<Join us as a co-signatory – click here to sign this Open Letter.>

 

I am a counselor who had counseled and journeyed with LGBT persons for two decades. I am a frequent commenter on issues of justice including that of loving LGBT persons (e.g. Two perspectives on helping gay youth; Distinguish between helping gays and supporting an agenda; Letter to Shanmugam). My views on LGBT have been sought by Institute of Policy Studies, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

 

Minister Shanmugam recently said he had spoken to many who do not want “gay sex” criminalised. I believe I represent many others who believe 377A is irreplaceable for 2 reasons: 1. It legally distinguishes between natural sex and sex between men; 2. It’s the best moral signpost Singaporeans currently have.

 

  1. 377A serves a Necessary Legal Distinction based on Scientific Distinctions between Natural Sex and Sex between Men

 

1.1 Procreatability

 

One of these primary distinctions is procreatability i.e. natural sex brings about offspring, sex between men do not. Procreatability is the REAL, NATURAL reason behind marriage: Nature – not governments – instituted the marriage institution. If marriage is defined by “romance” instead of “procreatability”, it would have no meaningful legal definition. For example, what principles can prevent a three-person marriage – “if all three claim to be in love” – if marriage is justified upon “romance”? Marriage and family would mean anything and everything once they get defined out of their natural boundaries. (See: http://vow.sg/love-fatherlessness-same-sex-marriage-how-family-got-deconstructed-in-america/)

 

When something means anything and everything, they really mean nothing. Family – meaningless now – would have got deconstructed and this harms children directly. The deconstruction of family follows the redefinition of marriage. Marriage cannot be redefined unless the legal distinction between natural sex and sodomy is first removed.

 

377A upholds marriage by maintaining a legal distinction between natural sex and sex between men. If we make natural sex and sodomy sex between men to be legally equal, then it can be pushed that “the marriage between man-woman and men-men ought to be equal” as well (or it will be argued that we are still discriminating gay men). It’s not Minister Shanmugam’s or the government’s prerogative to dictate for same-sex marriage activists that they should not protest for change in the definition of marriage if 377A is repealed. From history books, without this legal distinction, same sex marriage will be pushed – and legalised eventually.

 

1.2 Sodomy is physically harmful

 

Another important distinction is in the area of physical harm. Sex between men is well known to be physically harmful. HIV and STD infection 1, irritable bowel syndrome 2 and intestinal infection 3 etc, disproportionately affects men who have sex with men. This gives insight to why Monkeypox has been found to be “driven overwhelmingly by sex between men” – 95% of 528 cases; NEJM 4.

 

1.3 Technical differences between sodomy and coital sex

 

Many would also agree that sex between men i.e. sodomy, is technically unnatural, as compared to coital (man-woman) sex. While some may challenge this as a more personal and archaic view, it does not make void these observable – hence, logical – technical differences.

 

These scientific distinctions, demand a legal distinction between natural sex and sex between men.

 

  1. 377A is the Best Moral Signpost Singaporeans currently have

 

377A protects Singaporeans in ways a typical person does not realise by restraining the following:

 

  • A woke parent insists on cross-dressing his child in pre-school
  • An educator normalises homosexuality in MOE schools
  • Mainstream media or government agencies promotes homosexuality to public
  • A religious leader, parent or teacher gets doxed or investigated for harassment for stating the detriments of homosexual acts
  • Conservative students get bullied by students supporting Pink Dot
  • Malicious accusations were made on conservative organisations
  • Death threats were made on vocal conservative individuals
  • Confused, insecure, male minors get solicited for sex from men

 

Despite of Singapore being a conservative society – with 377A as conservatives’ basis in maintaining hope in Singapore’s legal and judicial system – the above events had actually occurred and are still occuring. Without 377A, there will be way lesser safeguard to the fierce lobbying of same-sex marriage activists. 377A affirmatively is an upstream barricade to such lobbying downstream.

 

While no one seeks to enforce arrests on practicing gays – and most agree to the non-enforcement of 377A – 377A’s constitutionality as a symbolic moral signpost is well established by our courts. The government cannot simply remove it and expect there to be no consequences to Singapore’s public morality.

 

  1. 377A is not discriminatory

 

Is 377A discriminatory to sexual minorities? 377A is discriminatory if and only if gay men are born that way – the way we are born into our race – and they cannot help but pursue sex between men.

 

I explained using history, science and philosophy on why homosexuality is not innate as many believe here: http://vow.sg/born-gay-way-sexual-rights-arent-quite-the-same-as-racial-rights/.

 

Furthermore, an extensive genetic study looked at the entire genome of 470,000 people and found 5 locations to be associated with same-sex behavior; the combined effects of these 5 genetic markers on same-sex behavior is less than 1%. 5

 

Science concludes gays are not born that way that they must pursue sex between men.

