LGBTs’ constitutional challenge may awaken their biggest nemesis – religious awareness

On the surface, it looks like the LGBT community, mainly the gays, have cleared Round One in their constitutional challenge against S377A. But oblivious to them, there are other minority groups who are observing the goings-on and would certainly capitalize any chance to advance their own agenda too.

Challenging the constitution based on one’s rights is nothing new. It was attempted some years ago. It failed. It didn’t even reach the courts. But with the current episode where S377A is being challenged, the old story of one’s rights under the constitution surfaces again. I’ll come to that later. For now, let’s look at the premature celebration the gay community is having.

One step closer to the abolition of s377A in Singapore?

For the last twelve months, prominent human rights lawyer M. Ravi has been fighting to overturn Singapore’s anti-gay sex laws, enshrined in section 377A of our Penal Code. Now, after this morning’s hearing, it looks like he might be one step closer to success.

Lawyer M. Ravi

At 10 am today, he faced down the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) in the Court of Appeal before Justices VK Rajah, Andrew Phang and Judith Prakash. Before a packed gallery of his supporters, he made a compelling, substantiated argument against the constitutionality of s377A, assisted by his researcher Indulekshmi Rajeswari.

You can read the rest of the article to understand the background. It is quite detailed and does give you a good understanding about the case, without having to surf around for more info.

It is still quite a long way off to have S377A repealed through this constitutional challenge. However, it has reached the courts and that’s the first step.

For sure now, we have a precedent, a court case that exists, for future cases where we can quote that challenging the consti has been brought forward to the courts before.

If S377A does get repeal, the case for future challenges will now be opened for the killing.

This is not the first test case on constitutional rights -

So what are the cases that lies lurking and waiting to be tested? Here’s one. Remember the Tudung Case nearly ten years ago? Four primary schoolgirls were barred from schools because of their tudung. The MOE says it has a policy that bans tudung in schools.

Let’s remember this fact. S377A is a statute. The ban on tudung in schools is just an MOE policy. If a statute can be struck off by the courts because it is against the constitution, wouldn’t it be easier for the courts to strike out a policy of the MOE?

Singapore headscarf ban faces lawsuit

Monday, 22 April, 2002, 14:01 GMT 15:01 UK

The ban led to four girls being suspended from school

The families of four Muslim schoolgirls who were suspended from their schools in Singapore for wearing Islamic headscarves are planning to sue the government.

Three of the girls – aged six to seven years old – were barred from school in February after a highly-publicised stand-off between the families and the city-state, which said the scarves flouted school rules.

“The directive given by the Ministry (of Education) to the school principals not to allow these three daughters, school children to put on their headscarves – it’s unconstitutional,” their lawyer, Sadari Musari, told Reuters on Monday.

The family of a fourth girl, barred from class in 1997, is also bringing a case against the state.

‘Unconstitutional’

Karpal Singh, a prominent constitutional lawyer engaged as counsel for the four families, said: “What we are saying is that this is unlawful, discriminatory and unconstitutional”.

Singapore says the headscarf ban is intended to promote racial and religious harmony,

The ban is to promote racial harmony? Eh? Wouldn’t allowing the different cultures and practices in schools promote harmony instead? If you want to talk about uniformity, the colour of the tudung can always be matched with the uniforms. What’s the big deal?

Anyway, note that the (attempted) challenge in court is also about the constitution. Unfortunately, at that point of time, no lawyer in Singapore dared to take the case up. So the plaintiffs decided to engage Karpal Singh, the opposition MP lawyer from Malaysia.

No need to tell you what was the outcome of Singapore’s decision on Karpal Singh’s application to enter Singapore to represent the plaintiffs. If you really wanna know, here it is – Karpal needs permit to represent students in tudung case. Yep, you got it. He wasn’t allowed even to smell Singapore ground.

Anyway, this was a very hot issue. Just to let you have an idea, here’s a forum discussion on the Tudung Issue – Headscarves…

Big implications if S377A repealed through courts -

It can be seen that Pandora’s Box will be opened if S377A is repealed by the courts. The Tudung Case may be revived and this time, it would be a walk in the park for pro-Tudung parents if they want to test the case.

I am sure it won’t end there. Christians will want to test their right to wear crucifixes. Buddhists and Hindus may want to wear their own religious items. Sikhs may want to have the right to carry their religious daggers.

