Tag: Repeal

Random Discourse – Section 377A Revisited

Pastor Lawrence Khong of the Faith Community Baptist Church made a direct appeal to the ex-Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong against the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code. Any Christian who read the Scriptures in its context will understand why the Pastor did so, because it is upholding of God’s moral laws. For a Christian to support the repeal of Section 377A would mean more than just tolerance, it would mean the affirmation and endorsement of homosexuality. From events that has transpired in the United States, Christians are also clear that homosexual activism will not end with the repeal of Section 377A. I will not speculate on where homosexual activists will be taking it in Singapore, because there will always be that person who calls it a red herring, and then accused me of the slippery slope fallacy.

Because of this, Christians often end up being accused of imposing our morality upon others, and even worse labeled as intolerant and bigoted. But we Christians are not alone in our objection of homosexuality. Some might not realised that there is also a harsh punishment for homosexuals under the Shariah Law, but I will not go into the details of what the punishment is, lest I be accused of instigating hate. Furthermore, this is not a blog post to defend or justify the Christian position. I am also not attempting to point out that Christians are right because we are not alone. Numbers doesn’t mean right. The intention of this blog post is for non-Christians who are neutral in the matter to take a better look at Section 377A and consider the matter objectively, and also to examine those notions in favor of homosexuality. Let me present my case on for non-Christians to consider why Section 377A should not be repealed.


Sections 375 ~ 377D in the Penal Code

For starters, what is Section 377A? It is a section in the Penal Code which criminalises sex between men. Anyone can look it up in the statutes, and see that it is lumped together under ‘Sexual Offences’ in the Penal Code. It starts at Section 375, and ends at 377D. Apart from Section 377A, the other sections criminalise rape, sex with minors under 16, paid sex with minors under 18 (where a whole lot of men were recently charged and subsequently convicted in a high profile case), sex with dead bodies, incest, bestiality (i.e. sex with animals) and also the interpretation of some of the legal terms used. Without any intention to prejudice the audience with regard to Section 377A, I believe most would agree that some of these sexual offenses, in particular bestiality, necrophilia and pedophilia, are repulsive and disgusting.

Homosexual activists at times would call anyone a bigot for merely even bringing up the fact that Section 377A sits between the clauses criminalising necrophilia and bestiality. Less aggressive ones would point out that it stigmatise homosexual males and indirectly the rest of the LGBT. They want everyone to believe that Section 377A in particular “discriminates” against male homosexuals and it should not be there with the other sexual offences.

But is it so? Let us consider Section 376A and 376B, which respectively made it an offence to have sex with a person under 16, or paid to have sex with a person under 18. The definition of ‘minors’ (sometimes also known as ‘the age of consent’) in some countries varies so what is perfectly legal to a foreigner may not even legal in Singapore. So, even when it is perfectly legal in another country like Japan to have sex with a girl above 13 year-old, it is not legal to do so in Singapore. Does the law thus “discriminate” a Japanese person?

Next consider the preceding Section 377 itself, which made it an offence to have sex with a corpse. If I recalled correctly, Egypt allegedly planned to allow men to have sex with the dead bodies of their wives up to a certain number of hours. Considering how that outraged most of the world, I can safely conclude that even if something can be legalised, it doesn’t really legitimise (i.e. to make morally right or reasonable) it. In comparison, that also explains why some of us are rather indignant about the entire AIM-affair as well, even when the PAP want us to believe that it is right by showing that everything done was above the board and within the law.

Thus, the attempt to repeal Section 377A has only one main objective – i.e. to justify that sex between men must be “ok” because it is not illegal under the eyes of the law. Because the attempt to legitimately strike down this piece of law during the review in 2007 has failed, the only avenue left is to strike it down legally through wordings in the law, which explains why certain people have taken it to the courts to argue it is “discriminative” against a certain group of people under the Singapore Constitution.

It is very clear that only males are specified in some of these sexual offenses. For example, Section 375, 376, 376G, 377 and 377A all contained “Any man who…” in the wording. If we were to repeal Section 377A on the grounds that it is discriminative, why then do we retain Sections 377 and 377B as well? I am not not suggesting that some one will one day argue for repealing Sections 377 and 377B after Section 377A is repealed. But rather, I am asking why is it, and what is so much more offensive for a man to have sex with a dead body or an animal that we should keep those laws in place? I would like to listen to why the same does not apply for Section 377A. If it is said that human beings are not supposed to have sex with dead bodies or animals, please explain why males are “supposed to have sex” with males. Love? Let me get to that part in a short while.

Of course, in the case of necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality, the element that is glaringly missing is that of consent. I agree, because it is obvious that the victims are either in no position or have no capacity to object. That is why there is also Section 376F to protect those who are mentality disabled. But is that good enough reason to repeal Section 377A? Is all sex between males necessarily be under mutual consent? It is often argued that Section 375 (which criminalises rape) can be expanded or modified to cover cases of non-consensual sex between males, but my point is simply why we should make consensual sex between males legal in the eyes of the law at all when there isn’t a part on the male body that is actually meant for sex with another male?