 

Hence, it will be errorneous to associate sexual orientation to be like race and accord sexual minorities rights the way we accord racial minorities rights. Sexual orientation has implications on behaviours – e.g. a homosexual orientation implies that same-sex relationships, and homosexual sex acts, are preferred – which are a proper subject matter for moral evaluation. Race implies nothing about one’s actions.

 

  1. Conclusion: Retain 377A – keep the floodgates of endless libertine activism closed

 

377A targets acts – regardless of the sexual orientation of the persons found engaging in them. Every act – including sex between men – ought to be examined according to its merit. If an act is proven harmful or questionable, it should not be promoted or normalised. Even if private parties are given legal freedom to act upon what is harmful to themselves, it should not mean that act could be promoted or normalised publicly. 377A is a uniquely Singapore compromise. It prevents LGBT values from becoming mainstream. But non-enforcement means those who identify as LGBT are free to live out their private lives in peace. If 377A can be removed flippantly without respecting the strenuous objections of a large proportion of Singapore’s population, what hope is there for natural marriage to survive under intensified lobbying for same-sex marriages – once 377A is removed?

 

While it is true that the Judiciary has called upon the Parliament to clarify the legislation regarding the enforcement of 377A, it should not be presumed that hence, 377A, should be repealed. 377A can remain with ample justification. Repealing it would create a grossly messier society.

 

Members of Parliament, removing 377A will be akin to throwing the concerns of hundreds of thousands of conservatives and their children under the bus. Such a move will weaken our society founded on the bedrock of strong natural families. Especially when most Singaporeans feel that “Homosexuality is never or seldom justifiable.” 6 (IPS survey 2021), elected MPs should not to take matters of public interest into their own hands. Else, the government would lose their moral standing.

 

If we do not stand internally, we cannot stand externally. To be a poisonous shrimp 7, we first have to make sure we do not rot within. Without righteous governance but a betrayal of our people and our nation’s soul, how can we even think there be SG100?

 

Sincerely,

Leo Hee Khian

 

References:

 

  1. https://www.moh.gov.sg/resources-statistics/infectious-disease-statistics/hiv-stats/update-on-the-hiv-aids-situation-in-singapore-2021-(june-2022)
  2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6893530/
  3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3754297/
  4. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/monkeypox-driven-overwhelmingly-sex-men-major-study-finds-rcna39564
  5. (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6)
  6. https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/ips-exchange-series-16.pdf
  7. https://sgmatters.com/a-poisonous-shrimp-lee-kuan-yew-we-are-what-we-are-because-we-can-stand-for-ourselves-if-we-cant-weve-had-it/

 

<Join us as a co-signatory – click here to sign this Open Letter.>

Open Letter Response to Minister Shanmugam’s statements on 377A

61 thoughts on “Open Letter Response to Minister Shanmugam’s statements on 377A

  • July 31, 2022 at 3:48 pm
    Permalink

    This country is at a historic moment of opportunity to show what it has prided itself on for generations viz a conservative Asian country.
    Will the present government allow this to be hijacked by caving in to the Liberal minority seeking to bulldoze their perverted ideology on the majority? Should it want to decriminalise Homosexuality and make any changes , there must be a referendum. Not a cursory debate in Parliament among a select group of politicians.

    Reply
  • July 31, 2022 at 3:56 pm
    Permalink

    Please retain S377A. It is the best moral signpost Singapore currently has. Let not this government be the one found guilty of losing it.

    Reply
    • August 4, 2022 at 4:06 am
      Permalink

      377A should remain.

      Reply
      • August 12, 2022 at 3:12 am
        Permalink

        MUST NOT repeal S377A.

        Reply
  • July 31, 2022 at 4:04 pm
    Permalink

    377A should remain and not be repealed. We need to keep the moral stand in Singapore and not allow ourselves to be pressured into conforming to the stands of other countries.

    Reply
  • July 31, 2022 at 4:46 pm
    Permalink

    I strongly uphold and recognises marriage and sex between a man and woman whereby a family unit is formed and children are raised normally.

    Reply
  • July 31, 2022 at 4:46 pm
    Permalink

    Dear PAP,
    Please retain section 377A – a guiding post to retain normalcy or else values goes down the drain – the young will not know right from wrong

    Reply
  • July 31, 2022 at 4:49 pm
    Permalink

    Dear minister Shanmugam

    Pls retain section section 377A – for the sake of our young who need guidance to what is right and what is wrong

    Reply
  • July 31, 2022 at 10:25 pm
    Permalink

    Stop LGBT .
    Stand s 377A, if not there will be no next generation. They will be confuse.
    LGBT action is a Sin in God eye.
    In history shown how God punishment and destroy the country.
    Be wise and don’t be foolish.

