact that some homosexuals, like some heterosexuals, are right at this moment having sex in the privacy of their homes.
The opposite is true. The fact that society, through the legal system, stigmatizes an act for certain human beings which for most others is an act of pleasure and/or love is violative of the rights of that minority to pursue their individual conception of the good life. For many people, an ethically successful human life would include physical satisfaction (in moderation) and/or a blissful intimate life shared with another person. To deny these moral goods to some people is literally to deny them a chance of becoming fully human.
When i was a teenager, when i mix wif my group of GLBT frens, there’s always alot of stares n comments by the older generation, at dat time we like each others company, be it a BGR GGR or BBR.. so it doesnt matter wat others c us..
Now i’m married wif a child, i still haf frens who r GLBT, n i still enjoy their company, we r still the best of frens, but as for my life when i look back, to me its jux part n parcel of growing up, discovering identities and sexual orientation, but of cox there r some dat never ‘grew out of it’..
i grew out of it becox i had a chance, the help was from the stares n comments dat i learn dat loving another ger doesnt mean dat she will stay wif me for life, we got no future cox we can’t get married, dat gave me a chance to turn back..
so y not gif the young GLBTs a chance to turn back? we r not discriminating against them, its jux giving our children a chance to choose..
if the same sex can get married, they can adopt child, i wun say they wun haf a complete family, but r the gays gona adopt a boy n the les adopt ger? wat is the child gona b? GLBT? or Q? our concerns r jux the childrens’ future
12) WeiHan on May 15th, 2009 12.27 pm
But the law does not ” label a person criminal just because of his biological trait.”
It is the behavior that is criminal, like the behavior of the folks engaged in incest, pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality. Gay anal-sex is against the law today .Get the nuance right.
people are born into race, ethnicity, skin colour and biological gender, and have no say nor choice in these.
Slaves are forced into bondage against their will.
All the above had no means of changing their lot and society should and must speak up and fight for them.
On the other hand:
Criminals may argue that they commit certain crimes because of circumstances, but the fact remains that they chose to do what they did. However compelling the situation they were in, there is always a choice, albeit it may be an unpleasant or undesirable one.
Drug addicts often blame peer pressure, environmental influence, or underprivileged backgrounds. Rare is the addict who says it is his own choice to do drugs. Did anyone ever put a loaded gun to their heads and force them to partake of the substance? (Unless you are talking about gangland movies :P)
These above are those who choose lifestyles that contravene the values held by society in general, or the offend against laws of the state, and they had a choice (remember, however dire the consequences may be, a choice is a choice) not to do it, but they chose to have their way and were presented with the consequences of their acts.
As the Government had time and again reiterated, Singapore is basically a country that does not approve of same sex relationships, and until now, so called “scientific” discoveries that same-gender sexual orientations are inborn has produced no concrete evidence. Therefor, until such time where science can proof once and for all that homosexuality is biological rather than a lifestyle choice, homosexuality is unlikely to be accepted openly even if it is somehow legalised under the law, since unlike other oppressed groups, GLBT are perceived as having chosen their sexuality, and that choice happens to be against the general views.
As for why laws against homosexual intercourse criminalises gays and not lesbians, I guess it could be because it was founded upon the basis of sodomy (IIRC, somthing to do with some African law). Female genitals do not penetrate and thus do not violate the other party. The male is typically seen as the active party in an intercourse while the female, passive. So a gay can violate another gay, but a lesbian cannot violate another lesbian (except with the help of sex toys, but that is another matter entirely.)
//34) Curious on May 15th, 2009 4.55 pm 12) WeiHan on May 15th, 2009 12.27 pm
But the law does not ” label a person criminal just because of his biological trait.”
It is the behavior that is criminal, like the behavior of the folks engaged in incest, pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality. Gay anal-sex is against the law today .Get the nuance right.//
I have also said that the biological trait predisposed the gender of the person he or she will find loving, intimate relationship from, of which sex is one form of expression of intimacy. You can’t penalised the act which closely tied to the biological trait of the person and then still deny that it is not discriminating. BTW, you seem to think that gays only involved in anal sex but this is too simplified because there are many other forms of sexual intimacy such as mutual masturbation, oral sex etc…Moreover lesbian sex isn’t against the law.
#18) Bernard on May 15th, 2009 1.09 pm
“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.”
Yes Bernard, the above statements also made me feel that the government is continuing to dictate what it wants to be reported.
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.
