Why the SDP supports repealing Section 377A

October 23, 2007
Singapore Democrats

This post is at least a year old. Some of the links in this post may no longer work correctly.

Some people have asked us why we support the campaign to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code that criminalizes homosexuality. The exchange of emails between our John Tan and SYM below, in particular our second letter, sums up our position.

Dear SDP,

I am wondering why do the party wanted to support the repeal section 377A when is wanted to win the Singapore people’s heart…I wanted to bring up my kids in a pro- family environment. I cannot comprehend when my kids asked my why the 2 men sitting opposite us are kissing in public?

SDP failed to realised that once the gay activists got their way, that means its freedom for them to express their sexual orientation. I do not have to have a PhD to know that it’s against the acts of nature.

I had been a regular swimmers to public swimming pools and never failed to spot a few weirdo lurking around the cubicles and soaping themselves facing the open cubicle door, occasionally looking at the males who were their. What are these guys up to?

These people cannot impose their sexual orientation to us that its is right. In nature, its is one way out for the faeces from the anus. And attempt to enter it will caused pains and skin breakages. That is why gays use relaxers in the anus to “enhance” their sexual life…

I am not against homosexuals but is against the act of it and its against my religious belief too. I also have a uncle who is homosexual and i do not have ill feeling against him. Just that we accepted that he is what he is. But I do not want my kids to think its normal to be gay.

SYM

PS. I am not pro PAP.

Dear SYM,

Thank you for writing us. One of SDP’s fundamental tenets is the principle of basic rights and equality for all. It means that if some people are free to engage in certain activities, others must likewise be free to engage in similar activities even if the latter take on different forms or fashions. This principle must be applied in every domain, including that of sexual orientation.

Since you are a religious person, allow me to use religion as an example. In many religions, devotees or believers typically view that it is against one’s religious belief to exercise faith in a different religion other than one’s own. Yet, very few people would advocate a law that prohibits the practice religions they do not subscribe to.

You also argued that homosexuality is “unnatural”. Although monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism view the worship of snakes and cows as ridiculous and unnatural, non of them would call for a law that punishes the practice of Hinduism–at least not in a democratic society.

I hope I have answered your question. Otherwise, feel free to write again.

JOHN TAN
Assistant Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

Dear SDP,

You had failed to answer my question as why SDP have to take this matter politically. SDP should try to win the majority and THIS IS the irony of politics. No point curry the special interest group of people who could not form enough people to vote for you.

PAP or even Workers’ Party is wise in this matter by sticking to the majority as these people bring in the votes and we are mostly Asian in your values. WP’s had changed its style of confronting the government and during the last election, WP had proven their tactics works while SDP performed it worst…

When is SDP going to change it ways to deal with the electorate since it had banged and bloodied its head on the fortress of the PAP government countless times?

SYM

Dear SYM,

The “irony of politics” as you describe is one of total pragmatism. One that holds neither ideology nor principles save that which benefits the party.

Such extreme pragmatism is propagated by Lee Kuan Yew and has unfortunately taken hold in the psyche of many Singaporeans.

The SDP, on the other hand, while trying to be as practical as we can at some level, must constantly be guided by our foundational tenets. When we say equality for all, we mean equality for all.

There was once a very wise man, who found that people (about 5 thousand of them) didn’t like his sermon and were leaving him.

Yet he didn’t change his stand for the majority but instead challenged the remaining 12 guys who stayed with him: “You do not want to leave too, do you?”

You probably know the innumerous followers this teacher had later. Sometimes, it takes awhile for people to see the value in our principles. But see it they will, someday.

In that respect, we learned a few things from the great sage. We hope you will too.

JOHN TAN
Assistant Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

Dear SDP,

Well, Maybe history will tell. All the best too!

YSM