    Reply
    • August 2, 2022 at 2:22 am
      Permalink

      Thank you for championing this.

      Standing for this matters for the integrity of our society. Our stance ought to be acknowledged and not swept away as if it was “bigoted”.

      Marriage is a vow and commitment to each other between a male and a female.

      Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 12:21 am
    Permalink

    I agree that it should remain inview of its consquence and impact to further further liberation that result in weakening healthy family structure and system . It will to potential riskof sococizl division when part of the communities do not feel save to send their children to the public schools because of the negative influence on the ungodly belief over the public school sytem. For the remove of the law open the floodgate of other vaules that who result in moral decade in a more progressive speed.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 12:25 am
    Permalink

    Well say. Thank you.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 12:25 am
    Permalink

    377A is uniquely Singapore, we don’t need to follow other countries. We all know what happen in those countries.. Punch 1 hole in our social fabric, and then another n another and soon the social fabric wall is weakened n collapses. We don’t want that to happen. Sex between male n female is natural even inn the animal kingdom. Anything else is against the laws of nature.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 12:44 am
    Permalink

    I do not agree to same sex marriage. I do not wish to see my next generation kissing same sexes in public. Its a no no. Please respect mother nature and not allow more mutations to happen to man kind. We have enough of it through cancer, AIDS, global warming….

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 1:00 am
    Permalink

    I’m against the repeal of S377A. The conservative social
    norms of Singapore which are our core national value will be preserved & protected by our laws. Marriage – define as Heterosexual between one Male & one Female.
    Family – defined as constituting one Male as Father, one Female as Mother & the children they bring forth from their sacred union.
    I hope Minister Shanmugam will take serious consideration to keep S377A for our future generations sake. As once is repeal then there’s no turning back, I cannot imagine what is going to be for Singapore’s future?

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 1:29 am
    Permalink

    As a mother I am deeply concern. Please like good law stay in our society

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 1:33 am
    Permalink

    I support the writer. Very well written.
    Thanks for the education and explanation.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 1:50 am
    Permalink

    Agree to retain 377A for the reasons stated

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 1:55 am
    Permalink

    Mister Shanmugam, please do not remove 377A. I’m a mother of 3 and I’m a Christian. I’m concerning for our future generations. I do not agree same sex marriage allow in our country not even LGBT. Even the bible before 2000 years ago already show us there will have consequences like God’s wrath upon sodom and gomorrah.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 2:08 am
    Permalink

    377A is NOT discrimatory! It protects we citizens!!! Jus like d law ‘Do not murder!’

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 2:16 am
    Permalink

    Please do not remove 377A

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 2:45 am
    Permalink

    Repeal 377A and I, who have been supporting PAP, together with many others, will cease to vote for PAP. The PAP has betrayed the good and upright values the nation has been holding on to.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 3:02 am
    Permalink

    It’s never just the repeal …that is always the first step….and then the agenda expands to the point the barrel is reversed and points back at the conservative majority. It’s an emphatic NO for me. All woke turns to shit …..

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 3:08 am
    Permalink

    Marriage is sacred. 377A MUST NOT be repealed.
    Do not Blindly APE the West. We are Asian!! Not everything from the West is progress!

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 3:43 am
    Permalink

    We need to stand firm what is rightful and not what is wanted to go by votes. Also this will affect the future of our children which is very unhealthy. And why are we allowing such influence come into Singapore! Then we are no difference from other countries if we follow. Singapore should make a difference. Otherwise, more to come n our society will no longer be peace. Please seriously consider.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 4:01 am
    Permalink

    We are devaluing our future generations’ normal and healthy upbringing!

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 4:26 am
    Permalink

    I supported to keep 377A

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 5:01 am
    Permalink

    Let’s not go against what’s tried n tested good n relevant from eons ago.
    Families at stake. Future of Singapore at stake.
    Procreation terminated.
    Can this be logical?

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 5:41 am
    Permalink

    Keep 377A

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 6:07 am
    Permalink

    I support to keep penal code 377A.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 6:14 am
    Permalink

    I fully agree with your views that we must not rot from within. If we are not careful, it will soon lead to a whole string of other demands for equal right for example legalising marijuana will be next.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 7:36 am
    Permalink

    Hi Minister,
    I do not want to see my country fall and drop her standard. I do not agree same sex between men is normal.
    377A cannot be allowed to repeal.

    Regards
    Koh NM

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 8:23 am
    Permalink

    Thank you Hee Kian for summarizing the salient points. I fully agree that we MUST retain 377A. We cannot let the foundation of families be contaminated else it will rot slowly and surely.

    Dear Minister, please treat this seriously from another fellow concerned Singaporean.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 8:58 am
    Permalink

    The natural family unit has been our strength through sufferings and troubles.

