Section 377a: The Keep vs Repeal Debate

When I was recently ranting about censorship of gay relationships on TV, I said I was not lobbying for gay rights.

Well, now I am.

Today's TODAY newspaper had an article on two websites dedicated to petitioning the Singapore government on Section 377a of Singapore's Penal code, which criminalises sex between men.

In one corner is www.repeal377a.com, a website with an open letter to the Prime Minister and a petition to be presented to Parliament.

In response, a group has set up a site supporting keeping S377a. I am not linking to it, because reading the first few lines on the site raised my blood pressure. The superior tone was galling, as was the smug assumption of the moral high ground, as if someone had bestowed upon them the status of arbiter of "family values". Not to mention the odious and condescending capitalisation of "WE, the Majority".

It may be a gross simplification to say this, but Nazi Germany had its roots in disturbingly similar sentiments. So does the Klu Klux Klan. "THEY, the Majority" (or at least the voices that spoke for them) were all too eager to assert their right to have their "values" (superiority of the white race) protected and not to be "forced" to accept something (assimilation of Jews, Poles, coloured people and other "untouchables") they are "not ready" for.

I totally, completely understand that Singapore is an Asian society, with conservative values. People are not comfortable with the concept of homosexuality, which seems so far from what we regard as the "norm". Fair enough. But how does that give any of us the right to say that homosexual acts are illegal or criminal? This is a question of law, surely, and the parameters and axioms by which laws are enacted and defined.

Frankly, I am amazed that this should be an issue in a country which prides itself on the separation of church/mosque/temple and state. If one accepts (as one should if not guided by religious tenets) that (a) homosexuality might be genetic; (b) the mere act of homosexual intercourse does not harm either the participants or anyone else; and (c) what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their own business; then what call is there for criminalising gay sex? It is faith-based value systems that cast homosexuality as "wrong" or "sinful", the same way that that certain faiths denounce pre-marital sex or birth control. Neither pre-marital sex nor birth control are illegal, are they? Which is as it should be, because the laws of the state are separate from the rules of faith.

If something is rendered illegal just because "the majority" is not comfortable with it, where would that leave us? At various points in history, it would have been illegal for women to work, for interracial couples to marry and have children, for anyone to wear black during Chinese New Year, for governments to raise taxes!!

So, you self-righteous, supercilious lot "you, the majority", please come down from your high horse. Something is not illegal just because it offends you personally. I am personally deeply offended by frilly ankle socks, talentless pop bands, bad put-on American accents by SIA flight attendants and many, many more things. You don't see me petitioning for these to be made illegal, not that I have not thought about it. Seriously, unless we are talking strictly about political elections, going the direction of "majority" vs "minority" is getting into dangerous territory in any country with diversity in its populace. In elections, the "majority" chooses the government of the day, but the "minority" is not denied the public services of government. Going beyond that, "the wisdom of crowds" can reveal very unappealing aspects of human nature.

Do the rights of the few not matter more than the "comfort level" of the many? How do we define the civil liberties of citizens in a democratic nation? Does the right to vote not represent the importance of the individual? Do gay people not have the right to do as they wish in the privacy of their bedrooms?

Another thing about the whole "majority" message that really bothered me is how it is almost like the campaign platform of one George W. Bush. It sounds like something from Focus on the Family, even bringing up gay marriage and adoption as if this was America and we were in the midst of the Bush vs Kerry period all over again. The irony, of course, is that the "majority" would accuse the pro-repeal group of being too "Westernised" in our way of thinking.

A few of the comments from the anti-repeal camp could almost be classified as expressions of bigotry, but many are more misguided than hateful, in my opinion. One letter to TODAY linked from the anti-repeal site said this:

I am not against homosexuals; I recognise that they are as human and Singaporean as I am. As citizens, they already enjoy the same rights as the others.

But what they are pushing for now is the Singaporean majority's approval of their behaviour. It is clear the majority does not covet the agenda that gay activists are pushing for. If Parliament repeals Section 377A, we will be unwittingly consenting to such behaviour.

Honey, "they already enjoy the same rights as the others"? You have a right to make love to whoever you want. GAY PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THAT SAME RIGHT!!

And I doubt that the gay community is seeking "majority's approval of their behaviour." Right now, they would be pretty happy if you just left them alone to live their lives without fear of being thrown into jail for what they do in their private space.

Gay people probably do not give much of a damn about what heterosexuals do in the bedroom. Can heterosexuals not extend the same courtesy to them? Why the prurient interest in other people's affairs?

Off to www.repeal377a.com to sign the open letter.