|
| SAFE's letter to the ST Forum re Transsexuals |
Transsexuals: More understanding needed
12 Sep 2008
Home>ST Forum>Online Story
KUDOS to the transsexuals in Mr Wong Kim Hoh's Special Report last Saturday, 'When Papa became Mama'. Having had enough just trying to understand themselves, they have come forward to help the rest of us understand our problem with them. And indeed the problem lies with us.
I read with sadness of the rejection, discrimination and struggles the transsexual community has had to endure, and realise it is our under-developed understanding of the diversity and complexity of human genders, our immature stereotyping of those who are different, and our lack of acceptance and compassion for the unique individuality of our children, that have caused their plight. They are just as much a part of our family. What has happened to our focus on family values? Values of unconditional love, support and commitment?
How can we undo the damage we have done?
Could the answer lie in the poignant reply of the 10-year old daughter of male-to-female transsexual Fanny Ler? When asked what it was like to have two mothers, she said: 'It's okay to have two mummies. I can still enjoy both their love.' This turns the family-values argument on its head. It is not non-traditional family structures that constitute a threat to families, but the shame and stigma society attaches to families that undermine it. It is perhaps true then, that 'a little child shall lead us' to truly pledge ourselves to be one united people, regardless of race, language, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation. A society based on justice and true equality for all.
Susan Tang (Mrs)
Founding member
SAFE (a support group of straight people aimed at accepting gay, lesbians and people of other sexual orientations)Labels: Letters to the Press, News |
|
|
|
| MP Baey all for repealing anti-gay law |
The Straits Times, July 16, 2007
MP Baey all for repealing anti-gay law
By Jeremy Au Yong
A PEOPLE'S Action Party MP yesterday spoke out against then non-review of the law banning homosexual sex.
Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng said if it comes to a vote in Parliament, he would say 'yes' to doing away with the law which makes it illegal for men to have sex with other men.
He was joined by Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong who had previously made public his opposition to Section 377A of the Penal Code which bans homosexual sex.
Both were members of a forum panel yesterday that included gay activist Alex Au, founder of gay media company Fridae Stuart Koe, and Methodist church leader Reverend Yap Kim Hao.
They were discussing the legislation with about 100 participants. When the Home Affairs Ministry proposed changes to the Penal Code last year, it said it would retain the ban on acts of 'gross indecency' between men.
One participant, academic Russell Heng, 56, asked Mr Baey for his position if Parliament took a vote on this issue.
He said he would vote to repeal the law, a response which drew loud applause.
Explaining his stand, Mr Baey drew an analogy between homosexual sex and drinking or smoking.
'There should be a distinction between what the Government wants to discourage, and what it wants to criminalise,' he said.
'The Government can make it more difficult to access drinking and smoking, but you are still allowed to drink and smoke. So, you can discourage homosexual sex without criminalising it.'
He believed the Whip should be lifted if Parliament were to debate this issue. But he conceded that - from his understanding - not many MPs would share his views on decriminalising homosexual sex.
Lifting the Whip means MPs can vote according to their convictions, and do not have to toe the party line.
But Mr Baey emphasised that he did not think this issue would be decided through public consensus.
'From what I understand of how the Government works, I don't think the Government will make a decision based on a survey...The Government would want to make its own stand and position on issues like this,' he said.
Changing the law would require 'some progressive thinking and also people who are able to influence the Cabinet's thinking'.
Thus, recent remarks by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew were welcome, he added. 'We should be happy he made those remarks, and that will pave the way for some change in the thinking of the current Government.'
In an interview with Berita Harian published two weeks ago, MM Lee said the Government should not act like moral policemen, 'prying on consenting adults'.
He also reiterated his view that homosexuals 'were mostly born that way', but also recognised that Singapore is a conservative society and cannot go as far as some countries that recognise gay marriage.
Yesterday's forum also touched on issues about the gay community and what the religious view on the matter was.