    Don’t follow the world that is moving towards devaluing the strength of the family.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 9:57 am
    Permalink

    Man has to sex only with woman.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 11:19 am
    Permalink

    Where do we draw the line? If someone wants to legalise animal sex, do we repeal those laws? Or to have sex with an 8 year old, do we reduce the age of consent? If people want to carry on with their lives the way they want to, they can carry on – why does the rest of the world have to bend accordingly? How about incest, shall we legalise that? Many things are governed by laws for a reason; so that the world can carry on in an orderly manner.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 1:05 pm
    Permalink

    Please keep Singapore clean. We cannot afford diseases caused by unhealthy sex. Our learned government should know the repercussions of this. Do not play with fire. We cannot afford an outbreak and the degeneration fabric of the society due to the irresponsible sexual acts. If the government gives consent to this act, we are opening the gate of more nonsense to come. Please safeguard our future. Think about the housekeeping you as the government needs to do should you allow this to happen!

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 1:17 pm
    Permalink

    It is a permanent union.one man is united to one woman in matrimony, and the two form one new family.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 2:27 pm
    Permalink

    Marriage is for procreation not jusitifaction for sex. Protect our children from unnatural sex.

    Reply
    • August 2, 2022 at 10:43 am
      Permalink

      I support to keep penal code 377A

      Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 8:48 pm
    Permalink

    I fully disagree and fully against allowing same sex marriage under any circumstances. A family institution comprises of father a male and a mother a female and their children.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 9:46 pm
    Permalink

    From the beginning of humanity, a family unit has comprised a sexual union between a man and a woman sealed in the bond of marriage. Homosexual union is a perversion against the natural order of things. It erodes the family unit and the ability of humanity to procreate. It erodes the order of society and the values that uphold it. So how can we now allow that which destroys become legitimate in our society.

    Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 11:56 pm
    Permalink

    Please maintain Section 377A. We loves Singapore and we urge the Sungapore Government to stand strong against the argument of those who wanted to repeal the Section 377A. There are alot of other hidden agenda, it is not only a treat to the consituition of marriage. It will be a thread to what our forefathers had worked hard for Singapore all these year including our founding father Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

    Reply
    • August 2, 2022 at 10:30 am
      Permalink

      I fully agree that we MUST retain 377A.

      Reply
  • August 1, 2022 at 11:59 pm
    Permalink

    Retain 377A.

    Reply
  • August 2, 2022 at 2:24 am
    Permalink

    We must retain 377A for the sake of our children . Once the floodgate is open, not only the morality of the holy matrimony is ruined, generations of people will be psychologically engulfed in insanity in all areas of our lives. This will bring about grave insecurity in our community.

    Reply
  • August 2, 2022 at 6:09 am
    Permalink

    Strong do not agree to lifting up the 377A.

    Reply
    • August 2, 2022 at 10:57 pm
      Permalink

      Please do not start the slippery path of destroying the foundation of the the society – strong families based on strong marriages which refer to a male and female.

      Pls keep 377A intact. Thank you.

      Reply
  • August 3, 2022 at 1:18 am
    Permalink

    We must retain 377A for the sake of our children and future generation . Without it, once the floodgate is open, not only the morality of the marriage is ruined, generations of people will be affected physically, psychologically, and mentally. This will bring abt great devastation, instability and destruction to our beloved country.

    Reply
  • August 3, 2022 at 4:38 am
    Permalink

    the social fabric of the basic definition of a marriage and family is being weakened and shaken by blurring the lines.

    and once the floodgates of confusion starts, there is no end to the confusion. can marriage be between 3 persons, or does it include animals? or how do you even define a mother …
    this will affect the stability of the society and challenges roles, values , if not morals .

    Reply
  • August 3, 2022 at 4:40 am
    Permalink

    hence we must retain the section 377A because of what it represents and protects

    Reply
  • August 3, 2022 at 5:14 am
    Permalink

    Strongly Do not remove 377A,

    Reply
  • August 3, 2022 at 10:35 am
    Permalink

    No to repeal unless first there’s safeguards on family, marriage, children, education, health

    Reply
  • August 8, 2022 at 8:31 am
    Permalink

    Yes, there will be no moral signpost if 377A is repealed.

    Reply
  • August 12, 2022 at 2:05 am
    Permalink

    There is currently no alternative to S377A on the table put forward by the government to discuss and agree to and adopt in exchange for giving up S377A. I will stand my ground and not vote for repeal of S377 A. Any acceptable option to S377A can only be assessed for adoption at some later date and assessed in its own merits then. Otherwise S377A stays for me.

    Reply
  • August 14, 2022 at 12:35 am
    Permalink

    Fully agreed that 377A not be repealed.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.