In fact, freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression of their religious beliefs in public, could be tested as well.

Wait a minute, that would mean that the likes of Pastor Rony would be allowed to say what he likes to say about gays, quoting the Bible – and in public too, no?

That would also mean the anti-Islamic literature like the ones distributed by the Christian couple who got jailed would be legal.

That would also mean that Muslims are free to counter literature against their religion freely in public, in order to clarify any misunderstanding to non-Muslims about Islam, no? (Which of course could include why gay sex is bad.)

Fill more items as you wish to be tested in court in the blank spaces below, readers.

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Please attach A4 paper if the above space is not enough.

In conclusion….we can say that while the LGBT community may celebrate the clearance of the first hurdle, if they do really win the battle to have S377A repealed through the courts, it is gonna be more than what they’re asking for.

They may well have awakened the sleeping religionists from their slumber to test their own brand of freedom of expression. Isn’t religion their biggest nemesis? Well, at least that’s what the LGBT community in Singapore tries to portray.

Wrong way to argue for fair treatment of gays, Alex

I find it perplexing that Alex Au of Yawning Bread, after years of campaigning for the Gay Cause, still makes the same basic mistake – ie trying to get public sympathy for criminals.

I am not against anyone who campaigns for the LGBT cause, be that person an LGBT himself or not. But I find it strange that there still are some LGBT people who think that the way to get support for the Gay Community is to highlight the plight of criminals. What a bummer.

From Alex Au’s Yawning Bread

Three pimps and the law

In the article above, Alex compares two cases of pimping. (Like what I said, he simply had to expect you to empathize criminals!) In one of the cases, its is about pimping female prostitutes. In the other case, male prostitutes.

Alex then compares the unfair hand of the law (yes, I agree with him it’s unfair), where in the case of the male prostitutes, the criminal who pimped them was charged under S377A, where it carries mandatory jail sentence, with no option of fine in lieu of.

Compare the above to the the case where female prostitutes were pimped, and was only fined but not jailed. Alex also pointed out:

146 (1) Any person who knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of the prostitution of another person shall be guilty of an offence . . .. . . shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000.

Issue here is, why was not the guy who pimped the female prostitutes jailed?

Yes, like I said, I agree that’s unfair. But it doesn’t flinch your sympathy activating hormones in your blood one iota, does it? In fact, I suggest that to level the field, how about amending some penal practices such that those who pimp female prostitutes, also get the mandatory jail sentence. That would even things up, not only for the gay community, but also for those who seek gender equality.

Family Ties the better way to seek empathy and sympathy -

The hardball approach to get S377A repealed was a washout. In fact, it created negative feelings from the public. What works is the soft, family approach, like this…

Pink Dot 2010: Focusing on Our Families (Part 1)

Pink Dot 2010: Focusing on Our Families (Part 2)

Please note that I am NOT endorsing sex-change or for that matter the LGBT cause. I may tolerate, but I don’t endorse. I am highlighting how using the family as a platform to get public empathy and sympathy is better than fighting for criminals.

So, isn’t using the Family platform a better way of getting the public to understand the discrimination gay and transgender people go through? Isn’t the Family approach the better way to end discrimination and hate for such people?

The Family Platform is a universal sympathy grabber -

Moving away from S377A, let’s look how the Family Platform works wonderfully elsewhere. Let’s look at Yong Vui Kong’s case, where he is facing death row.

It can be argued that those who are fighting for his life have taken the hard stance by challenging the Mandatory Death Penalty, as well as the Death Penalty itself. Again, note that no matter how you look at it, that approach is asking the public to empathize criminals.

In my opinion, Yong Vui Kong’s case would garner more support from the public if the campaigners had used his family as the core argument. He comes from a poor family, is not very well educated, and has a sickly mother. That story would certainly evoke much emotion of sympathy, if it does not bring tears to your eyes.

Yet, the campaigners take the hard stance and challenge Singapore’s Constitution? Doesn’t this show that the campaigners are more interested to fight their own cause (repealing of Death Penalty itself), rather than for the convict, in this case, Vui Kong?

My Final Comments -

Back to Alex Au’s approach. In spite of the fact that the Family Approach has time and again shown to be far superior in terms of garnering support, compared to fighting for criminals, we have LGBT activists like Alex Au who chooses the latter.

Why is this so? I feel that main reason for that is gay lobbyists like Alex are not interested in people. They are only interested in their own self-centred cause, that is to have the S377A repealed.

Note that while the soft Family Approach would have garnered many supporters from the public, it won’t do anything to repeal S377A.

There lies the crux of the issue.

So taking the hard stance fighting for the repeal of S377A, they must. Never mind that method does not garner as much support and sympathy for the individual gay and transgender people.

So are such gay lobbyists truly sincere in helping gay and transgender people? Just like some of the anti-Death Penalty supporters whose sincerity to fight for Vui Kong’s life is suspect, Alex Au’s sincerity is suspect.

I leave readers to judge for themselves.

========

PS – On the subject of justice (not on the subject of discrimination against gays), the two cases Alex brought up is a good example how inconsistent our police and prosecution can be. That point warrants further discussion. In the light of a recent case where a convict had his guilty sentence overturned and he was saved the gallows, these two cases of pimping, where one was given only a fine without jail sentence although it is clear it warrants the jail sentence, needs to be looked into further.

What’s going on with the police and prosecution?

>S377A, S294 and Marriage after sex change

>First, gays tell you that S377A is discriminatory because it has been used (and abused) to arrest them. But they do not tell you the full story. The full story is that whenever gays are charged under S377A, it is because they have been having male-male sex in public areas. So while S377A appears to have been abused by the law enforcers, the gay community has been less than honest with society, concealing that there truly were crimes commited. I have discussed this point over here – Revisiting S377A

It has also been argued that S377A is unconstitutional. An application to test in court was made to strike out S377A, on the basis that S377A is unconstitutional.

Case Study -

On 7 Dec 2010, the above application was heard and the verdict was that since no one is (currently) charged under S377A, the application has no standing. In other words, you can’t test a case in court, when no case exists in the first place. Here are details of that hearing.

When the application to court was made, there was a case where a person was charged under S377A and that was pending court hearing. The person charged was a man named Tan Eng Hong. The S377A charge has since been amended to S294 instead.

The point I would like to highlight is that gays have always been telling us that S377A has been abused – which is not the case, because I have shown that there were crimes committed, but S377A was used as a matter of “legal convenience”.

The use of S377A by the govt has NEVER been such that it was a witch-hunt against gays, which the gay community would like us to believe.

The govt has also promised the gay community that S377A won’t be abused by the govt to target gays. However, the gay community read that as S377A would NEVER be used at all! A totally different promise which the gay community has warped!

Come this case, Tan Eng Hong, where he has been initially charged under S377A. Again, note the circumstances that led to the charge. He was caught having male-male sex in a public toilet. Of course, there are a host of other charges (like public indecency) that he can be charged with, but it was initially decided that he be charged under S377A.

Tan’s lawyer, M Ravi, then decided to challenge the validity of the charge by making an application to the court to test out its validity, citing S377A is unconstitutional. The charge was later amended from S377A to S294. That’s why on 7 Dec 2010, the court said that the application had no standing, because at the time of hearing, there’s no one being charged under S377A.

To the gay community, they see that as a hide and seek game against them, with the law trying to avoid the validity of S377A. They can say what they like. From my perspective, I see that they have got what they wanted – that S377A is not used frivolously against them.

Well, it can be seen that from now onwards, the DPP will be very careful in using S377A, even if there are crimes surrounding the male-male sex scenario. In all probability, from now onwards, whenever homos have their romp in public places, S294 would be used instead.

Are gays not getting what they want, ie. S377A not be used? Yet, Alex Au, from Yawning Bread still does not appear to be satisfied. In his article above, he writes,

In my earlier article I argued that it would be a denial of justice to institutionalise such a restrictive rule that one must be prosecuted in order to challenge a law that has wide effects on a class of persons, including indirect effects.

What denial of justice if from now on, you’ll see S377A will not be used? In fact, what injustice at all, when in the first place, there were crimes committed at the scene, when earlier cases of S377A were used?

If there is any injustice at all, it is the gay community’s half truth telling society that S377A has been used and abused by the govt. We were made to believe that S377A was used as a witch hunt, when in the first place, it was used in place of other crimes that were committed at the scene – a legal convenience which is the practice of many lands.

Another Case Study -

I have always maintained that gays have taken the hostile stance by saying that society and the govt have been discriminating them, whenever they cite S377A. It has been shown that if you approach the “soft way”, the govt would be willing to listen, and even accede to your request.

With all the past foot-stomping, chest-beating and berating from the gay community against the govt on S377A, the govt has now hardened its stance. If you recall, the govt did accede to the LGBT community before, and society did not give a hoot. It was about amending a bill to allow sex-changed persons to marry one from their former gender. Here is that case.

From another article from Alex Au’s Yawning Bread.
Marriage for sex-changed persons

This appendix archives the government’s explanation for why they had to amend the law to cater to sex-changed persons. There was no debate from the floor of the House….

Second reading

Abdullah Tarmugi, Minister for Community Development, moving the Amendment Bill to the Women’s Charter on 2 May 1996:

Clause 4 of the Bill proposes a new section 11A to:

(1) clarify that a marriage solemnised in Singapore of elsewhere between two persons of the same sex shall be void;

(2) recognise the new sex of a person who has undergone sex reassignment procedure and accept the reassigned sex as stated in a person’s identity card as conclusive evidence of his or her sex; and

(3) allow persons who have undergone sex reassignment procedure to marry and to declare past and future marriages of such persons to be valid.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that this amendment has raised some concerns among some members of the public. The issue is indeed a complex one and touches on moral, cultural and religious values. Sir, permit me to explain the proposed amendments which were made after much discussion and deliberation with several parties.

Sex reassignment procedure has been allowed in Singapore since 1971. A person who has successfully completed a sex reassignment procedure has to change his or her identity card to reflect the new sex and identity. A small group of individuals in Singapore have indeed undergone the procedure and have had their identity cards changed.

In June 1991, things changed for this group of trans-sexuals who had married when the High Court ruled in the case of Lim vs Hiok that the Women’s Charter did not permit marriages between two persons of the same biological sex. Until the ruling, the Registry of Marriages had all along accepted the identity card as documentary proof of the identity and sex of a person. Those who had undergone sex reassignment procedure were able to marry using their identity cards which reflected their new sex. Following the 1991 court ruling, the Registry of Marriages stopped allowing the use of identity cards and began to require applicants to bring their birth certificates as evidence of their sex instead. For those who got married before the ruling, the court’s decision meant that their marriages were now void. And if they have adopted children, the status of these children is now uncertain.

Sir, I must emphasise that the proposed amendments are not meant to institute a new practice. Rather they are to reinstate what was the position before 1991. The Government’s stand is very clear: it is not a move to encourage or promote lesbianism, homosexuality, transvestism or sex reassignment among our people. We do not believe the amendments will result in our people reassigning their sex in droves. The Bill basically seeks a practical and humane approach to address the problems faced by this group of people and the families they have set up. It is to allow these individuals to lead a life according to their new status, as recorded in their identity cards, as we have all along used the NRIC to verify identity. It is practical. It is sensible.

Sex reassignment is a costly, painful and long process. A person has to undergo extensive psychological and physical assessment by psychologists and doctors to assess his or her need for sex reassignment to function better and more comfortably. Only when it is deemed necessary by the professionals is a person allowed to proceed with the sex reassignment procedure.

I wish to reiterate that the amendment will apply only to civil marriages and not to Muslim marriages which are government by a different set of laws, ie, the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA). Islam prohibits sex reassignment and does not recognise marriages between people who have undergone sex reassignment.

His last paragraph is at variance with the decades-old fatwa from the late Shiite leader Ayatollah Khomeini who ruled that transsexuality was a physical disorder which can be corrected by medical and surgical means like any other physical disorder. But then, Muslims in Singapore tend to follow the Sunni branch.

There were no significant comments by any MPs on the proposed bill, which was then sent to a Select Committee after the second reading.

Note that Alex Au, noted that there was “no significant comments” from any MPs. This was the year 2005, long before we had the case where Parliament debated to retain S377A.

My Conclusioin -

Now let’s recall the “background scenes” of these two cases. Where there was no foot-stomping and chest-thumping, the bill was easily passed – as in 2005. Where there is a lot of high handed and arrogant name calling, S377A was retained.

The gay community should stop their chest-beating and be more humble, if they wish to get things done. The govt (and society) are not sadists and would definitely be willing to listen, if gays behaved in a less hostile manner.

More importantly, the gay community should be honest and should not try to deceive the public like what they did on S377A issue, saying that S377A was abused and used frivolously against gays, when the truth is that S377A has always been used in place of another crime – a “legal convenience”, which is the common practice of the law of many lands.

>Challenging Legality of S377A – Will Gay Community be chewing more than they can swallow?

>The constitutionality of S377A is going to be challenged in court. For those who are unfamiliar with the background, here is a link to help you out.

The 377A hide-and-seek
Scroll down halfway down the article.

Prior to the DPP lowering the charge, M Ravi, who is well-known in Singapore for adopting an aggressive position on behalf of his clients, had told the court at the very first court mention of this case that he intended to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A.

Subsequently, he followed up with an Originating Summons, the first few lines of which says,

Section 377A of the Penal Code is inconsistent with Article 9 of the Constitution, and is therefore void by virtue of Article 4 of the Constitution; and Section 377A is inconsistent with Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution, and is therefore void by virtue of Article 4 of the Constitution; and for these reasons the charge brought against the accused under Section 377A is void.

What are Articles 4, 9 and 14 of the Constitution?

Article 4 says that the Constitution is the supreme law in Singapore and any act of the legislature that is inconsistent with the Constitution is void.

Article 9 is relatively long, the first sentence of which says “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law”.

Article 14 guarantees the freedom of speech, assembly and association subject to this and that.

If you want to have a more detailed understanding, here is M Ravi’s take – No place for discrimination in Singapore: A reply to Yvonne Lee

This idea to challenge the constitution to test out if an individual’s rights is violated is not new. What is new is that this is the first time it would be tested out in court. How this case turns out will have a large impact not only on the gay community, but also for all minority groups, as well as for the whole of Singapore.

Idea of testing in court is not new -

Let’s go back to an event that happened 8 years ago. In 2002, there was a hot issue pertaining to the rights of individuals and there was talk about challenging a ruling by testing the constitution to overrule that ruling in court. It was the “Tudung Issue”, where four primary schoolgirls were banned from schools because of their tudung.

A man named Zulfiqar spearheaded the campaign to lobby that the tudung be allowed in schools as standard practice – his argument was that based on religion, it requires females to be covered. He also argued that is a constitutional right, if the girl wants to have it on. Dr Chee Soon Juan also spoke on this tudung issue at the Speakers’ Corner. As expected, Chee was arrested for that.

Here is Chee’s speech at the Speaker’s Corner I found on the internet.
Tudung Issue: Are We Missing the Point

Here is Chee’s defence on the charge in court.
Chee’s submissions in the tudung trial

Here is a link indicating that there was an attempt to challenge the ruling in court by testing constitution, citing that there was a violation of individual’s rights.
Singapore / Malaysia – Human Rights News

Margaret John, Coordinator for Singapore and Malaysia, Amnesty International Canada gives us the latest summaries of human rights news in Singapore and Malaysia (August 2, 2002)….

…Three Muslim girls suspended from school for wearing the tudung: The Malaysian lawyer, Karpal Singh, requires a work permit to represent his clients in a Singapore court. The father of one of the girls, Mohamad Nasser Jamaludin, vowed that he would “fight all the way” for his constitutional right. A fourth girl moved to Australia with her mother, where she is able to wear the tudung at an Islamic school in Melbourne. (Reuters 1/8)

Apparently, one of the fathers of the four suspended girls decided to engage Mr Karpal Singh, a constitutional lawyer and a Malaysian opposition MP, to represent his daughter’s case in court, challenging the legality of the ruling that tudungs are banned.

If I recall correctly, the issue was never brought up to court because the only lawyer who was willing to take up the case, Mr Karpal Singh, was not issued a work permit.

No lawyers in Singapore picked up the case.

Gay Community opening floodgates for religious communities? -

There is a twisted irony in this coming court case.

As it can be seen, how the S377A turns out, would affect the tudung issue. If Mr M Ravi wins the case, would there be a revival within a section of Muslims who will try to challenge the legality of the ruling that tudungs are banned in schools?

I don’t believe it will end there. Other religious groups may follow. Christians will ask that crucifixes be allowed to be worn. Buddhists and Hindus will also ask that they be allowed to wear their religious ornaments.

What about prayer rooms then? Isn’t it their constitutional right to pray? I don’t believe it would stop in schools only. What about the workplace? Don’t individuals who work in companies have rights too? What about public places like airports and shopping centres? Muslims pray five times a day. Want to provide prayer rooms for them?

Where will it end?

I am all for allowing diversity and tolerance. I can tolerate the different religious practices. Much as I find it annoying that cars pile up along the roadside on Friday afternoons near mosques, or Christians who conduct their prayer sessions late at night singing all the way, or Buddhists/Toaists who burn joss paper such that ash lands up in front of my door, I can tolerate such events.

Can gays tolerate the resurgence of the awareness of the religious?

I hope that the gay community gets S377A repealed due to a court ruling. That’s because I tolerate diversity and individual rights. However, will these gays be happy and comfortable that the chain reaction may be that it opens the floodgates for religious groups, such that they start demanding that they be allowed to practise their rights publicly because it is their constitutional right?

I can’t help notice the ironic twist and implication on the Gay Community. If the Gay Community wins this case, it would open the floodgates for the religious groups to capitalize the situation – allowing religion to dominate the public space – something the gay community would rather not have in the first place.

A very interesting case to watch indeed.

I bet the Gay Community never saw the challenge of the legality of S377A from this angle.

>Revisiting S377A

>There is another case where a gay has been charged under S337A.

Lawyer challenges gay sex law

SINGAPORE – An application has been filed in the High Court to challenge the legality of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises gay sex.

A hearing will be fixed for the Court to rule whether the law should be deemed unconstitutional if the act is between consenting adults.

Lawyer M Ravi filed the legal action on Friday on behalf of his client Tan Eng Hong, who was charged for allegedly having oral sex with another consenting male.

In his eight-page application, Mr Ravi said, “The continuance of Section 377A on the statute book operates to brutalise a vulnerable minority segment of the citizenry for no fault on its point. A section of society has been thus criminalised and stigmatised to a point where individuals are forced to deny the core of their identity and vital dimensions of their personality.”

His client is due to attend a pre-trial conference on Monday morning in the Subordinate Courts. With the application, though, Mr Ravi is also seeking for the higher court to “void” the charge brought against Mr Tan. LEONG WEE KEAT

Now before gays jump and howl that the govt has backtracked on their words that S377A won’t be used to discriminate gays, here is more information about the above case, which the article above did not report.

Singapore Bravely Cracks Down On Illegal Glory Hole Restroom Action

Tan Eng Hong, 47, will be charged with violating Singapore’s ban on sex between two men after he allegedly an “act of gross indecency” at a public toilet in a shopping mall. Singapore in 2007 legalized anal and oral sex between members of the opposite sex.

So the real reason for the conviction is that the crime was having sex in a public place. In this case, a public toilet. There are two issues that I would like to discuss. Firstly, why can’t the police just charge these guys for indecent act in a public place instead of S377A. Secondly, are not gays being less than honest claiming that S377A is used against them indiscriminately, when the background is that there is a crime committed, and all the hoo-ha that S377A is being used “to discriminate”, is nothing more than a technicality?

Why charge under “gross indecency in public place” instead of S377A -

I can’t claim to why the police don’t use this law, instead of S377A. However, I have had experience working with (not for) govt agencies before and I do notice a certain trend. If someone or a party commits a certain crime and if there are a host of legal avenues for govt to prosecute, very often the govt agency will choose the easiest option. Yes, easiest in the sense that the prosecution will inflict the max penalty with the least amount of work.

As an example, if a speedster is caught by the Traffic Police and he fails the breath analyzer test, this guy will probably be charged for driving while under the influence of alcohol, instead of speeding. Unless of course the speeding is way, way above the speed limit like 150 km/h.

Things get more complicated if it involves organizations where it is suspected crimes take place (eg misappropriate funds), but there is not enough evidence to prosecute. The prosecution may hence go for “easier options” like under declaration of tax or any “safer” methods which will eventually result in a successful conviction.

Yet another example would be shady companies who are known to siphon investors’ money for their own use, but there is not enough evidence to prove fraud. Such companies include MLM, fly by night forex companies, or companies that claim to train you in options/forex/stock trading by taking high fees, but give very little in return to investors.

So how do govt agencies prosecute if there is not enough evidence to prove fraud? They go for “easier options” like operating an unlicensed company that does trading or some other laws unrelated to fraud.

Back to the S377A stuff. Like I said, I do not know why S377A is used and not “gross indecency” in public place. But I suspect that it may be the “policy” of govt departments, where they will choose the easier and safer option, such that it results in a successful prosecution of a crime.