Offering his view, Rev Yap said: 'Contrary to the majority of the Christian views... I personally would call for it to be repealed on the basis that this is God's purpose - the existence of the homosexual community...We know there will always be a proportion of the population, generation after generation, who will be homosexual, and they are created by the heterosexuals.'
At the end of the forum, both Mr Baey and Mr Siew said it was good to have open discussion to increase awareness of the issue, but the absence of a different point of view meant the discussion lacked balance.
Said Mr Baey: 'We were talking to the converted.'Labels: News |
|
|
|
| Let's debate without prejudice, judgment or condemnation |
Anthony Yeo, a SAFE supporter, wrote this letter to the Straits Times's online forum in response to an earlier article 'Can mum, mum and kids make a family?'
We have reprinted his published letter here.
...
The Straits Times Online Forum, July 13, 2007
Let's debate without prejudice, judgment or condemnation
MR JANADAS Devan made a very bold attempt in exploring the issues pertaining to same-sex parents forming a family, 'Can mum, mum and kids make a family?' (ST, July 7).
His article serves a useful challenge to the majority view that homosexuals, if permitted to carry on their lifestyle, and/or become parents, will only bring disorder and disaster to family and society.
Of particular challenge are the questions: 'Are the children of divorced heterosexual couples better off than the children of my lesbian friends?' and 'How about the children of single mothers or of constantly bickering heterosexual couples locked in loveless marriages?'
I believe there is a need for further consideration and discussion regarding these questions.
In my 35 years of professional practice of psychological counselling and work with families, this is what I have observed.
Of all the thousands of people who sought counselling for psychological disturbance, relationship problems and effects of stress of life, I observed that all of them had parents from heterosexual marriages.
Those children who have suffered from physical, emotional/psychological and sexual abuse did not have parents from same sex relationship.
In fact, practically every case of sexual abuse involved a parent, usually the father or step-father, uncle, brother and someone known to the family. They were mostly heterosexual encounters.
Of all those who sought counselling with marital problems involving one spouse having extra-marital affairs, practically all of them involved the spouse having a heterosexual relationship.
I have had experiences with men afflicted with sexual addiction, such as pornography and those who engage in paid sex. Most of these men were married heterosexuals.
As I ponder over Janadas' questions, I am also wondering about the tendency to ascribe social and family problems to the threat of a homosexual lifestyle and relationship.
It is so easy to make proclamations that if homosexuals were to be accepted and homosexual acts decriminalised, then society and family life will inevitably deteriorate.
My observations, experiences coupled with research done do not bear this out in any way.
In fact, if my 35 years of professional experience were to be credited with any validity, I am more inclined to ask the following questions:
1. Is there an ideal form of family life?
2. Are parents from heterosexual marriages any safer for children?
3. Could it be possible that such parents are more likely to cause harm to children, leading to long-term psychological problems?
4. What evidence do we have that children of same-sex parents might not be better adjusted people?
5. How do we reckon with the fact that almost all known homosexuals have parents from heterosexual marriages?
In sharing my observations and questions, my intention is to appeal for a reasoned dialogue over this matter without prejudice, judgment or condemnation.
It serves no purpose to persecute any human being, most of all people with different sexual orientation from the majority in society.
Homosexuals are human beings deserving of dignity, respect and acceptance even if we have difficulties understanding them and/or accepting their sexual orientation and lifestyles.
Anthony Yeo
Consultant Therapist
Counselling and Care CentreLabels: News |
|
|
|
| SAFE's letter in response to Janadas Devan's article |
The following letter was sent to The Straits Times online forum. It was not published. We have reprinted the letter in full here.
...
We refer to the article, "Can mum, mum and kids make a family?" by Janadas Devan, on 7 July 2007.
We commend Mr. Devan as he has so clearly pointed out that families can and are made up of different combinations of adults and children. At SAFE (Supporting, Affirming and Empowering our Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered family and friends), we believe that any adults in a loving and stable relationship should have children if they want to.
