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.
Read the Straits Times this morning about the government's decision.
ReplyDeleteYet another craven cowardly reaction to pass the buck.
I don't know about others, but to me, the Law should be based on principles, and principles don't change.
Certain Laws will have to change with times, when technology made existing laws ineffective and new laws are required. But the principles don't change.
Section 377A is not one of those laws that is based on prevailing technological level or social/economic developments but based on principles.
If the principle is wrong to begin with, then the Law is never right.
What kind of Laws do I want in the Legislation?
For starters, Laws which address the core of the issue, and which will not be outdated regardless of the era, be it 100 years ago or 100 years in the future.
No, I don't believe in going with whatever the majority is feeling.
Is is anachronism for Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter Series to advocate liberation of house-elves? Is she imposing her Muggle-world based experiences and values to the Wizarding world?
Convictions aren't really convictions but conveniences if one changes them according to their surroundings.
Frankly, I'm sick of the way Parliament handles our penal code. The judicial and legal fraternity cannot be faulted for upholding and executing the penal code, but it is Parliament I simply cannot stomach. Come on, quit the double-facedness and say it like it is. LHL doesn't want to repeal the 377A, yet wants to court the pink dollar. My advice to the holders of those pink dollars? Get the heck out of Singapore and some other country that won't be so double-faced. They want your $$$, but they don't want you around.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I just have to ask if I am that person.
ReplyDeleteSnowy, what's yr degree of acceptance for gays, lesbian and homosexual issue?
ReplyDelete1. Is it a mentally disturbed issue ?
2. Is it an immoral issue ?
3. Can u accept them to be your friend ?
4. Do u feel uncomfortable to have a gay or homosexual as yr friend ?
5. It's naturally to be angry when they invaded u but will u forgive them ?
Saw movie--Wildes ( Oscar Wilde ) two days ago, he defend himself in court abt the gay issues , it was an natural reaction to him but then of course the society back then cannot accept and called it an immoral act.
Gay, lesbian and homosexual are still are stigma in Asian societies, many people react strongly against them.
It's understandable why the father ( Wilde's movie ) wanted to sue Oscar for having a relationship with his son. But then the father did not understand his son, ( a gay ) needs. He find a lack of love in the family , he is not happy , he needs someone who can understand him deeply.
You may not accept gay's relationship but then very often they need someone who can understand them both physically and mentally. Not all women will fully understand the men, and men find them nagging all the time. Besides nagging, she failed to understand what the men actual needs and wants. So can we blame the women ?
Same goes for the lesbian issue-- can we blame the men who being insensitive?
Oscar Wilde is a homosexual, he loves both his wife and children but then he still lack of something , perhaps marriage is just a duty as a man to fulfull the society and parents wish. Perhaps it was never his own wish to get marry. He finally found his love, a man he truly love to fill up that empty holes in his heart. So can we say he is wrong ? Can we say he is a dirt, a devil or should be rejected by society forever?
I heard on the radio, there are some men who turned to gay even after marriage . So is it his wife's fault?
I'm not defending them but I feel that due to the unacceptance of the majority, many dare not speak how they really feel .
ReplyDeleteIt's both a biological and mental issue.
1. Not necessarily.
ReplyDelete2. Not necessarily either - in view that there is no common standard of morality among people.
3. I have friends who are homosexuals - both males and females.
4. Not unless they have ulterior motives.
5. Don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean will I forgive a homosexual guy who makes a move on me?
I don't think the homosexuality is the issue whether I forgive the person.
Male or female, persistence in making an unwanted sexual move towards me earns the person a trip to see the stars.
I don't think it's right to say he's a dirt or a devil or that society should reject him.
ReplyDeleteOn men who "turned gay" after marriage, there's definitely underlying issues not faced, not resolved and not taken responsibility for.
When a man marries a woman, IMO, he is claiming responsibility for her and her life. No matter how difficult it is, he cannot shirk the responsibility towards his wife and to the marriage, to be with another woman, or with a man.
As much as some women are difficult marriage partners, nobody should ever have the illusion that marriage is meant to be easy to begin with. What should also be recognised is that in the midst of marriage reality, non-marital relationships can seem quite attractive, but that's NOT what the whole marriage business is about.
It is not for nothing that traditional marriage vows include the clauses "for better or worse, in sickness and in health, for poorer or richer" etc.
Fact is, on what basis does a guy, who breaks his vow to his first partner, expect himself and expect others to believe he can keep it to the second partner (if he does make it)? (We're speaking of course on him cheating while his first vows are still in effect).
Having said these, I do recognise that it should not be used as a blanket judgment of everyone, but if anyone is to ask me to evaluate ANY case, these are the questions I would expect answers for.
Actually, this statement is rather ironic in the light that historically, except for Islamic societies, most Asian societies did not traditionally persecute homosexuals.
ReplyDeleteTraditional societies in China only expected the man to fulfill his filial duties by bearing heirs to carry on the family linage, but otherwise allow him personal indulgences as long as he satisfied his other obligations.
Yes.
ReplyDeleteThere's no rule about who should we love or who we should not love.
So, basically how do they feel about our society ?
ReplyDeleteI don't know abt other races but there are still many Chinese who still cannot accept the fact they have a gay, lesbian or homosexual child . The parents felt shameful and blame on themselves what have they done wrong in the past to let their child suffer.
The child can ignore others that looked down on him or her but the most important thing for them is their parents' love , understanding and acceptance as who they are.
Do you think our society have not given them enough space to breath ?
Among the Chinese, unless they subsribe to some extreme religious views, there is traditionally little homophobia.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem is still related to the conventional expectation of a son marrying to provide heirs, something which I suspect modern homosexual men are not as willing as in the past to "play along".
Apart from the fact that I can't think of many modern women today willing to put up with husbands having affairs (with either men or women), cost of living and all make it very difficult for a man to fulfill traditional filial roles and maintain a family, and still enjoy private indulgences.
Modern men generally see no point marrying for the sake of being married and start a family with women they do not love.
So if you were to ask me about Chinese who cannot accept a homosexual son, there're only 2 issues I can think of - religion, or continuing the family linage.
The kind of homophobia in other cultures that led to "gay-bashing" is not really part of China's history.
As Ian McKellen pointed out during his last visit to Singapore, Singapore's anti-gay laws were legacy from British days. It does add to homophobic culture, but among the Chinese, at its roots, it is not about being gay per se but family traditions.
heirs ? Well, there are also many women who are not willing to give birth, so it makes no different either. Unless one of the partner insists on having a child.
ReplyDeleteI think it's not about the child-issue, whether the parents and society can accept who they actually are.
And I'm sure these women faced no less pressure from traditional in-laws when the issue of marriage crops up.
ReplyDeleteCharlotte, do you actually know of any parents who are dead set against their sons being homosexual for reasons other than religion or posterity?
Sometimes, impression of what a society accepts is not really founded on facts but skewed due to vocal minorities.
So far no.
ReplyDelete