Gay Community not honest enough about use of S377A -

Time and time again, we have gays who claim that S377A discriminates. However, we can see that there is more to it. Are these gays not hiding that there are other crimes that the convicted person has committed and hence, the “easiest option” practice is carried out?

Here is an article from Yawning Bread that argues S377A is unconstitutional – Management of gays revisited, part 1

Left unsaid in YB’s article above is of course the govt’s practice of “easier option” to prosecute. So what is the main gist of the Gay Community? Is it:

1) S377A is used indiscriminately against gays.
2) S377A itself is discriminatory in nature, regardless it actually metes out injustice or not.

If it is (1), we must remember that the “easier option” practice is a blanket practice by govt agencies on all crime related cases. Hence, there really is no discrimination targetting gays or their community.

If it is (2), then this becomes an ideological agenda and nothing else. It becomes a political statement from the Gay Community that says, “We exist and we want to stamp our influence on you.” If that is the case, every minority has that right too, no? Which includes the different religions, no?

The Bottom Line -

The bottom line to this issue, I believe, is the end result in itself. If we want to talk about ideals, we can talk till the cows come home. Some want a more open democratic style – US/Western style. Not that I believe US and the West is democratic either, because there’s the Patriot Act in America that can be used against you in the name of “War of Terrror. Likewise, it is a crime to even dare discuss about the Holocaust in Europe. What democracy Western style?

Others want us to align to more “Asian Values” (as if there’ such thing, ha ha) and link Confucianism and Chinese Traditions to “Asian Values”. As if Indian Culture and other Asian societies are not part of Asia.

So if we give in the gay ideals, where do we stop? Rather than talking about these ideals, and hence, link it to repealing S377A, why can’t gays live and let live? After all, gays can still have their private affair (everyone else does that, so why can’t gays?) in their private space and not in public places like public toilets.

There is a proper time and proper place for everything – not least of all, that includes sex. So if everyone else in the community can observe the decency of having sex at the proper time and proper place, why can’t gays do the same?

Isn’t their own transgression from the norm of society (ie having sex in private) the cause of S377A being invoked against them, rather than the govt is out on a witch-hunt?

I have always said that gays inflict their own pain. This is certainly one very good example of my claim.

>Section 377A and Gay Relations – The Social Perspective

>There has been much debate about gay issues. Although there are different perspectives, 2 groups appear to dominate the scene – pro-gay propagandists and anti-gay propagandists. The neutrals and the in-betweens seem to be drowned into oblivion.

Pro-gays appear to say that anti-gays see homosexuality from the religious perspective. Maybe it’s true.

What I find interesting is that the same pro-gays who brand anti-gays as people who can’t think outside the box (of religion), themselves appear not to be able to think outside the box, that there are arguments that are non-religious, which do not favour gay behaviour.

I will present my case from the social perspective. No religion involved. Let me say on the onset that I do not disapprove any gay man or woman, who wishes to engage in gay sex per se. My objection comes when these men and women try to push an agenda, influencing our young, that they should try out gay relations.

Now that the above is said, we can start looking at gay issues, from the social perspective.

The Social Bonding Unit – The Traditional Family

History has proven time and time again, that marriage between husband and wife has been the central role in civilized societies. Throughout the history of mankind, the family unit, which makes up of husband, wife and children has been the central pillar of society. This practice of marriage and family bonding has been tested over time and across countless of cultures around the world. The good old saying that if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it, holds true here.

In comes a variation that sets to violate the time-tested-and-proven concept of husband-wife marriage. The same sex marriage.

Pro-gays will argue that they should be given such rights. I won’t even want to venture into that area. I will just look at the hard statistics to see if that is a good idea.

The link below is about child abuse. Let’s look at what is the main cause of child abuse.

http://www.a-team.org/child_abuse_statistics.html

THE CHILD ABUSE CRISIS:
THE DISINTEGRATION OF MARRIAGE,
FAMILY, AND THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY

Far too many children are badly abused in the United States today. This disturbing fact–driven home by shocking stories on nightly television broadcasts – appears also in professional literature as analysts try to understand the causes of this problem and find a remedy for it. The growing empirical evidence on child abuse1 reveals new, alarming, and distinct patterns of familial relationships that contribute greatly to this tragedy. The studies show that, along with a continual rise in the incidence of child abuse in the United States, there has been an increase in the number of children born out of wedlock and abandoned by their fathers, as well as an increase in the number of children affected by divorce. Now, in addition to poverty and community environment, the rising incidence of child abuse in the United States can be linked to one more factor: whether an abused child’s parents are married.

