The Irrational Section 377A.

I hardly write about socio-political issues in Singapore unless they affects my family and me directly e.g. the recent CPF changes and the ever rising cost of living. But the recent buzz and heat generated about Section 377A both intrigued and compelled me to write this post.

While i have already made up my mind, once i had digested the nature of this piece of legislation, about where i stand on whether to repeal or keep Section 377A, there was also a need for me to look at the arguments and reasons of both camps in order to gauge whether the position i adopted was sound.

It has always strike me as odd that while there were many repeal-377A blogs, like Yawning Bread, Molly Meek, Mr. Wang Says So and Dunkin Dohnut to name a prominent few, there has been an almost total silence and absence of keep-377A and anti-gay blogs, until recently that is. “Great, let’s take a look at what they have to say,” i was telling myself.

Having gone through the many arguments and reasoning that the repeal camps have brought to the table, i have to say that the reasons suggested by the keep-377A camps was terribly disappointing. An example would be this : “Why It Is Not Discriminating To Criminalize Gay Sex”. What made my disappointment even greater was that the same thrust of argument was used in the recent parliamentary debates.

To me, whether to keep or repeal Section 377A is primarily a legal issue, a point of law and combined with its ambiguous and discriminating nature, its relevance and place in our Penal Code. It is not about religion and moral values as espoused by the keep-377A camps. Using religion as the main thrust of their arguments is not only totally irrelevant but is actually doing a great disservice to Christianity.

Besides being disappointed, i was also extremely upset with the religious biases detected in all the arguments of the keep377A camps and especially NMP Thio Li-Ann’s speech in Parliament. I was appalled by the amount of religious rhetoric and the depth of her hatred for gays, in her speech in Parliament. Why? Because it threatened a sacred belief of mine – the separation of religion and state, especially in a secular state like Singapore.

When one of the founding fathers of our nation, S. Rajaratnam, wrote the pledge of the nation, with these words of commitment “…regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality”, he believed, and so do i, that becoming a Singaporean was a conviction that transcended all divisions by respecting differences among the many diverse peoples here on this little dot we called home. Idealistic? Maybe, but i like to believe that it is a goal worthwhile pursuing.

Regardless of whether homosexuality have a genetic basis or is a result of environmental influence, we just simply have no right to discriminate against homosexuals and the way they choose to live their lives. We certainly have no right to criminalize what essentially is private consensual sex between consenting adults. Isn’t “not to judge” our fellow human beings a basic tenet of Christianity?

While laws cannot be made or repealed in total isolation without considering their relevance and impact on society, the very discriminating, ambiguous and archaic nature of Section 377A would merit their removal from our Penal Code. The very fact that Section 377, which governs anal and oral sex between heterosexuals is being removed, would make retaining 377A, unfair, inconsistent and irrational. Laws must be clear, concise and effectively enforced. To quote MP Hri Kumar : “The Penal Code is an important piece of legislation. And in the long run, making some conduct criminal under our Penal Code whilst stating that the law will not be enforced simply invites attacks on the integrity of the Code.“

With the government’s stated position that it will not actively enforced 377A, then what exactly is the purpose of retaining this piece of legislation? It’s very existence implied that adult males engaging in consensual sex in private is criminal. The law, to a layman like me, cannot be selective in whom or what it chooses to criminalize. It either is or is not, an offence.

While the many fallacies in the views of the keep377A camps have more than been sufficiently rebutted by the repeal blogs, what especially irks me is actually their stand that their views are the views of the majority and keeping 377A is a reflection of the sentiments of the majority of our society. Well, it is not.

Section 377A is a piece of archaic legislation left over from the British when we were still under colonial rule and it most definitely is not Asian in nature and hence, does not represent the views of our society at large. How can something enacted in our Penal Code in 1871 still have relevance in today’s society? Furthermore, the majority of Singaporeans are heartlanders and heartlanders are Buddhists and Taoists, not fundamental Christians. Besides, if history has taught me anything, it is that the majority is not always right vis-a-vis apartheid and slavery.

The often-used slippery slope arguments of erosion of family values, corruption of children mindsets and endorsement of homosexual lifestyles if Section 377A is repeal, cut no ice with me either. I honestly cannot see the logic of these arguments. If 377A was repealed, an act of decriminalizing consensual sex between adult males, would this affect our society so much that it will lead to a breakdown of the family unit? Would it lead to a corruption of our young? Would it lead to mainstreaming and interpreted as an endorsement of homosexual values by the government? None of what i had written in the past three sentences made sense simply because you cannot force homosexuality onto anyone. As for the young, the thought of the abomination of homosexuality is not inherent in their make-up but planted in their minds as part of their upbringing by parents, and is not a part of what they actually are, a human being.

Four doors away from me live a homosexual couple, surrounded with Malay, Indian and Chinese families and while there are occasional snickers at their peculiarity, we live and let live. We do not espoused holier-than-thou sediments nor do we condemn them for what they are. We just accept them for what they are. My neighbours’ children and mine greet them as “uncle” and so far, no questions were ever raised by my children about them, unless i started preaching. My daughter and son aced their exams because of the tuition they have received from one of them at ridiculous low fees. They are invited regularly to our festive occasions and as part of neighbourliness, to the occasional birthday gatherings and weekend dinners. In the six years that i have live here, i had never come a across a single derogatory or holier-than-thou comment condemning their lifestyles. Does these social behaviours described an erosion of family values or does it espoused acceptance of all human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation or religion? And all these taking place right in the heartlands, an HDB estate. It requires a great leap in logic to accept that homosexuals, doing their stuff in the privacy of their bedrooms, are an abomination and undermining our nation.

Homosexuality is not a disease, it is not something you can get by being near someone who is gay. It has also bothered me that nary a whimper was raised when Section 377 was repealed but when 377A is concerned, we suddenly have all these holier-than-thou arguments being bandied around. Perhaps their religious teachings have so blinded them that they have forgotten that homosexuals are also human beings but with a different sexual orientation.While one might frown on homosexuality, there is a big difference between frowning on an activity and criminalizing it. Though i felt that the arguments by the keep377A camps are wrong, i am also glad that not all Christians think this way, aptly addressed by this gentleman’s e-mail about how, as a Christian, he does not agree with the position taken by some of his fellow brethren.

Like all politicians in the world, our government has adopted a pragmatic approach of “wait and see” and “live and let’s live”, not wrong, but certainly not the position that i had expected. A simple piece of redundant legislation requires an equally simple act of removal. Undue worries about upsetting the so-called conservatives and traditional values would just lead to questions about our government leadership, decisiveness and it’s ability to be relevant in today’s fast evolving world.

Related articles :

-Turn our backs on prejudice, discrimination, intolerance and hatred by NMP Siew Kum Hong.

- Section 377A is inconsistent by MP Hri Kumar.

-377A – To prevent what harm? by Michael Hor

-The loonies are marching by Yawning Bread.

-Hiding behind rhetoric – A rebuttal of Thio Li-Ann by pleinelune

~ by 2chances on October 24, 2007.