Lost Letters To The Editor
Have you ever written a Letter To The Editor on this issue, or something related, and it didn’t get published?
Here’s your chance give your words some wings.
Drop in your original Letter To The Editor submission below and make note of which publication it was submitted to.
[Please note: while freedom of speech is encouraged on this website, any submissions which are obscene, threatening, defaminatory or are abusive of people’s ethnicity, religion or hetrosexuality (or other sexual preference) will be removed immediately]
October 1st, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Orginally sent to Straits Times and The New Paper…
Dear Forum Editor,
The values of our conservative society have been used to justify the continued criminalization of homosexual sex, section 377A, Penal Code, section 377A. However, no census or statistics have been used to support this view.
As our censorship laws and policies have always been considered a reflection of our country’s cultural, political and social environment, we ought to use the 2003 Censorship Review Committee Report as the barometer on this topic. Criminalisation of homosexual sex is the censorship of behaviour. Until and unless the government conducts a survey on the issue of homosexuality and decriminalization, this Report is the best indicator.
Following the trend established by the 1992 Censorship Review Committee, the 2003 Committee recommended further liberalization on content standards for homosexuality. It called for a more flexible and contextual approach when dealing with homosexual themes and scenes.
It is noteworthy that the Report took into consideration the Censorship Survey 2002, where the sensitive feelings of all races and religions, concern for morality, especially, of the young were registered. A total of 1,000 people were interviewed. Feedback was also solicited from focus groups. Some 300 industry players, civic and educational groups were invited to give their views over 13 sessions.
50% the respondents in the survey did not object to non-exploitative content on homosexuality. Similar sentiments were voiced by the focus groups. Most agreed that there is a difference between allowing depiction and promotion. Likewise, the decriminalization merely accepts the existence of homosexuals in our society. It in no way promotes homosexuality, if it can ever be promoted at all. Decriminalisation is merely part of the educational process towards greater tolerance and understanding.
The Committee made the recommendation despite the objection from some segments of the focus groups interviewed. Singapore’s heterogeneous society, conservative values, better educational level, the forces of globalization and attraction of talents were all factors taken into account. The recommendations were made with aims that include the safeguarding of morals and responding to rising demands for diversity of choice in lifestyle. The Committee recommended that the Report be implemented in a manner which will facilitate the transformation of Singapore into a diverse, vibrant and creative global city.
It is now 2007, 4 years after the release of the Report. Our society has gotten even more enlightened and better educated. A Straits Times online survey revealed in the second week of July 2007 that more than 55% of Singaporeans accept homosexuals in our society. Decriminalistion reflects our society’s greater tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals. This tolerance and acceptance for diversity is one of the core values which Singapore is founded on.
Yours faithfully,
Nicholas Deroose
October 9th, 2007 at 8:10 am
I originally submitted this to the Straits Times Forum in Feb 2005. It was unpublished. In it I directly address the need for our sex laws to be changed. I’m sending this letter with permission to republish on your website, not to ST. Pls contact if you’ve any questions with it. Cheers, — Bernie Leong
Chief Justice Halves Oral Sex Offender’s Jail Term
I refer to the article, “CJ halves oral-sex sentence” in the ST, 18th Feb.
In it, the Chief Justice is reported to have said, in condemnation of oral sex, that ‘there are certain offences against Asian culture’.
I feel this statement embodies one of the main arguments against oral sex, or in fact against anything our society is supposed to be opposed to—that it’s against our Asian heritage. Over the years, the cry of “but this is Asia!” has been used in Singapore and elsewhere in Asia to justify all sorts of existing social inequities and problems.
That is a patently untenable argument. If we were to follow everything our ‘Asian heritage’ (which I will regard as being ancient Chinese cultural mores) appears to ask us to, then perhaps we should reinstate female foot binding? Shouldn’t we demolish our red-light districts? Unless those correspond to the brothels in Chinese history and literature. And I certainly would not like to see our fair and clean government compared to the unwieldy, corrupt bureacracies that existed through much of China’s history. While I see the merits of and try to to be guided by many Asian philosophies like Confucianism etc, I believe that Asian heritage is neither as homogeneous nor as “pure” as many would like to believe.
Moreover, much of what we regard as our heritage right now, has actually been shaped by non-Asian forces over the years. With specific regards to oral sex, the proscription against the act is ironically not even Asian at all. It is British, and another archaic legacy left by our former colonizers. To whit, only those countries formerly under the British flag, such as Singapore and Malaysia, bear these laws. Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and even China do not have these. These are certainly Asian countries, and perhaps even conservative ones by our standards. Of course I do not advocate the wanton adoption of any moral standard based on what’s popular at the moment. I only think what we perceive as our Asian heritage and what it actually is, can be two very different things. With this arbitrariness as to what constitutes being Asian, compassion and common sense should dominate when judging social questions for oneself.
For the many who often use the “Asian defense” to cut down any kind of uncomfortable change, I’d like to add that our traditions are a link for us to our past, to be celebrated as evidence of our will to thrive and our unity. They should not be used to shield us from the realities of the changing world and/or a substitute for reason. After all, one of the greatest Asian values is the courage to adapt.
October 10th, 2007 at 4:00 am
I wrote this into The Straits Times forum on 21th July 2007.
Asian values do not condemn homosexuality
Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter “Homosexuality: we need to protect our Asian values” (ST forum online 21th July) written by Brian Tan Cheow Eng. It is a chronic misconception that Asian values condemn homosexuality, and it is crucial that we seek to understand what “Asian values” we are preaching.
I disagree with Mr Brian Tan’s argument that homosexuals are presently not hindered by the law because they are not actively persecuted. With Section 377A in the Penal Code, it is a clear case of discrimination, and I would find it difficult to agree that no active persecution equates to no discrimination.
The Singapore Government has always been taking a pragmatic stance in many matters, such as the development of Integrated Resort. Every country in the world is unique in its context, and the argument “we must do this because we are an unique nation” holds no water, unfortunately.
Furthermore, I disagree with Mr Brian Tan’s point of view that decriminalization homosexuality means promoting it. Unless the Government plans to give tax incentives or any other benefits to gay men and lesbians, I do not agree that decriminalization means endorsing of homosexuality.
It has been widely established that sexual orientation is an innate trait, and it is unlikely to be altered by external factors. To claim that a more tolerant society towards homosexuals will encourage young people to try out the “homosexual lifestyle” is misleading. Netherlands is the first country in the world to legalize gay marriage, and its birth rate ( 10.90/1000) is higher than Singapore’s (9.34/1000) in 2006.
I would prefer the Section 377A debate to move away from the slippery slope arguments, which paint dire consequences of repealing Section 377A, which are irrelevant to the topic of discussion. I do not see the links between homosexuality and pornography, sex shows and strip clubs at all. Most pornography, sex shows and strip clubs cater to heterosexual men. However, we do not associate heterosexuality with pornography automatically.
It is another dubious claim that homosexuality is contrary to Asian values. Ancient China has been much more tolerant towards homosexuality than Europe in the medieval era, with many poems and passages in classical Chinese literature about love between men. Currently, homosexuality is legal in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and many other Asian countries. The Asian countries which criminalize homosexuality are the Muslim states such as Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Furthermore, many African countries Somalia, Uganda, Nigeria, Zimbabwe criminalize homosexuality. One important question to ask ourselves is that what kind of values we are attempting to uphold as a nation if we wish to continue criminalizing homosexuality: extreme Muslim ideologies or African values?
Section 377A is not in our Penal Code because of “Asian values”. It is left behind by our former colonial master. United Kingdom has decriminalized homosexual acts since 1967, which is 40 years ago. This speaks volume about how archaic and backwards Section 377A is.
I urge all future debates about homosexuality to refrain from quoting “Asian values” as a basis for continual discrimination of homosexual individuals. This argument misleads individuals who are not well-acquainted with classical Chinese/ Asian literature and the current situation in East Asian countries.
October 10th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
11 August 2007
ST Forum Editor
Straits Times
Singapore Press Holdings Ltd
Email: stforum@sph.com.sg
Dear Editor,
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND DECRIMINALISATION OF GAY SEX
The issue of decriminalization of homosexual sex has been hotly debated since April this year. What is interesting is that the freedom of expression has been used as an excuse to curtail any cry for equal treatment and to infringe the privacy of individuals.
Firstly, religious groups and individuals must not shroud themselves with the freedom of expression to advocate the infringement of other fundamental rights in the Constitution. In this instance, the rights to equal treatment and privacy.
To advocate that people be jailed for acts not tolerable to these religious groups or individuals, acts which do no harm to the public is akin to neo-Nazis making anti-Semitic statements in Europe. The freedom of expression must not be so abused.
As for privacy, though not expressly provided for in our Constitution, it is implied in the article for freedom of expression. Freedom of expression and privacy, both deal with personal space. This freedom includes the freedom to remain silent. This is a negative right akin to privacy. Freedom of expression in many instances has to be balanced by the right to privacy. It cannot be absolute. On the practical side, to posit that there is no right to privacy in Singapore opens the Pandora’s box to constitutionally challenge our banking secrecy laws and law on confidential information.
If the cry to penalize homosexual sex is based on freedom of expression, then the criers should be reminded of homosexuals’ right to express their love. The act of sex at its most sublime is the expression of love by one human to another. It has been acknowledged over and over again that freedom of expression is a right which protects not only:
“information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society”.
Sex between consenting adults in private does not infringe the rights of others. Given that it is behind closed doors, it neither offends, shocks nor disturbs anyone except those not minded by their own business.
Yours faithfully,
George Hwang
October 19th, 2007 at 6:20 am
Perhaps, each writer should lend credibility to this webpage by stating their predilection at the end of their message.
eg. I am bi, i am straight or i am gay.
Ps. I am straight !
October 19th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Not exactly “lost” in my case, but more like “returned-with-a-very-generic-note-of-apology”. Anyway, these are two letters my friend and I wrote over two evenings, in response to the letters by Ms Lim Poh Suan and Ms Jenica Chua in recent issues of The Straits Times.
1) 377A in no way a threat to the family unit
We refer to the letter, “Removing Section 377A threatens family unit” by Ms Lim Poh Suan (ST, Oct 16).
Ms Lim suggests that the retention of S377A is “to uphold our moral and family values”. Rather than making the issue of S377A one about values, we believe it to be more of a question of basic human rights. With the recent proposed amendments to the Penal Code with the exception of S377A, denying homosexuals of their right to pursue their private affairs without fear of conviction seems tantamount to denying their rights as individuals to protection under the law, as well as their stake in equality under the Constitution as citizens of Singapore.
Ms Lim also mentioned in her letter that “the petition… serve[s] the interests… of one small sector”, as well as how “the removal of [S377A] will lead to the disintegration of our social fabric, the family unit.” With regards to how the petition exists to serve the interests of only the homosexuals, a “small sector” in Singapore, there exists the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, which is interested in ensuring the legal status of minority groups in Singapore are protected – would it be fair to accuse them of serving the interests of only those races when Singapore is a democratic nation open to all? Also, does the fact that the homosexuals make up “one small sector” make the petition any less meaningful?
In addition to that, Singapore’s social fabric has always been built upon the ideal of tolerance and harmony, as evinced in the opening words of the Pledge – “We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people.” By retaining S377A, a source of discrimination against homosexual individuals, this would serve to undermine the founding principles of this nation. The repealing of S377A would safeguard and protect social fabric rather than lead to the latter’s disintegration – by repealing the act, we’re giving the homosexuals reassurance that they possess equal rights under our laws, whose fundamental purposes are to ensure that justice is being served, and that the citizens feel that way.
We would like to invite Ms Lim to please clarify her stand on the issue.
2) NMP speaking up of his own free will
We refer to the letter, “NMP overstepped role in championing gay cause” by Ms Jenica Chua (ST, Oct 17).
We would like to clarify what the role of a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) entails. Ms Chua’s use of the terminology “adulterate” here seems to imply that NMP Siew is contaminating the role of a NMP – and we feel that the reasonable person would fail to comprehend how he has “adulterated” that role, for we believe that NMP Siew has not exceeded the boundaries of his role as an NMP, but rather, fulfilled his role dutifully within the confines of his scope.