As family and friends of LGBT Singaporeans, we applaud Mr. Devan's willingness to see beyond the usual homophobic attitudes of judging others. We believe that it is possible for society to change and we would have a more just and fair Singapore if we treat all our fellow citizens with respect regardless of race, language, religion or sexual orientation. As long as there is love and respect and the parents bring up their children well, what does it matter if a family is made up of Mama, Mama and kids or Papa, Papa and kids?
- Khoo Hoon EngLabels: News |
|
|
|
| Can mum, mum and kids make a family? |
The Straits Times - Thinking Aloud, July 7, 2007
Can mum, mum and kids make a family?
By Janadas Devan
I HAVE a good friend who is a lesbian. She believes she was born one, not having experienced any heterosexual inclinations since she became sexually conscious in puberty.
My friend has a partner. They are not legally married, since the state they live in in the United States does not recognise gay marriages. But their partnership was solemnised in a Quaker ceremony, witnessed by family and friends, including myself. To all intents and purposes, theirs is a stable marriage.
It is also a fruitful marriage, for my friend has two children, both biologically hers. She conceived them by means of artificial insemination, the sperms having been donated by suitably screened men.
Apart from the fact that there is no father in the picture, my friend's family is normal and exemplary in every way.
The two children are healthy, cheerful, intelligent and well-behaved. They have two loving parents. My friend and her partner are highly educated, with five university degrees between them.
They own the home they live in, they pay their taxes, they save for their children's education, they are charitable, they never fail to vote, they attend church every Sunday. They are model citizens.
Of course, there are any number of other model citizens - in the US and Singapore, in China, India, Indonesia and elsewhere - who would think my friend's family is anything but normal. Homosexuality is against the laws of God and Nature, they would say. Artificial insemination is all well and good for heterosexual couples - but not for homosexual ones. A family must consist of a husband, a wife and children - not same-sex parents with children. I find all these assertions incomprehensible.
If homosexuality is against the laws of God and Nature, how come there are so many homosexuals? What sort of iron-clad laws can these be if they can allow for so many exceptions to the rule?
The demographics on sexual orientation is hazy, but it is evident that a fair number in any population is either homosexual or bisexual. Alfred Kinsey's famous studies of sexuality in the 1950s claimed that as much as 10 per cent of American males were homosexual. Most experts today believe this was an over-estimation.
Recent studies suggest 3 to 6 per cent of adult American males, and somewhat fewer adult females, are homosexual. Surveys in other countries reveal similar or somewhat lower proportions. It is possible such surveys underestimate the number of homosexuals, since homosexuals are often reluctant to admit to their sexual orientation.
Whatever the correct figure, it is impossible to believe God (or Nature) is of the view that Socrates and Alexander the Great, Walt Whitman and Ludwig Wittgenstein, W.H. Auden and E.M. Forster, are all somehow deformed versions of humanity simply because they were gay.
'Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.'
It is astonishing the number of people who profess to be religious who manage to forget this most momentous of statements in Christ's Sermon on the Mount. (There are similarly powerful statements in all the major religions.)
As for the belief that there is an ideal family unit - father, mother, children - and that any straying from this model is somehow dangerous, it is worth remembering that the nuclear family as we know it was not always considered the norm.
Till recently, the norm in many cultures was the extended family. Some cultures are matrilineal, with the line of descent and inheritance being determined by the mother, not the father.
No single model of the family has dominated throughout history. The traditional nuclear family just happens to be a structure that contemporary society finds stable and workable - and it too is changing, as women become more educated and have careers. And even among today's supposedly ideal nuclear families, how many live up to their billing?
One in two heterosexual marriages in the US ends in divorce. Are the children of divorced heterosexual couples better off than the children of my lesbian friends?
How about the children of single mothers or of constantly bickering heterosexual couples locked in loveless marriages?
No matter how happy and well-adjusted the children of lesbian couples may be, they are always, by virtue of their parentage, morally suspect in comparison to the products of broken heterosexual marriages?
