Tag: Section 377A

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 Let me present my case on for non-Christians to consider why Section 377A should not be repealed.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:



Disjointed Thoughts – August 2012

Leave a comment

I have been noticing that there is increased amount of unsafe driving on our roads. Today, my wife was driving and I was in the passenger seat. During the 2 way trip, there were 3 incidents. First, as our lane was blocked for work, my wife tried to pull into the next lane, after indicating. A van which was well behind then deliberately moved much much faster, and to make sure we couldn’t pull into the lane. Second I saw a SUV zip in and out, almost causing an accident – without bothering to indicate. Third, a lorry simply came into our lane, without indication and without giving enough allowance – almost an accident. The driver simply didnt care because of the lorry’s size. I wonder if it is the case that we are simply noticing this more, or if indeed our driving habits have become worse.

The above status update was posted on a minister’s Facebook page. It is true that the driving habits of some people are atrocious, but what took the minister so long to notice? As far as I am concerned, it’s a clear sign that he has been out of touch for too long.

Though many had lauded him for his opinion simply because of his office, I looked at it as just another whining motorist. First of all, the information that a particular lane is blocked for roadworks (or whatever) is often displayed on the Expressway Monitoring Advisory System [EMAS] quite a distance away. In most cases, a motorist would have passed under at least one of those EMAS electronic signboards, and thus have ample time to switch lanes. Unfortunately, a lot of people often ignored the information on EMAS and stayed on their lanes until too late – i.e. when there simply isn’t enough road left to do so safely while maintaining speed. As a result, an entire lane often comes to a complete halt. The chain reaction that followed causes the entire stretch of the Expressway to become congested because everyone would be attempting to change lane, with the vehicles nearest to the block doing so from a stationary position. Now, if I am moving along the next lane and someone tries to filter into my lane from a stationary position, that other driver can do so after I have driven past. Otherwise, I would have to slow down and suffer the inconvenience of being delayed. Just because someone has indicated that he wants to switch over to my lane doesn’t mean I am obliged to do so even though it is a gracious thing to do. Thus, I can understand why the van driver deliberately drove faster. That’s not mentioning, if the road has been congested, the van driver might have been frustrated with the slow moving traffic for a some time already and could tolerate no further delay. Unless the minister wasn’t traveling on the Expressway, the fact that the minister’s wife ignored those notices on EMAS and changed lane only when it is too late would suggest to me that she is among one of those people with a bad driving habit as well.

Next, I wouldn’t condone the action of the SUV driver who zip in and out of traffic. However, that points out another issue. A lot of people drives on the rightmost lane (or lane 1) on any road at speed limit. They drove like that lane belonged to their grandfather, and they are completely oblivious to the concept of an overtaking lane means nor have the common sense to leave that lane even when they noticed a fast oncoming vehicle. Granted the other driver maybe speeding and driving dangerously, it takes just a few seconds to get out of the way and let the other fellow overtake and be on his merry way (or rush on to his death, if you will). I have come to believe many drivers are in a world or their own, or they simply have an ego too big for their own good. That in itself is not surprising, since Singaporeans also behaved the same way when walking in a crowded passageway or shopping mall. That’s not forgetting that everyone paid a king’s ransom to own a vehicle for 10 years.

Slow moving lorries leaving the leftmost lane only make it worse. Not only are they a hazard to other road users, they simply slow traffic down. It is my considered opinion that the SUV driver is not solely responsible for his behavior. He may not have been driving that way had everyone been more considerate. In fact, we should subject a lot of drivers to a annual re-certification driving test since a lot of them apparently throw their highway code out of the window after they get their driving license. But I doubt the minister would care about the finer details of the can of worms he just opened. Frankly, I think this is just the excuse for the traffic police to take strong action against “errant motorists” and increase the revenue of the state coffers.