As my friend rightly pointed out – the mouth is for eating and the anus is for shitting. The mouth and anus can act as a substitute, and so does the hand for sexual gratification, but so can a hole in the wall. I know some would argue that Section 377A discriminates against male homosexuals because it is not an offence for a woman to have consensual oral and anal sex with a man, but the point is that Section 377A will also target bisexual males and transvestites. Interestingly, homosexual activists wants everyone to believe that Section 377A has also something to do with stigmatizing all LGBT persons when it has nothing to do with lesbians at all. I have to say it is ingenious but it also made all that talk about love in any male-to-male sexual relationship to justify repealing Section 377A a red herring. True love often includes commitment, and a male in bisexual relation would actually show the lack thereof, or else a polygamous relationship would be justifiable. Sex with a transvestite is also often transactional, which is also clear that it has nothing to with love. Not all sex is love either, or else sex with a prostitute or a fling would also be love. While there is no dispute that two men can love one another, whether there is love involved is irrelevant and immaterial in the argument for repealing Section 377A. Section 377A is a law about sexual misconduct, and not about love and the right to love. All this talk about love is nothing more than a sleight of hand, to hoodwink people so they will not consider Section 377A objectively. It is intended to mislead the public into believing that Section 377A “discriminates” against a certain group of loving people, which is why the cases are now heard in Court.

And to round it up, I understand that some will be asked then what is going to happen to those men who truly loves one another and need to have sex. My answer is this: There are many types of love, and there is only one kind of love that should involve sex – the kind of love between a husband and a wife. In short, there is really no reason for a man to have sex with another man, regardless whether it is consensual or not. That is why I also believe there is no reason for the state to repeal Section 377A just to make special concession for a particular group of people who insist in doing so.

Advertisement:



Commentary – Pride and National Service

6 comments

We were soldiers once… and young.

While there are few of us who served our National Service (NS) with pride, we doggedly do for our nation what is required of us (the 2 / 2.5 years full time + regular ‘reservists’ call up). No NSF or NSmen expected any gratitude, but neither do we expect to be discriminated against or looked down upon. Yet someone calling herself JusticeLegal has done just that on an online forum (see below).

Someone, who never even need to share the burden and obligation to the defense of our nation, who enjoyed the security and peace provided by the very men in the defense forces she ridiculed, called them ‘green smelly things’ and gone so far to even call for soldiers to be banned from our public transports. Yet why someone high and mighty like her and her precious daughters would suggest our poor NS boys to take taxis while she wouldn’t, is beyond me!

She is fortunate she is born in modern day Singapore, because had she been born in the formative years of the People’s Republic of China, she would regret what she has written. Back in 1949, the Communist forces captured Guangzhou. As most of the soldiers of the communist soldiers were from the temperate and cooler northern provinces, they were unfamiliar with the climate conditions of sub-tropical Guangdong province and thus at times, sentries of the Communist forces would stink as a result of the lack of proper showers / baths. When the ladies in Guangdong walked past these soldiers, they will cover or pinch their noses in reaction to the stench.

Of course this greatly upset the soldiers of the victorious Communist forces. They decided to teach these women a lesson and any of them who did so while walking past a checkpoint or sentry post, will be made to stand under the hot Guangzhou sun until they perspire and start to smell before they were allowed to go.

While I am not suggesting a similar punishment for JusticeLegal, she should consider herself fortunate that she was born in more civilised times and a far less vindicative country.

Now, the matter of National Servicemen reminded me once again of the ‘NoToRape’ Petition to repeal Section 375 (4). It reminds me that not only does the Woman’s Charter already put Singaporean men in a disadvantage, there is also a disparity in the obligations, burdens and responsibilities between Singaporean men and women.

The gall of the very attempt to demand legislative rights for saying ‘no to sex’ to one’s husband irks me. And the very hypocrisy behind the support from members of AWARE pushing for this repeal irritates me to no end. Here I quote a comment from a female Malay blogger:

I think that the marital rape charter only applies to non-Muslim women as Muslim marriages have laws that govern it. However, a Muslim wife is not allowed to say no to the husband when he wants sex. He’s just supposed to understand that a wife isn’t his chattel to do as he pleases but if he wants it right now, the wife must give in. It kinda sucks actually.

Totally out of topic, I guess, but I thought I’d just like to share that little bit.

My point of quoting this comment in specific is this: Do we see AWARE screaming about the above which technically gave the husband the ‘right’ to rape his wife?

Where, is AWARE for the Malay woman who claimed she has no confidence in Josie Lau’s ExCo because they were Christian and Chinese? Let me guess, they will hide behind the Religious Harmony Act for their lack of action for this particular member. I am quite sure the Malay woman who so blatantly trampled upon our pledge – in specific the part on ‘regardless of race, language or religion – has her faith well placed in the new ExCo led by Dana Lam, which she probably elected.

If AWARE believes such hypocritical actions will regain the public’s confidence in that association, they are continuing down the wrong path. (It makes me wonder if they have been on the right path to begin with!)

Anyway, I will sign the petition for repealing Section 375 (4) only when the very people who pushes for it will also push for an amendment of the National Service Act. i.e. that women will now be required to serve National Service as well. On top of which, there should be a new Woman’s Charter with ‘means testing’ in place. No longer should a woman who is already capable of earning as much or even more money than the man, or already have in her possession a large amount of assets be allowed to claim up to 50% of the husband’s wealth in a divorce.

As my friend nocturne has said in this post: Equal rights. Equal obligation.

You can’t have your pie and eat it too.

Funny Picture of the Day: