Respect Differences: Some thoughts on the Keep "377A" movement

For many of us, sexual orientation is an important component of our personal identity. Hence, section 377A not only disregards but in effect, prohibits and demeans one’s key aspect of personal identity. It does so by criminalizing consenting acts in private on the basis of sexuality. 

Today, this oppression continues because of majority disapproval. As the MHA Summary of the Key amendment to the Penal Code describes, “Public feedback on this issue has been emotional, divided and strongly expressed with the majority calling for its retention. MHA recognizes that we are generally conservative society and that we should let the situation evolve.”

The PM had said similarly: “The tone of the society, the public, and society as a whole, should be really set by the heterosexuals and that's the way many Singaporeans feel.”  He added, "Our view, as a government, is we will go with society ... What people do in private is their own business; in public, certain norms apply." 

 The fallacy of such an approach to criminalization is apparent. These statements above do not even implicitly recognize that there is harm done (as some ultra-conservatives continuously allege) but resort to appeasement of what they consider an “emotional” and “strongly” expressed response. A criminal law ran by the emotions of people will be quite unpredictable and uncertain. No modern country has such a criminal law basis of feelings - do I need to say this, it is embarrassing. Besides, Section 377A does prohibit consenting acts in private. And if we agree with PM Lee that what people do in private is their own business, then section 337A should not criminalize “consenting acts in private.” Furthermore, the fact that it only applies to males makes obvious the inherent inequality of s 377A.

Many feel that the values they hold and cherish will be destroyed by the repeal of section 377A. I respectfully disagree. This has not been the case in the myriad countries, both Asian and Western. Family and communal values have continued to be freely expressed in those nations. Besides, the weight of mainstream scientific opinion is that homosexuals are born the way they are. [FN1]  I am heartened that many who oppose the repeal say they are in fact “tolerant” of homosexuals and that they “love” them; but it is difficult for me to reconcile this goodwill with continued efforts to make criminals of the same people they say they are “tolerant” of. 

The “attack” against gays during this period of debate has been horrific. I wish to express my dismay at how gays have been unjustly compared to pedophiles and those who commit incest or bestiality, during this debate. They have also been unfairly demonized as threats to families and the future of Singapore. I feel that there is little appreciation of that simple fact “Gays are human too” by the opponents of the repeal. While I respect their right to speech, I will like to say that those allegations are baseless and does not stand up to scrutiny. The criminal law clearly takes exception to pedophiles and incest due to the potential of harm. It has also not been demonstrated or shown how homosexuals by private consenting acts could harm families and our future as a nation. In contrast, many vibrant cities in the world are known for their acceptance of homosexuals. There are also many examples where in the most war torn, poor and repressive countries, where such oppressive legislation exists. One might easily make a case that continued repression of homosexuals is not good for our country.

We derive our identities from so many things we choose to do, from other people, from the society around us. And we could be so many things in this world. We could be mac users, introverts, like birds as pets, prefer not to read, enjoyed maths. We could have been the roundest child, the one with the funny hairdo. 

We could have been the nerdy one, the one who danced alone to music without anyone knowing. We could have been the one who is under-dressed, over-dressed, the one that cannot play the popular sport at all. We could have been the odd ball, the crazy one. We could have liked uni-cycling. We could have been the one who preferred to stay at home, who did not want children. We could have been the one with the late pregnancy, the one with the shot-gun marriage. 

We could have chosen to have taken art, took the path less traveled. We could have disliked traveling. We could have been the failure, the one that never made it; the one who tried but failed, who did not want it but succeeded all the same. We could have been many things. We could have been gay. In this huge world, we could have been different. 

We are different. Sometimes, we do wrong things, sometimes we do noble things. Sometimes we trip up. We been there. We have been different. We have all been falsely accused before. We should know how that feels. We should know how gays feel.  Respect differences. 

[FN1] This is not true or simplistic. See comments.