The recent spate of arguments for keeping and for repealing Section 377A of Singapore's Penal Code led me to feel very frustrated and annoyed.
Regardless of how the law is interpreted, discriminatory or otherwise, it is one of those that is not enforced as a matter of principle in Singapore, not in recent times anyway.
I'm not into forcing morality into the law, especially when it is impractical to enforce.
Want to talk about maintaining moral standards? Then a spouse should be able to sue the partner for adultery since the state sanctioned their marriage. But since when is an unfaithful spouse ever convicted of adultery alone and sentenced in modern times? Adultery only matters in court for granting of divorce and splitting up of assets and alimony.
Even if the wife don't sue, a married man engaging a prostitute should, by most notions of immorality, be participating in immoral act. But that is not legislated.
Based on my personal belief, I uphold that homosexual acts are wrong.
Like Singapore's Mr. Brown (aka Lee Kin Mun), I don't believe in forcing others through legislation to comply with my belief, or criminalising those who are engaged in the acts as consentual adults capable of making their own decisions.
But unlike Mr. Brown, I'm not about to support the petition to repeal Section 377A, even though like him, I got friends who are gays and lesbians.
Part of it is because I don't believe homosexual acts are okay. It is a matter of interpretation whether supporting its repeal is a stamp of acceptance of these acts, or a disapproval of criminalising them.
It is interesting that I read of a forum letter where the writer wrote from personal experience, that he/she was not able "fully relate" with a friend without "accepting" the friend's homosexuality as 'okay'.
I guess people are just different. At one stage in my life, I guess I was like that too.
But with experience, I think I moved on - I don't find being of a different religion really an obstacle in relating to them. Now it's like, I hate smoking, hate the smell, but I got to work with people who smoke, and I really don't find their smoking (which they don't do in my presence) an obstacle in relating to them, not as human beings, colleagues or friends.
I can understand that the writer might mean he/she was turning a blind eye to the friend's homosexuality, and that is a problem in being friends. It's like feeling he/she is turning a blind eye when a friend is a serial killer, and it can drive a person mad unless the delimna is resolved.
But one can look at it from another POV. Being a homosexual to the friend, is as much a part of the friend as he/she being a Buddhist and me being a Christian.
The "trick" is recognising that every person got a right to decide who he wants to be and what he wants to do, even if you don't agree with it. And also to resist attempting to fix it and recognise you are not the person to do so by default.
Stopping a friend from committing murder is not the same as stopping a friend from smoking or having an informed consentual adult relationship with a "wrong one", be it with another person of the same sex or different gender. I won't do the latter anymore than I'd dissuade a Muslim from going to Mosque.
I have learned to relate to a fellow Christian who believes homosexuality is not wrong, and is a gay. I got no problem with doing that with someone who's supposed to believe in the same thing I do, and I got no problem with doing that with others who aren't Christians and I got no expectation of sharing the same belief to start with.
I read of some opposition to repealling 377A, recounting boyhood experiences being molested by adult males. I feel sorry for them for their awful encounters. I too, got similar experiences. I am thankful the encounters didn't leave me with nightmares.
Once was in Primary school when an old man in trunks went into changing rooms at a public pool to hug boys after our school swimming programme. We didn't know much then, except we want to push him away and get out fast.
Another was in TIMES bookshop at Centrepoint when a guy in his 20s asked me about my private parts. Again, I was too ill-informed to take any action against him except to ignore him. Looking back, of course I wished they had been arrested and punished, but I also know that being homosexual is not the same as being a paedophile. More perverts, I think, are heterosexuals.
The main reason I am not about to support repealling 377A is because the entire legislation of Singapore is, in some way, just a big joke.
There's so many things which I see are wrong, and from my PoV, the apparent anomaly of 377A is really trivial as far as the other aberrations are concerned.
What the heck is the U-turn about forbidding casinos when government decided it needed to attract investments to build the Integrated Resorts to boost Singapore's economy?
Where was the *real* seeking of public opinion, debates and referendum on it?
Or what about the introduction of Group Representative Constituency?
Ministers' payrise 2007? 2% GST increase? Freedom of expression of speech to protest Myanmar's crackdown?
Seriously, many of these things are a joke, a sad joke ...
If there's no Section 377A to begin with, I wouldn't support introducing it.
But if there's only going to be one thing that I'll ever get the government to listen, if I'm going to have to put myself wholly into getting it, it won't be the repeal of Section 377A, a sleeping dormant law, not when there's other laws out there which, IMO, actually need urgent fixing more.