My Key Takeaways from the Repeal 377A Petition

Over the course of these two weeks, I have publicized the existence of the Repeal 377A petition to many people. Over email, over MSN, and in real life. At all times, I have tempered my words and actions during these interactions because I value and respect their decision to sign or not sign. Whichever it may be.

This may seem unusual - to fight for a cause is to be fully committed to it, which in part includes 'evangelizing' the message. But here, I believe that to coerce or persuade people into signing goes against the spirit of the petition, which is to repeal an unjust discriminatory law so as to honour the dignity and freedom of choice of all peoples. So I did not even try to persuade anyone to sign. (It took some doing to hold back, but I did manage.)

The organisers of this petition probably share this view on freedom and dignity, since they have put in place a "Report to Webmaster" option for every signature on this petition. If someone's name has been signed by someone else, the abuse can be reported to the Webmaster and the signature will be removed. I did this for the signature "Ho Peng Kee, Member of Parliament", as it was obvious it could not have been him, for 2 reasons: 1. he is a PAP MP and thus subject to the party Whip, and 2. his position against homosexuality being "promoted" has been highlighted in Yawning Bread's articles before. And it was removed in short order.

In light of this atmosphere of respectful freedom and easy accessibility to not sign, I must say that 6500+ signatures on the petition is a truly amazing and heartwarming number.

When speaking to my friends and acquaintances about this petition, in addition to respecting their decision to sign or not sign, I have also taken some time to speak with them to understand why. This post lists out the reasons.

Signing the repeal petition:

• For justice and equality and human rights, honouring their freedom of choice and their dignity. Liberal egalitarian values, in other words.
• To remove at least this justification for discrimination against gays, the legal justification. For those who still disapprove of homosexuality, this will promote honesty and clearer thinking for the grounds of their disapproval, so that rational discussion is more likely to happen.
• Consensual sex between gay adults harms no one and therefore is not a crime.
• The probability of future parliament personnel reversing the present PM's decision to not prosecute is nonzero. So PM's assurance is no full-scale assurance.
• The fear and sorrow felt by their gay friends/relatives/acquaintances, that they will still be harassed by the police under this law, although the Attorney General's Chambers will not actively prosecute.
• State powers: To not give the police the discretion or license to harass gays (see above point).
• State powers: To not bow to the views of the "morally conservative majority"
• - survey done by NTU is misleadingly framed and does not address de/criminalization merely social acceptance, and no other supporting study provided.
Therefore statistical proof of the existence of this group is dubious.
• - even if such a majority exists, there cannot be a tyranny of the majority in a functioning democracy. Minority groups' rights do have to be protected, subject to some caveats.
• State powers: A clear separation between religion and State, so that the religiously-motivated views of certain religious people are not favoured over those of other religions and therefore do not set a precedent for violating the Constitutional freedom of all religions in our State. Our Constitution says that we are a secular State, not a theocracy.
• To assert the presence of a "non-conservative" voice given that the Straits Times does not give much representation to this sector and gives much media coverage to the "morally conservative majority" instead.

Not signing the repeal petition:

• Fear of ISD or other expectations of doom and retribution from the State apparatus.
• Neutrality on this issue, coupled with a "prefer to pick the winning side, whichever side wins" attitude.
• Apathy on everything faintly political. Prefer to derive meaning in life from economic sustenance, and to heck with all the rest.
• "I am religious, and homosexual behaviour is against my religion."
• It is not normal. (in the sense that it is not the behaviour of the majority)
• (interestingly...) From the gays, fear of greater discrimination from the "morally conservative majority" as a backlash of this petition.
• Slippery slope - gay rights, gay marriage, generally a "what next?! nuclear war?" fear uncertainty and doubt.
• The family unit should be a unit of procreation, and procreation can occur between a man and a woman only.

I think it is quite clear that the non-signers' reasons are unsound compared to the signers' reasons. But they are still valid.*

As a result, we do have to build up social understanding, instead of pandering to the unsound reasons for keeping 377A. If the law is repealed, good. If the law is not repealed, it will be a great pity, but it will not be the end of the world nor of liberal democracy in Singapore nor of the gays' hopes for fair treatment. As always, there are two ways for things to change: Repeal the law, and social acceptance will follow. Or increase social acceptance, through all our individual daily thoughts and actions, and the law will die a quiet death eventually.

Take heart, live life well, and we shall wait and see.


*I wish to say that the issue of gay marriages is vastly separate from that of gay decriminalization, if only because Singapore is so far away from social acceptance of gay marriage that it would be ludicrous and counterproductive to force it through legislation, even if it could be forced, which it can't. For that, society is truly, absolutely not ready - see the present DEBATE over basic decriminalization of gays and you'll know what I mean.