~ * ~

I think there is a little bit of disconnect between a very vocal small groups online and what I see on the ground… two examples you gave – housing and foreigners… you know, the common appeals I get at MPS, housing is one of them… No one… oh, I won’t say no one, but very very few people are coming forward and complaining that the housing issue is that they can’t afford a flat. Actually it’s the other way around. They are complaining that they can afford a flat but they’re not getting one fast enough…

Take foreigners, for example. I don’t have people coming to me and say there are too many foreigners… but the people that I speak to are asking for the reverse. Most of the residents who are coming to me, their appeals are the reverse, they are asking for help in bringing their relatives in, on a long-term pass, or to get PR or citizenship. A significant number are business owners asking for help in bringing in foreign labour because they just can’t employ Singaporeans.

If there is any disconnect, that disconnect exists between this People’s Action Party [PAP] Member of Parliament [MP] and a large portion of the electorate. Then again, what can we expect from Mr Puthucheary, who has never served National Service? While it is true that Khaw Boon Wan – the current Minister of National Development – is increasing the number of flats built in the next few years to increase availability, it is clear to most people that affordability of the flats is a separate matter entirely. Unless Mr Puthucheary has done some calculation on his own for those residents, I am not sure how he could assert that those people who came to him complaining about the lack of flats really could afford it. That’s not forgetting that if I am telling someone to increase the supply of something, I would definitely be talking about the people who can afford it but not able to get it due to the supply issue.

Few would deny that some employers wants very badly to employ foreigners, and they are not getting enough of them. Has Mr Puthucheary find out whether they can’t employ Singaporeans, or they just won’t? I doubt he bothered. He simply want to portray reality in a way favorable to his party. Since he also mentioned that those seeking his help are asking to bring their relatives into Singapore, wouldn’t that indicate these aren’t local-born Singaporeans? So, why would they be complaining about… themselves? Even if these are new citizen, are they indicative of most Singaporeans in general?

Mr. Puthucheary not only showed the disconnect between the PAP and the people, he has reinforce what some of us have known for some time – i.e. the PAP’s claims that only it has the best candidates is an utter farce. In his haste to try and refute what a large number of people already know and experienced, and in his vain attempt to discredit opposing views as just vocal small groups online, he has forgotten that 39.9% of voters – which certainly isn’t just vocal small groups online – felt very differently and voted the other way in the last General Elections.

Try “try harder”, Mr Puthucheary. Or just continue to serve National Serivce as a doctor.

By the way, saving lives is the duty of a doctor. To argue it is a form of national service is to suggest that a life-saving doctor is an exception rather than the norm. I simply can’t think of a greater insult to the other doctors who are tirelessly doing their part to save lives.

~ * ~

Declaring the issue to be “of real public interest”, the Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision and allowed an application to proceed to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises sex between men. In a 106-page written judgment, Justice Rajah said:

We emphasise that we are not deciding here that Section 377A is inconsistent with Article 12 as that goes to the merits of the Application, but are instead merely deciding that it is arguably so, which suffices for the present appeal on the preliminary issue of whether the Application should be struck out. The constitutionality or otherwise of Section 377A is thus of real public interest. We also note that Section 377A has other effects beyond criminal sanctions. One unwanted effect of Section 377A is that it may also make criminals out of victims.

The judge has a good point. The fact that Section 377A is vague means that if a victim is being forced to perform fellatio or is violated in his anus, he may also be charged under Section 377A. As such, I believe the law itself needs to be amended and refined to protect victims.

Since the Attorney-General position is there is “no real and credible threat of prosecution” under Section 377A for private consensual sexual acts between two adult males, and that there are ministerial statements made in Parliament indicating the law will not be “proactively” enforced, then Section 377A should explicitly indicate that anyone who does so in public places like a public toilet (even while in the privacy of a cubicle) should be punished, even when both are in mutual consent.

However, the matter of whether the provisions of Section 377A affects the lives of “a not insignificant portion of the community” is actually irrelevant. In any case, any figures – either official or estimates – are open to debate. If the figures are too low, homosexual lobbyists will insist many remained in the closet and refused to be counted. If they are too high, conservatives will challenge that those figures are inflated.

Just as not every heterosexual who engages in sex are doing it because they have any feelings for one another, the same goes for some who engage in the activities stipulated under Section 377A. In other words, I see no reason why this particular group should go unpunished – the same way the law punishes someone who patronises an underage prostitute, or someone who have sex in public. If this judicial decision results in the repeal of Section 377A, it would be the equivalent of throwing out the baby along with the bath water.

