One of my best friends and I were discussing the topic of
homosexuality. His point was that we’re still Asians at heart and while some
might find homosexuality normal, he did not. To make his point, he asked me
what I would do if my 18-year old told me one fine day that she was a lesbian.
I laughed and my reply was “What would you expect me to do?” The point being,
if my little girl told me that her sexual preference was for another woman, she’d
still be my little girl. When my teenager, who is in some cases legally an
adult decides on something for herself in her personal life, the issue of what
I feel and like has no relevance.
I bring up this topic because the infamous topic of Section
377A, or the section of the Penal Code that outlaws “unnatural” sex between men
is back in the news, thanks to a ruling in the Indian High Court on the 6th
of September 2018 that repealed Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, legalizing
homosexual sex.
The news of the Indian ruling inspired Professor Tommy Koh,
one of our most respected diplomats (and a former neighbor of Dad’s) calling
the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay and Transsexual) to challenge the existence of 377A in
Singapore’s Penal Code. The story of Professor Koh’s challenge can be found at:
Then, a challenge to 377A has been filed in the courts by a
disc jockey (“DJ”) called Johnson Ong. The story of Mr. Ong’s challenge can be
found at:
This challenge comes a few days after the online media
reported that petition calling for the repeal of the act garnered some 30,000
signatures in a day and the Minister of Law, Mr. K Shanmugam came out to say
that the decision to repeal the act. The report can be found at:
Just as those who want to repeal Section 377A have been galavnised
into action, the supporters to this section have also been galvinised into
action, even if they have been relatively quiet, perhaps buoyed by the a recent
survey that stated that the majority of Singaporeans were in favour of keeping
377A on the books and the government, unwilling to take on any pressure group is
sticking to its ground of keeping the legal fudge of “we’ll keep the law but
won’t enforce it.” The story of can be found at:
My ex-girlfriend, went as far as to send me a WhatsApp
message with a “good speech” from Mr. Christopher De Souza, one of our esteemed
Members of Parliament, passionately begging parliament to keep the section of
the law. The “Pro-377A” camp has clearly decided to sit back and let the “logic”
of their case do the talking. By sending me this “good speech,” I was reminded
of why she’s my ex.
I find the intensity of the emotions in this battle to be
baffling. Singapore takes such pride in being a wonderfully reasonable place,
where decisions are made based on facts rather than on blind prejudices. For
example, we keep the “dubious” business of prostitution legal because it’s
better than driving it underground by keeping it illegal. We allowed the construction
of casinos because the economic benefits outweighed the potential social costs.
There are plenty of examples of how our government and society has gone ahead
and done something, despite “disapproval” of a “moral majority.” We’re often
reminded that this commitment to making policy based on fact is the very reason
why the foreign investors come around to keep things ticking.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the debate on 377A,
Singapore’s claim to be a “rational intelligent” place that has rule of law
based on facts, gets washed down the toilet. You have exceedingly clever people
like Professor Thio Li-Ann (Oxford Graduate in Law) and Mr. De Souza (Partner
at Lee & Lee, one of our most prominent law firms) beating around the bush
and embarrassing the legal profession with their arguments and yet, most
frighteningly convincing people that they actually made sense. I once picked apart
Professor Thio’s 2007 speech in parliament – something which my uneducated brain
found very easy to do, which lead to the further conclusion that there was
something wrong with our very educated Members of Parliament if they failed to
see the obvious flaws in her argument:
It’s ridiculously easy to pick off their arguments and I often
wonder how this lot managed to get the jobs that they got in the legal business.
It’s perhaps a rather damning inditement of our current system that people who
fail to make intelligent arguments get hailed as “moral guardians” and highly
educated professionals.
My thoughts on the subject of 377A can be found in a piece I
wrote around the time of the debate.
My thoughts and feelings on the subject remain the same and
I go back to the question of “What would you do if your kid told you he or she
was gay?” I think of what would happen if the son of my
ex-girlfriend (she who sent me the ‘good speech,’), who was for the better part
of a year my son too, told me he was gay. My answer would be:
- Silence as I digest the news;
- A little disappointment – I was kind of expecting to have someone who could be a “mini-me” on the topic of girls;
- Love and acceptance – Ultimately, what would I want – only for him to grow up and grow old with a partner of his choosing (regardless of gender), which means a partner that he’ll be able to have a healthy sexual relationship with.
When you look at things like this, you’ll understand that as
a parent, there is nothing else higher than wanting your kids to have a normal
healthy relationship with the person who makes them happiest. How could any
parent want their kids to be “criminal?”