The homosexual group is not a political group – they are a minority group of people in Singapore, just like the minority races. By choosing to “be the sponsor of a parliamentary petition” to present the so-called “homosexual agenda”, NMP Siew is speaking up on behalf of citizens without party affiliation and allowing non-partisan Singaporeans to contribute by lending a voice to them, as well as contributing towards parliamentary debates by presenting alternative views and constructive dissent – and without affiliating himself to any political group. In the light of what Mr. Siew has done, it is apparent that he is working within the confines of his role for the sake of the people.
Ms Chua seemingly contradicts herself by saying that “he is free to present his personal views on any issue”, and yet later in her letter mentions that “[Mr. Siew] should not … [become] the proxy representative of the homosexual interest group.” In the article “NMP files petition to House on gay sex law” (ST, Oct 17), it was stated that “Mr Siew, a lawyer, said he agreed to submit [the petition] as its arguments were ‘valid’ and ‘cogent’” – his decision to represent the homosexual community in presenting the petition before Parliament is, accordingly, an expression of his personal views on S377A, which have in no way interfered with his role as a NMP, much less distorted the role of a NMP. Former NMPs, like Dr Geh Min and Prof. Walter Woon, have used their position to champion causes that stem very much from their own personal convictions – have they, then, stepped beyond their roles, especially when they are expected to provide alternative views and constructive dissent?
We would like to invite Ms Chua to please clarify her stand on the issue.
Kevin Koh
Mickey Chia
October 20th, 2007 at 4:59 am
Submitted to Straits Times Forum, Sat October 20.
Keep or Repeal 377A?
I have been following the recent issue over the petitions to keep and to repeal 377A, reading the many views, or rather, points-of-views raised by both sides.
I don’t think a common ground can ever be reached on this anytime soon. But, the views of the people (majority and minority) aside, the law is the law, and even more important are the constitutional rights. No law can or should ever supercede or ignore the rights of man in the constitution.
All men are equal before the law? Well, there’s a very simple test for it. Either repeal 377A and make it legal for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, or keep it, and keep it illegal for both homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.
I’ve been hearing a lot of how we are a conservative country, and we are not ready for to allow “gay rights”. Well and good. Yet somehow, we are not conservative enough 377A applies to heterosexuals as well.
It is like how a child would want a toy, but refuses to let his or her sibling play with it or have one. In such situations, shouldn’t the parents step in and be impartial? Either both siblings have it, or both do not.
Make up your mind, are we a conservative country? Or are we not?
377A. Keep it or repeal. Make it equal for all. Once a dividing line has been drawn and set in stone, things will never be the same again.
It’ll be like being born and raised in Singapore, as a Singaporean, but having first or second class citizenship.
Meritocracy? What has one side done to make it legal for them yet not the other? Do we really want to start to measure acheivements by one’s orientation?
October 21st, 2007 at 9:27 am
I say let’s kill all the gays!
October 21st, 2007 at 11:52 am
I submitted this letter to the Straits Times 2 days after the article about the NTU survey, regarding its inappropriately biased questions and the inaccuracy of the survey results.
I refer to the article “7 in 10 frown on homosexuality, NTU survey finds” (ST, Sept 20) and would like to question the validity of the survey results. As a Secondary Three student, I can safely say that every single one of the students in my school have, in the course of their studies, learnt about leading or double-barreled questions, and how they must be avoided at all costs when creating a survey. Imagine my shock upon seeing the sample questions from the NTU survey written by a university: the audience was asked whether gays and lesbians are “plain wrong”, and whether sex between two members of the same gender was “disgusting”. These words, as anyone can attest, carry connotations and opinions. A leading question is, in common law systems, a question that suggests the answer or attempts to guide the respondent’s answer by containing personal opinion, and the questions from the survey certainly seem to fall under this category. As such, can the survey results truly be counted on to officially represent the attitudes of Singaporeans towards homosexuality and be considered “nationally representative”? I personally object to the opinions put forth in the survey, but personal opinion not withstanding, the survey by any stretch of the imagination cannot be considered a reliable, objective or trustworthy source of information, and am exceedingly curious as to how such a subjective survey could be approved, and regarded as “the first nationally representative survey of its kind”.
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:44 pm
To Samantha and others troubled by the findings of the “NTU survey” cited in the Open Letter,
I think it’s great that young people question authority, especially things that appear in the Singapore media, but please do not shoot the messengers or denigrate their work without proper cause.
My co-author, Dr. Mark Cenite, and I have received quite a number of inquiries and challenges to the methods we used in our study, which was a survey of public opinion on attitudes towards lesbians and gays and other related issues. The study was published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research (IJPOR) and reported on in the Straits Times. The former is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by Oxford University Press and edited by Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Donsbach, a world renowned expert on survey research.
These facts alone should not be taken as “proof” of the study’s validity. One needs to read the original article and judge for themselves the quality of its methods. I don’t mean to sound condescending, but the judgment needs to be based on a well informed understanding of survey research methods. And as good as your secondary education has been, it seems you are making some critical mistakes in your assessment of our methods.
First and foremost, you are confusing measurement validity with external validity. The degree to which the findings represent Singaporean views has little to do with question wording and everything to do with the sampling procedure. We used random digit dialing (RDD), a form of probability sampling, and have good reason to believe that our sample represents the larger population in virtually every way, with some degree of measurable sampling error. This point was unfortunately glossed over by the ST, and that is why people need to read the original article.
Second, we have good reason to believe that our measures were neither double-barreled nor leading, as suggested. We used validated psychological measures, the ATLG-S, which have been used in numerous peer-reviewed published articles on prejudice toward homosexuals. They are Likert-type items that state a viewpoint and ask for level of agreement. The scale includes both negative and positive items (e.g., “Male homosexuality is a natural expression of sexuality in men.”) These statements are not the opinions of the researchers, but carefully designed attitude measures. Again, these details were not included in the newspaper article, so you really need to read the original. You can learn more about the measures and the research tradition they are a part of here: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/atlg.html
Third, and perhaps most disconcertingly, is the questioning of our motives. As researchers, we are trained to recognize our own personal “biases” and how to check them so that they do not unduly influence our research. We did not write about what is in our hearts regarding gay issues in Singapore. We wrote about the evidence we scientifically obtained about public opinion in Singapore. Regardless of our feelings about the results, we stand by our methodology, which is just about as conventional as survey methodology could be.
So while the results of study may be dismaying, and may run counter to someone’s personal experience, we do believe they reasonably reflect how Singaporeans feel, in general. The bottom line is that Singapore is not (yet) a gay friendly place. There seems to be some amount of accommodation and acceptance, and a significant generation gap on the issue, but more research needs to be done. When it comes, it is quite possible that it may not be “welcome news” to the repeal 377a camp. Again, please don’t shoot the messenger, at least not without doing your homework.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:54 am
To keep or to repeal 377A.
First of all i am straight..
I have been followed up the story..
We all know that homosexual is strong against by our law and our religion.
And we all lives in peace n safe country.
Now i want to ask u guys out there,”is it fair for those who are homosexual.if we gong to keep 377A?”
Im not aside anybody. This is my own opinon,my thought.
The homosexual is a human being too.. They also want to be accepted by all of us. Every single mom whose gave birth has taught theirs child “wad things is right and wad things is wrong n every mom has taught n sent us to religion classes”. And i have a strong feel tat they have theirs own reasons why are became homosexual.. You guys think they all want to be like tat at the first place.. They all just need help from all of us..
We should lead them to the right path, not to says or look down on them..
Why are you guys look down on homosexual? I know its so disgusting.
Be open minded guys.. they also need freedom n life like each of us.. HAPPY LIFE LIKE EACH EVERY OF US…
We live in harmonies country.. Dont we? harmonies is where all singapore citizen lives happily togethers,help hands in hands,accept differences in each every of us.. Accept every weakness inside and outside us, as one people, as one united n as one Singapore.
They do theirs own business,They dont commit crimes or disturb peoples.. And most important “do they troubling you?” Do they begging you guys money or other things? Do they?
So Singaporean out there,dont think for your own self..
October 25th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I don’t have the heart to see another letter to the Forum Page snipped up or my intentions misconstrued. I wonder if you would accept this in its entirety, or run me a little feedback if you feel otherwise.
—————–
Put simply, the interests of a minority need to be protected, even if the majority do not subscribe to them - for instance, having Christian holy communion, having Friday prayers, continued funding for kidney dialysis, equipping handicapped access to public facilities.
If the interests of the majority are not impinged upon, why are we not indifferent to section 377A being repealed?
Perhaps we are afraid of the dissolution of Asian family values, of the fabric (?moral fibre) of society. Firstly championing diversity and challenging prejudices may do more to achieve the opposite. And if indeed being gay erodes family values, let us first be mindful of our children as they grow and help them make informed choices, let us keep the lines of communication open and not alienate them, and let’s turn off the television during dinner. Let not the law do for us what the family unit or church group should have been addressing at the outset.
Perhaps we are afraid of HIV becoming rampant in Singapore. Firstly the incidence of HIV is largely from injudicious heterosexual intercourse. Why not publicly crack down on extra-marital intercourse, why not launch different-sex anal intercourse into the arena of public debate? This too, is “against the order of nature” in the penal code. Secondly, if public health is the issue, why not tackle hepatitis B, which has a far higher prevalence?
Perhaps we are afraid of seeing what we do not like to see. Perhaps we avert our eyes from gay people expressing affection, and wish to ensure by legislation that when they go home, they cannot continue said affection without the spectre of criminal prosecution looming at the back of the mind. By this measure, we should not live in a country where 7000 individuals live alongside each other in every square kilometre, where upon leaving the sanctity of our homes we might stumble upon people with rashes or burns on their faces, touts, beggars, people who smoke, or people from the Asian subcontinent who hold hands in public. God forbid should we look out our own windows to see an ugly naked neighbour in his or her own flat.
Perhaps we are afraid of changing an equation that “balances”, a system that “works”. And it would only appear to do so if we are in the majority that thinks so. We might argue, it’s okay to strike a compromise by criminalising gay sex, but on the other hand knowingly not enforcing it. Let this join the other legal half-measures that already exist, such as outlawing torture, but turning a blind eye to it, if we have to. For the good of the many. Let us then continue to accept the expedient argument that keeping section 377A protects our way of life, just as capital punishment and the internal security act keep our homes safe.
Perhaps it is just fear itself that keeps us from repealing section 377A, a piece of legislature that is demonstrably irrelevant given the conundrum of enforcing it. It is for fear that we will let senior public figures close the issue, as with the casino debate, even though there are clearly disparate views that need to given due course to be properly explored. If we heed all these fears seriously, we need to expect to enforce section 377A, without exception. We also need to penalise lesbian sex, and to mirror the intention of section 377A in our schools and through public campaigns, if we are to be taken seriously.
But I am optimistic that Singapore is beyond this. I am convinced that we are able to debate robustly public issues which matter to us. And that we will not confuse acceptance for advocacy, and not fall prey to alarmist or slippery-slope arguments. Had we been a timid people that could only stomach convention, we would certainly not have enjoyed such a meteoric rise over the past 4 decades economically and technologically. Neither would we enjoy the racial and religious pluralism that we do today. Nor I’m sure would we have spent so much money on schools, public libraries or on the Esplanade.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:35 am
It is very scary looking at the reaction of the group of people that has been rejected.
The threat to the MP, the verbal abuse to people that disagree with them. The drive to promote the lifestyle in media that is accessible to the young, so that ten years down the young will accept. There is so much hate.
I do not think this is what your campaign here about. So please restrain your supporters. As you want acceptance not forced acceptance.
Another point that your group should note is that both group are coming from two different point andboth are valid. One want rights for the gays, the other do not want the sexual freedom that is tagged with the Gays’ rights.
Thus, maybe the campaign should be how to get gays’ right while assuring the people that there will not be more gay pubs/ pink parade etc.
Cheers