The only problems the children of my lesbian friends would face derive, not from the circumstances of their birth, but from the nature of the wider society in which they may find themselves. Fortunately for them, they are growing up for now in a university town, a liberal and tolerant milieu. If they were growing up in Utah, say, it would be a different story. 'You've
two mothers and no father? You're a freak.'
One can imagine the taunts they might face in school if they were growing up in Utah or Alabama instead of Massachusetts or California.
What about Singapore?
It is probably closer to Utah than to California in this matter. Despite none other than Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew saying 'homosexuals are mostly born that way, and no public purpose is served by interfering in their private lives', there is considerable social resistance to accepting gays as equals.
Male homosexual acts remain, officially, crimes under Section 377A of the Penal Code. The Singapore Government has in effect adopted a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy where homosexuality is concerned. And as for gay marriage, Mr Lee himself, despite his progressive views on homosexuality, has said: 'We cannot go that far. We are a more conservative society.'
What are homosexuals in Singapore to do?
They really have no alternative but to accept the somewhat larger scope the Singapore Government has now afforded them and work to change society. That is not going to be easy, given the deep-seated views - the prejudices, actually - of the majority.
The fact that the Government - usually never shy of forcing through a policy, no matter what the public resistance to it might be, if it believes the policy is correct - finds it necessary to give way to public sentiment in not officially decriminalising male homosexual acts, indicates the depth of the prejudice against gays.
On the hopeful side, two factors would favour homosexuals in the long run: One, the growing evidence that homosexuality has a genetic basis. And two, the growing cosmopolitanism of Singapore.
What will those who hold that homosexuality is against the laws of God say when it is definitively established that homosexuality has a genetic basis? That God deliberately made a mistake with the DNA of gays - and wishes us to persecute them for his mistake?
And what will they say when they discover homophobia renders Singapore a less attractive place to the talented and creative, both local and foreign? There is a reason why some of the most creative cities in the world - San Francisco, Boston and London - are also among the most accepting of gays.
Clever people cannot abide intolerance.Labels: News |
|
|
|
| SAFE's letter in support of AWARE |
The following is SAFE's letter in support of AWARE's premiere screening of the film Spider Lilies. The letter was sent to TODAY, but was not published.
.....
Dear Editor
We refer to Mr Geoffrey Yeoh’s letter of 25 May 2007 “Women’s group support of lesbian lifestyle upsetting”.
SAFE is a group of family and friends who affirm and support gay and transgendered people as persons with equal rights to respect, dignity, acceptance and empowerment in society.
Just as Mr Yeoh aspires for his daughter to grow up to be a successful professional, there are parents who have the same aspirations for their gay sons and lesbian daughters. Sadly however, they do not enjoy an environment where they can grow, develop and reach their full potential because Singapore society is largely unaccepting and unsupportive of our gay children.
SAFE, like Mr Yeoh, supports AWARE’s goals of gender equality for all, and are heartened that AWARE has taken an enlightened approach by embracing the diversity of humankind, and fully including all who are different but no less human than us.
We commend all parents that continue to build on values of family, love, tolerance, respect, acceptance, sacrifice and commitment – ideals that are critical to healthy, functioning and close-knit families. Such families, in all their permutations, are essential for social well-being. What is true for individual families is also true for our nation. To the extent that we provide love and respect to our gay family members, these members can grow and develop to their full potential, and society can prosper from their vital contributions.
On the other hand, when families allow shame and stigma to overcome them, the environment our gay family members need to thrive in is greatly diminished or even lost, and the very unit that holds our society together – the family – unravels.
Films like Spider Lilies show us that the relationship between two women, or two men, carries within it all the potential for love, care, sacrifice and commitment that we associate with the relationship between a man and a woman. When we act courageously by integrating our gay children and their partners into our lives, we fulfil a larger purpose – fostering understanding and acceptance of differences in our national, and global family.
