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 [...]]]>

Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/specialreport/view/1525/1/.html, retrieved 14 May 2009

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.

There is no place for religious fervour in civil society. As Cherian George rightly put it in [...]]]>

As a man I should stay out of women’s affairs but as a concerned Singaporean, I cannot help but do my fair share by hailing the victory of Aware’s old guard over the usurpers last weekend at Suntec City.

There is no place for religious fervour in civil society. As Cherian George rightly put it in his article[1] today in The Straits Times, “God’s word cannot be the final word on how collective decisions are made in the public sphere’. One person’s God may not be another’s. Let us not impose on others one’s religious views. Civil groups work on uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values, and not on imposed directives from a group with a religious slant.

As a 50-something Singaporean and one who had been brought up in the shadow of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s administration, I had all along thought that Singaporeans were like me — reticent and unwilling to take up the public cause — preferring instead to let the brave ones lead the charge and risk being rebuked by the establishment in the event they stray past the boundary markers. So, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the younger generation — i.e. those younger than me — have not inherited my generation’s inertia but instead have risen to the occasion to protect their civic space from being overrun by people bent on promoting their voice as the only right voice of women.

Thankfully, the saga did not reach an impasse which would have necessitated the Government’s intervention to preserve the peace though I suspect some behind-the-scenes action might have taken place resulting in the various religious bodies here coming out with messages extolling tolerance and restraint by the different religious groups.

On the subject of sexual education programmes in our schools, I understand the toppled Aware committee’s concerns on the risk of homosexuality being preached to our students as a norm but I would like to point out that today’s students are totally unlike those of their generation. Today’s students have the Internet to turn to to find out all they need about sex. Parents cannot effectively exercise control over their access to such information on the Internet. They can trottle access at home but there are so many places outside the home where their children can access the Internet. What instead is needed is to put safe information on sex and sexuality in the hands of our children and teach them how to protect themselves against unwarranted intrusion into their private spaces thereby keeping them safe from peer influences. What certainly is not needed is simply preaching them that certain sexual practices are wrong because God has said it is wrong, for the young ones are impressionable and unstoppable when they have decided to do things they want to do and no amount of preaching can help. We were young once, remember?

So a comprehensive sexuality education programme that brings sexuality into the open and teaches students sensitive topics such as homosexuality in a neutral way will counter whatever inaccurate information that our youngsters might browse through in their Internet forages for information on sex and sexuality that they seek in their tumultous adolescent years.

[1] The Straits Times Page A21, 5 May 2009 ‘Pertinent lessons from a fisaco’

“Homosexuals work in [...]]]>

The dust seems to have settled on the Section 377A debate — at least, in Parliament anyway. Despite a citizens’ petition to repeal Section 377A, The Penal Code (Amendment) Bill has been passed; Section 377A stays. But, the Prime Minister has also pointed the Government’s stand on homosexuality in Singapore with the following comments:[1]

“Homosexuals work in all sectors, all over the economy; in the public sector as well, and in the civil service as well. They are free to lead their lives, free to pursue their social activities.

“But there are restraints and we do not approve of them actively promoting their lifestyle to others or setting the tone for mainstream society.

“They live their lives, that’s their personal life, it’s their space. But the tone of the overall society, I think it remains conventional, it remains straight and we want it to remain so…

“De facto, gays have a lot of space in Singapore. Gay groups hold public discussions, they publish websites, I’ve visited some of them. There are films, plays on gay themes… There are gay bars and clubs… Everybody knows where they are. They don’t have to go underground. We don’t harass gays. The Government does not act as moral policeman. And we don’t proactively enforce Section 377A on them…

“It’s a difficult subject. Not everybody supports the Government, but we decide what is right, we move.”

Elsewhere, in the newspapers and online, both pro- and anti- gay individuals and groups have had their say on the subject. The chairman of National Family Council said in the forum page of The Straits Times [2] that “the majority of Singaporeans would be concerned about exposing their children to alternative family values that they themselves do not espouse”.

A Straits Times reader wrote that “Husband and wife in a family setting is the foundation of our society. Destroy that unit and we destroy our society. To push their cause will further allienate gays from society.”[3]

Another, who took issue with NMP Professor Thio’s comments in Parliament, said that “It was entirely unnecessary to highlight bedroom practices and refer to anal sex between men as ‘shoving a straw up someone’s nose to drink’.”[4]

It seems there can be no end to the debate. But, move on we must. We have to get on with daily living and not let such things distract us from living our lives to the fullest every single day. It’s great to be able to wake up to a bright new day. Some of us might not get to see tomorrow. But, for the rest of us, homosexuals and non-homosexuals, moving on with our personal lives is important. So is not stirring the dust on the ground on which we stand. We all share the same ground. Let us not try to affect each other with our emotions. Live and let live, I say.

Sources:

[1] The Straits Times 24 Oct 2007 (H5) “Why we should leave Section 377A alone: PM”

[2] The Straits Times 20 Oct 2007 (H16) “Not the right time to review Section 377A”

[3] The Straits Times 25 Oct 2007 (H14) “Govt did the right thing in keeping gay-sex law”

[4] The Straits Times 25 Oct 2007 (H14) “NMP Thio’s comments were inappropriate”

Otto said that “Recent events have made me decide to write this open letter. In April this year, Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew – one of the school’s [...]]]>

On 8 Sep 2007, in an entry entitled “AN OPEN LETTER FROM OTTO FONG” on his blog, an RI teacher went into the open about being gay.

Otto said that “Recent events have made me decide to write this open letter. In April this year, Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew – one of the school’s greatest alumni – called homosexuality a ‘genetic variation’, questioning the validity of criminalising gay sex. In July, MP Baey Yam Keng expressed support for the repeal of Section 377A of the penal code (which criminalises gay sex acts). In August, Malaysian columnist and ordained pastor Oyoung Wenfeng released his inspiring new Mandarin book ‘Tong Gen Sheng’, encouraging gay men and women to come out of the closet.”

He also said, “I am not going back in the closet. When you ask me who I am, I will answer: I am a son, a brother, a long-time companion, an uncle, a teacher, a classmate, a colleague, a part of your community, a HDB dweller, a Singaporean. And I am also gay.”

Otto has since removed the article from his blog but a copy of this article is available online at The Online Citizen.

In a dialogue session with 400 Young PAP activists on 21 Apr 2007, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had said in reply to a question on homosexuality, “If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual — because that’s the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes — you can’t help it. So why should we criminalise it?”

Then, in an interview with local paper Berita Harian, published on 2 Jul 2007, MM Lee was also reported as saying, “We must take cognisance of the contemporary world that has become more accommodating…Homosexuals are mostly born that way, and no public purpose is served by interfering in their lives.”

Here in Singapore, the Establishment has pointed the way ahead. The Civil Service is hearing and so are our sons and daughters who are caught in this bind.

But the move ahead will be slow and, perhaps, torturous. After all, Singapore is a conservative society situated in an even more conservative region.

Some of our sons and daughters are opening up. But will they give up in despair and leave their native land if they find the going tough thereafter?

Only time will tell. But we are all moving in the right direction — the Establishment recognising there is a place in sunny Singapore for everyone, and our sons and daughters doing their part to ensure Singapore stays ahead of the competition.

Perhaps, in time too, other Singaporeans living overseas will see that there is room in Singapore for all our sons and daughters and then decide to come home for good.