@ 33 m
Sexuality is a continuum – one may be heterosexual with homosexual inclinations or vice versa. Hence some people seem to be able to “decide” which orientation they prefer, often as a result of cultural or religious prerogatives. But here are those who are exclusively straight or exclusively gay. These people are fixed in their orietation and no amount or wishing or “reparative therapy”( to convert gay to straight ) will change it. In fact , reparative therapy can cause the patient to internalise the homophobia and cause self hate, resulting in suicidal behaviour.Reparative therapy simply suppresses the urge – it cant change the sexual orientation of a person.
Christian fundamentalist love to assert being gay is a lifestyle choice so that they can carry out reparative therapy as well as condemn the individual.But it is not a choice–
” Royal College: “there is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed’
Posted on April 27, 2009
Filed Under Uncategorized
The Royal College of Psychiatrists shares the concern of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association that positions espoused by bodies like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality ( NARTH ) in the United States are not supported by science. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Furthermore so-called treatments of homosexuality as recommended by NARTH create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists holds the view that lesbian, gay and bisexual people should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to health care, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership, the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practice a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation
and m , note that in the above quote from the Royal College of Psychiatrists ( UK) – they say that gay people should have ” equal access ” to “rights and responsiblities involved in procreating and bringing up children” This implies that they are of the opinion that gay parents bring up normal children.
24) Solo Bear on May 15th, 2009 3.05 pm
When did the gays pushed?
They were living their personal life when J and her team brought it up and the ignorant group of people make a fuss and expect the government to do something about it. Did not people asked the government to actively execute 377A?
DPM Wong was talking about the pressure from the anti-gay group of people. Please read his statement carefully. The gay communities did not stood up to ask the government to change anything, even if they are present at the EOGM of AWARE. Were they the one started the whole fuss about homosexuality? NO… it was J and her team.
Please be fair and reasonable. I am a christian too but not a gay. I am neither anti-homosexual or pro-homosexual but I believe in giving everyone freedom to choose. One thing I hate is when the majority suppresses the minority.
From the whole saga, I have not heard any homosexual coming out to ask people to BECOME GAY or LESBIAN…… NOBODY from this communities stood up to recruit supports…. IT IS the majority of us who claimed to be normal stood up and criticised them calling them sinful and abominations…. SHAME OF US….
We still have to cheek after all this to say there started the fight!!! HOW UNFAIR can it be. DID they pressure the government to do anything…. NO!! Did AWARE pressurize the government to do anything…NO!!
So who did? DO not twist the truth.
I always thought those lowly educated Ah Beng or Ah Huay are trouble makers but Dr Thio and Josie & Gangs prove me wrong. Singapore Education help people to think wisely and emotionally but it will come to naught if religion try to wash them away. Fortunately, I am able to take a balance dose of the two without causing hurt to my and others well beings.
34) Curious on May 15th, 2009 4.55 pm
“Gay anal-sex is against the law today .Get the nuance right.”
So is anal-sex between consenting heterosexual couples against the law. now do you see the nuance.
so whether it is termed ok or not depends on the law. well, selling chewing gum here is against the law but selling cigarettes is not. threatening an mp will get you into more trouble than perhaps hitting someone not so well known with physical contact.
in the past casino was a no go with tonnes of reasons – now it is sold as integrated resort.
Repealling Section 377 ( please google for its details ) but retains the archaic remnant of British colonial days Section 377A seems farcical and pandering to the majority and ever wonder why nobody debates the repealling of Section 377 but the retention of the : section 377A instead.
What have our infamous yet beloved and by now affectionately known Gay Trinity of Mother , Daughter and Doctor has to say about this repealing of Section 377 to entrench their holier than thou images to reflect their abhorence of gayism : their pet topics.
Talking about focus on family when in fact GLBT are all undeniably integral parts of any family units – the coherence of all these rhetorics have all gone with the wind.
Hi Curious,
Problem here is that the biological trait is the behaviour. Section 377a criminalises the biological trait.
Didn’t you all see that..certain dictator murderer from Burma came to Singapore for illness treatment and was treated like VIP. How do you expect this kind of government to treat its own gay citizens?
@m,
I wouldn’t presume to understand your situation fully… but literature indicates that reparative therapy might work best on those who are of bisexual orientation to begin with, simply because it conditions those subjects to suppress their same-sex impulses, and to respond only to the opposite sex. For those who have predominantly homosexual inclinations, reparative therapy is unlikely to work, except perhaps to encourage sexual abstinence by burdening subjects with feelings of guilt/shame.
“so y not gif the young GLBTs a chance to turn back? we r not discriminating against them, its jux giving our children a chance to choose..”