- SAFELabels: Letters to the Press, News |
|
|
|
| The freedom to disagree, respectfully |
Associate Professor Victor Ramraj has written a well-argued, intellectually sound, balanced piece, "The freedom to disagree, respectfully", in the Straits Times Review, May 8, 2007. We agree with him that some of the points raised in an earlier article by Ms Yvonne CL Lee were more opinion than fact.
It is very encouraging that Prof Ramraj supports having healthy, serious dialogues on important topics in the open society that Singapore aspires to be. We believe that every Singaporean is vested in creating a supportive, healthy and happy society to live in. The difference lies in what each person considers healthy or happy. Therefore, SAFE believes that we should continue to converse and find out fellow Singaporeans' view points, to walk in the shoes they walk in, for a day or a week, even if we do not wish to wear the same shoes for a lifetime. We should continue to be supportive of all our fellow citizens and others who call Singapore their home. - Khoo Hoon Eng, for SAFE
...
The freedom to disagree, respectfully
May 9, 2007
For The Straits Times, Victor V. Ramraj
IT HAS been argued that the decriminalisation of sodomy is the first step on a slippery slope towards a 'homosexual agenda' that includes civil unions and same-sex marriages.
I disagree with this view and the arguments advanced in support of it. Still, the debate on this subject has provided us with a key lesson on the importance of public discussion on matters of deep moral significance - and the importance of respectful disagreement.
First, a few comments on some of the claims in the debate.
Even in societies abroad where legal structures such as same-sex civil unions have been introduced, this did not happen overnight, but only after significant shifts in social and political attitudes.
If the majority of Singaporeans find homosexuality offensive, then there is little reason for them to worry that the entire legal landscape will change in an instant.
If change eventually does come, it will follow only after open and respectful debate and a conscious choice on the part of Singaporeans to become a more tolerant and hospitable society.
Others, particularly in cyberspace this past week, have challenged the accuracy of empirical claims behind the argument to retain sodomy as a crime - and the debate will no doubt continue. I will not repeat these arguments here. As for constitutional law, formal constitutional doctrine on such matters is hardly conclusive. In 1930, Lord Sankey likened a
Constitution to 'a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits'. Particularly in Singapore, where the methodology of constitutional law is still evolving, there is much to be said for this vision.
Intolerant vs criminal
I WANT to turn, however, to a rather different point that arises from this controversy. Does branding opponents of decriminalisation 'intolerant' undermine or effectively censor free speech?
Surely, the answer to this question is no. Indeed, the reverse may be more likely; opponents of decriminalisation effectively silence others by continuing to regard the behaviour they oppose as criminal. To be branded intolerant is one thing; to be branded a criminal is quite another.
The publication of letters and commentary in this newspaper shows that those who disagree with decriminalisation are perfectly free to express their views. Perhaps, then, the deeper concern is not that these views will be censored (plainly, they haven't been), but that others will not find them convincing. If that is the true concern, then rigorous and respectful
persuasion would be the answer.
If the discussion on Singapore blogs is any indication, recent exchanges about the decriminalisation of sodomy have provoked an important debate, one that demonstrates that Singaporeans, including many tertiary students, are
far from apathetic when it comes to issues of great social significance. An issue of profound social importance is receiving the serious public attention, reflection and debate it deserves.
The sources of identity
FOR those who choose to engage in this debate, let us remind ourselves that our words have profound personal impact on those around us, on both sides of this controversy.
Those whose religious views are tolerant of homosexuality, and especially those of us with secular-humanist inclinations, must remain sensitive to the deeply personal and communal role that religious doctrine plays in the lives
of many.
At the same time, we must have faith that those who oppose the decriminalisation of sodomy on religious grounds will acknowledge that personal identity need not be a matter of religion at all. It is possible, even common, to define one's identity outside of religion - in terms of one's intimate relationships, career goals, community service, life-long projects and deep personal convictions. A person's sense of identity is no less worthy of respect in the public square on account of its secular sources.
