22 August 2012:
Is this time to be happy?
Yesterday at 11pm I was briefly scanning CNA for any news headlines that were interesting. I saw 'criminalises gay sex' (that was all I saw), and immediately got elated. Was 377A going to be repealed?I rushed back into my room and checked Google News from my phone. Sadly, no, it wasn't to be repealed. Yet, there is still room for hope. The Court of Appeal had overturned the ruling by High Court for an assessment of the constitutionality of 377A.
If that's a mouthful to handle, it's basically that the courts would be discussing whether 377A was unconstitutional or not. 377A makes sex between two males, whether in public or private, illegal and punishable by a jail term. A 49-year-old man had alleged that this law was unconstitutional as our constitution states something about personal liberty.
It certainly is refreshing to see this debate reigniting. When PM Lee asked Singaporeans what they wanted Singapore to be in 20 years time, one of my hopes was that there would be no more discrimination against homosexuals and bisexuals (LGBTs). Already it seems like transgenders are less discriminated, since Miss World now allows transgenders and Straits Times published a full column by Andy Ho supporting it.
When is it turn for gays and lesbians to not get discriminated by laws? Opponents of 377A have stated that this law dates back to Victorian era, which was when Singapore was still under British rule. Many years later, UK does not have such a law anymore, yet we still keep it.
PM Lee said in 2007 that the law would be kept but not actively enforced because Singaporeans are still conservative. I would like to question: what is the actual definition of conservative?
From time to time, the definition of conservative would change. What we think is very conservative now may be out of the world centuries ago. The key is change.
Around the world, laws are being released over LGBTs. Even in America, Obama has okay-ed gay marriage, although that has not been enforced fully. (While I am rather anti-America, this is one move I applaud.) Vietnam, a conservative communist country, has considered allowing gay marriages.
Are we conservative or backwards then? Of course, I'm not saying that we be populist. If not very soon just because some people request, incest and necrophilia would be legal. That would not be good. The difference is that LGBTs do not contravene ethics, while necrophilia and incest do.
I understand that some religions may have things against homosexuality. Again, I would stress that there should be change. Even in Buddhism which I follow, I do not agree to some of the more extreme rules in it.
Religions were created or founded centuries ago. Things were very different then. During that time, such things were accepted. Now, maybe it's time to take a look again and decide whether religion should take a step back and see if compromises can be made.
I don't believe that you are not devout if you do not follow every single rule that your religious ruler teaches. I believe that since it is a faith, so long as you believe in yourself and the religion, you will still be faithful.
(I suddenly remembered the comment by that Republican about how female bodies would be able to shut off sperms if they were really raped. Someone teach this guy about biology, and how to save his face.)
Back to 377A, I await the ruling by the courts. Of course, it would take a long time. 377A may not even be repealed this time. But regardless, I shall wait for this change. I have seen how some LGBTs are discriminated, and it's rather saddening to see such things.
It's been five years since 377A was last discussed. Previously it was in Parliament in 2007. Now it's done through the courts in 2012. Does this signal change? Is this time to be happy? I'm not sure, still ambivalent about it.
Nevertheless, a hope for the best.
TTFN.