~ * ~

Random Discourse – A Case of Idiocy

Leave a comment

A case for repealing 377A

I refer to last Tuesday’s article (‘Study looks at sexual behaviour of gay men’).

The effort to glean information for the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections is admirable. But I am not surprised that the study has fallen far short of its target of 1,000 participants and has managed only a meagre 40.

With Section 377A of the Penal Code still in place, sex between men remains illegal in Singapore.

No matter how much confidentiality is promised, there will be understandable reluctance from potential participants. For, in effect, the study asks that gay men make the admission of having committed a criminal act.

Section 377A not only hinders important studies from being conducted, but also ties the hands of educators who should be teaching young ones the proper way to regard safe sex, irrespective of one’s sexual orientation.

In short, 377A is detrimental to the fields of medical research and education.

It should be repealed (just as Section 377 of the Penal Code outlawing oral and anal sex between men and women has been repealed), so that studies such as the above can be conducted without impediment.

Pamela Oei (Ms)

This was an forum letter published only on the online version of the Straits Times forum. The research in question was to determine the prevalence of syphilis and HIV infection among homosexuals. Tan Tock Seng Hospital consultant Mark Chen, explained that this was done because it has not been proven conclusive here even though overseas data has shown that homosexual men are more at risk of syphilis and HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

To justify something in the name of research reminds me of Japan, which says it is killing whales for ‘scientific research’. While I do not always agree with environmentalists or animal- rights activists, I would like Japan to actually explain what research are they doing by killing those animals, and why do they have to kill so many every year to do such research. Would they not be able to do the same without killing those magnificent creatures? In fact, I had often considered Japan to be shameless to use research to justify the killing. Thus, I can’t help but also consider it shameless when after failing to repeal Section 377A by arguing that it discriminates against a specific group of people, the argument now is that it is detrimental to the field of medical research and sex education.

To refresh everyone, Section 377A states that: “Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.“

I take that to mean that any form of sexual intercourse between two male persons is a criminal act. Pamela Oei’s premise is that anyone who submit to this study would be admitting to having committed a criminal act and she believe that is the sole reason why there is a low number of participants. Have she considered that one of the reasons could be a lack of interest in such studies? Anyone who argues that homosexuality is related to a higher risk to STDs / VDs is often called a ‘homophobe’. So why would homosexual men participate in a study to determine something which they have always believed to be false? Sadly, Pamela Oei could only think of Section 377A as the only reason why there are few takers to this study.

Next, Pamela Oei’s argued Section 377A ‘ties the hands of educators who should be teaching young ones the proper way to regard safe sex. I would like to ask her, how would that be true? My limited knowledge on safe sex revolves around two very basic principles, they are: (in the words of the Sammyboy forummers) ‘raw is war’ – meaning you should never have unprotected sex; and it is best to be loyal / have only one sex partner. I believe these simple principles would apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. The other important knowledge about safe sex would include rudimentary knowledge about the kind of nasties that can be transmitted either orally or via the genitals, how fatal they are and the damage they do to one’s life. In summary, safe sex would be about the risk of unprotected sex, the seriousness and consequences of catching any of these diseases and the prevention. How would Section 377A be an obstacle for educators to impart such knowledge?

Pamela Oei should really understand how utterly lame and ludicrous she is. At times I wondered why some of the people who aren’t homosexual themselves seems more interested in homosexual activism than the homosexuals themselves. Perhaps they simply have nothing better to do and participation in such activities makes them look hip, cool or inclusive and even make them appear enlightened.

Addendum:
I believe some people will want to ask does that mean only a slave can speak up against slavery and I suggest you save the effort.

Two reasons. First, slavery is often forced upon another person and the same cannot be said about homosexuality – where the homosexual lobby often claims that it either a choice or a matter of genes. Second, I will not fall into the trap and elevate something which I consider as wrong to the same level as freedom.

I’ll tolerate any person who decides to be a homosexual, but just don’t expect me to celebrate or endorse that decision. Nor expect me to roll over and shut up in the face of any attempt to celebrate or endorse it.