The underlying dynamic of child abuse–the breakdown of marriage and the commitment to love – is spreading like a cancer from poor communities to working-class communities. As social scientists, community leaders, and legislators consider ways to stop the spread of this cancer, they must focus their attention on the most upsetting byproduct of the disintegration of family and community: the abuse, maiming, and even death of America’s infants and young children, about 2,000 of whom–6 per day–die each year.

The above tells us that the disintegrating family is the cause of child abuse.

Scroll down further…..

The Demographics of Child Abuse

A survey of the professional literature shows that the three main types of abuse most commonly researched are physical abuse and, to a lesser extent, neglect and the trauma of children who have witnessed violence against their parents.8 According to the professional literature, child abuse in the United States exhibits definite demographic patterns:

- The safest family environment for a child is a home in which the biological parents are married. Contrary to current theory about the effects of marriage on children, recent research demonstrates that marriage provides a safe environment for all family members, one in which child abuse and fatality are lowered dramatically……

…..Although a home with biological parents who are married cannot guarantee that a child will be safe and happy, the evidence suggests that it represents the safest of all environments for children; at the same time–and in sharp contrast – the evidence also suggests that a home with adults who decide not to marry and to live together out of wedlock represents the most dangerous environment of all for children.

Once again, the emphasis of the traditional marriage – home with biological parents who are married to each other.

A point of argument pro-gays may bring forth is this: Can’t 2 gays simply have sex and not have children?

Sure! Who’s stopping them? That’s when Section 377A comes in doesn’t it? Pro-gays will try to have it repealed to end the “discrimination”. Now that we have looked at the social perspective, let’s take a look at Section 377A.

Section 377A

No need to introduce to you guys what that section is. If you bother to read this post this far, it shows that you are interested in the topic enough to know what that Section is about.

It must be remembered that while pro-gays in Singapore may try to push for that Section to be repealed, in other parts of the world, pro-gays have already “advanced” to the stage to allow legal gay marriages, with all the laws of inheritance and family and domestic laws applied to them. That means 2 gays can adopt and have legal children. That’s where the problem comes, doesn’t it?

What makes you think pro-gays in Singapore, won’t take the next step, after having Section 377A repealed, to push for recognition of gay marriages and gay families? Would this not threaten the time tested and proven traditional family? We have seen that studies have shown that the traditional family is the cure for the cancerous social ills of domestic violence. By having Section 377A repealed, are we not going down the slippery slope to social disaster?

Again, if gays would like to have sex between themselves in private, that is their private lives. But to expect society to risk social deterioration is a different matter altogether.

Is Gay just another passing fad?

In the 1960s and 1970s, we had the Woodstock Generation of young lads who rebelled without a cause. They rebelled against their parents, against society, against authority and sometimes, even against the law. Long hair was the in thing. Rock music, free sex and living out of wedlock were seen as “modern”. So were drugs like LSD. Parents and authority who frowned upon these were seen as stumbling blocks to modernity.

Every generation, every era, has its own “fad”. The type of fad that comes and goes. The fad that divides the younger generation from the older generation. Is not the gay promotion stuff today, experiencing the same growing pains drugs and free sex went through in the 1960s and 1970s?

It must be remembered that the Woodstock Generation did a good (or lousy – depends on how you see it) job. Many caught on the “cool practice” of being unwed mothers, and as what we have seen earlier, the abandonment of the time tested traditional family of wedded husband and wife, causes much social ills within the family and society today.

So is the pro-gay agenda going through the same process? I believe it is. In countries like US, Canada and other “advanced” countries, same sex marriage and families are already in existence. It would take about another generation or so, before we see the results of this kind of social living.

Conclusion

From this, it can be concluded that the retention of Section 377A has its merits. No doubt, that section specifically forbids sexual relations between men and does not touch on the traditional family marriage. However, repealing it sends signal that our society is willing to give up the traditional marriage and venture into variations of legal marriage as with some countries.

It is better to be safe than sorry. Gays can always have sex between themselves. Expecting the government to test out a new variation, with the chance of a deteriorating society, is risking our society a little too much.