The other alternative, of course, is to remove the stigma associated with GLBTs. Then there is no need for young GLBTs to ‘turn back’ if to do so would make them unjustly suffer too much emotional/psychological costs. We need not recognize same-sex marriages, but we can stop looking askance at GLBTs and hurling vitriol at one aspect of their personality.
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “a chance to choose”. It’s clearly not within the scope of a CSE to attempt to re-condition ‘pre-homosexual’ children and teenagers. Reparative therapy offered by COOS and other private institutions is available for that, if the child’s parents consent.
But if by “a chance to choose” you mean incentivizing bisexual children to choose heterosexuality, then I do not see how making homosexual sex shameful or illegal is required. The incentives for choosing heterosexuality could be (1) marriage; and (2) raising children, which are issues distinct from the issue of homosexual sex.
“if the same sex can get married, they can adopt child… our concerns r jux the childrens’ future”
As indicated above, we can view the 3 issues separately: “sex”, “marriage” and “adoption”. One issue is about whether the State is entitled to poke its nose into the intimate lives of its citizens, where sex is between consenting adults. A second issue is whether the State may create an institution to encourage opposite-sex couples (and opposite-sex couples only) to procreate and to raise their (biological) children through a stable, cooperative partnership of equal efforts. The third issue is whether allowing a same-sex couple to adopt would be in the long-term developmental interests of that child.
The issues need not come as a package deal. My view at present is that homosexual sex should be permitted, but that gays and lesbians should not be entitled to marry or adopt.
At the same time, we would also have to re-conceptualize the institution of marriage: marriage should be based not just on sappy ideas of consecrated ‘love’ (as it is currently), but also on a formal promise to channel that love into starting a family and raising children. Couples who don’t intend to start a family shouldn’t be allowed to marry. This is simply the ‘pro-family’ stance carried to its logical conclusion.
#30) Leonard
If the issue at hand is “discrimination and prejudice.” why are you not defending those with a predilection for consensual adult incest too as it hurts no one.
#22) poeticmi
The gay anal-sex practitioners are not being singled out. Incest, pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality are also not allowed in Singapore under the Penal Code.
#32) la nausée on May 15th
If denying ” these moral goods to some people is literally to deny them a chance of becoming fully human” then are you advocating that society also turns a blind eye to consenting, adult incestuous relationships?
IMO , a “human wrong” cannot be changed into a “human right” just as a moral wrong cannot be turned into a “moral good” no matter how you care to slice it.
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?
Hi everyone,
i thank you all for engaging my conservative views.
To be honest i do not know the implications of repealing the 377A. Im sure if a whole set of studies were drawn up to show why 377A can be a positive step, the government might consider. Look at how the Casinos got accepted. I have no qualms about having friends that are LGBT, in fact i think they are very nice people.
Perhaps 377A acts as a “moral yardstick” towards where the government stands on this whole homosexuality issue.
I really Applaud WKS view in this case!
Live and let live!
Christians as well as GLBT got the Right to Live! That is basic Human Right!
Religions, Political, Business and Race should not mix.
Just like FT Indian Boss shouldn’t employed people of his own nationalities.
A Taiwanese Company shouldn’t employed all Chinese.
Not sure what to make of this response. I mean, it’s good that WKS actually said some of the right things – ie we are conservative but homosexuals are entitled to their PRIVATE LIVES – but as such, the government insist on keeping 377A – the ability to interfere in the private lives.
Would be nice if action accompanied words – though I guess we should just be happy that words were spoken – even if its by the Minister who insisted MAS selamat was in Singapore for the better part of the year.
//35) Blackwhiteorgrey? on May 15th, 2009 5.23 pm people are born into race, ethnicity, skin colour and biological gender, and have no say nor choice in these.
Slaves are forced into bondage against their will.
All the above had no means of changing their lot and society should and must speak up and fight for them.
On the other hand:
……….
These above are those who choose lifestyles that contravene the values held by society in general, or the offend against laws of the state, and they had a choice (remember, however dire the consequences may be, a choice is a choice) not to do it, but they chose to have their way and were presented with the consequences of their acts.//
Alright! Since the government always wanted people to get married younger and start to reproduce. How about the government just past a law which will pair up every young male and female of around the same age randomly, regardless of whether they fall in love with each other, and then demand them to get married and have sex and start to reproduce. Is there anything wrong with this? why care whether two person are really in love. Afterall they are of opposite sex and it is legal.
I hope people should understand, it is totally disgusting if you forced to have sex with someone that will totally puke you. Now, for some gays, having sex with a person of the opposite sex is something that will make him/her puke.