I can only imagine the deep personal anguish experienced by gays and lesbians in Singapore when confronted by the criminal law. Their voices should be heard in the spirit of an open, respectful and meaningful discussion.
Whatever is said in the course of this debate, it is clear that someone, somewhere, will take offence. But the ability for all to speak out should not be taken for granted. There are reasonable limits to be placed on hateful speech - a view that I have defended elsewhere. But in the present context, in a society that is increasingly more open, I find myself drawn to the pithy comment sometimes attributed to Voltaire: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
The writer is an associate professor in the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. This essay reflects his personal views only.
Source and copyright: The Straits Times
...
Links:
Straits Times Review article 'Decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error', by Yvonne Lee (archived on the Yawning Bread website)
Khoo Hoon Eng's personal response to Yvonne Lee's article.
Professor's views on gays prejudiced, by Brian Selby - a response to Yvonne Lee's article.Labels: Letters to the Press, News |
|
|
|
| Dr Khoo Hoon Eng's response to Yvonne Lee's Review article |
The following was written by Dr Khoo Hoon Eng, as a response to Yvonne Lee's Review article for The Straits Times 'Decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error', published on May 4, 2007. These are Dr Khoo's personal views.
...
I am writing in response to Ms. Yvonne C. L. Lee's article, "Decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error," published May 4, 2007.
Despite being written by an academic, it is full of misleading rhetoric and did not make any serious attempts to back up its sweeping and alarmist claims. It asserts that "it is a known medical fact that homosexual intercourse or sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act that carries higher risks of a number of sexually transmitted infections." Unfortunately, this "known medical fact" is completely unsubstantiated and patently false. Bacteria and viruses do not care about the gender of those who transmit them. Any unprotected oral or anal sex is risky regardless of the gender of those involved.
The article misleadingly projects that the age of consent for sex between men might be set between 13 and 18. It neglects to mention that the current age of consent for girls is 14, and that there is no age of consent for boys. Any responsible parent would feel anxious about teenagers having sexual intercourse of any kind, gay or straight. However, at least with heterosexual intercourse, the balance that society has struck is not outlawing or penalizing such acts, but giving parents the responsibility of teaching their children about responsible behavior.
The writer also expresses her concern about the "broader agenda" of "homosexual rights." Legalise sodomy, she claims, and same-sex marriage, gays in the media, the erosion of religious liberty, and the sanctioning of paedophilia and bestiality is sure to follow. This is a classic example of a "slippery slope" fallacy where the writer provides little to no explanation exactly how getting rid of 377a in Singapore will lead to all these other laws changing nor how paedophilia and bestiality will follow. I would challenge the writer to name one country where sodomy has been decriminalized and which has now sanctioned paedophilia and bestiality.
It hardly seems likely that homosexuals are "dictating" law reform in Singapore. So it is ironic when the writer accuses the "homosexual rights agenda" of being "divisive". Lest it be forgotten, these "homosexuals" are our brothers, our sons, our friends, and our fellow citizens. There are gay Indians, Chinese, Malays, Europeans, and Eurasians. There are gay Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists. Gay people are as invested as anyone else in Singapore in ensuring that we have a strong, multireligious, multiracial community where everyone is entitled to respect, dignity, acceptance and empowerment.
- Khoo Hoon Eng
...
Link:
Read the article by Yvonne Lee - 'Decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error' (archived on the Yawning Bread website)Labels: Letters to the Press, News |
|
|
|
| Straits Times Forum letter: Whether heterosexual or gay, treat all equally |
The following appeared in The Straits Times' Forum page and ST Online on 1 May 2007. The original letter was sent with all of our founding members' signatures, in addition to Susan's. (In their exchange with Susan, The Straits Times said they would only print one.) The letter was also edited by The Straits Times for publication.
If you would like to show your support for our letter, you may sign your name, and any further comments, in the link below. Alternatively, you may send in your names and comments to our email address - safesingapore[at]gmail.com.
*Show your support*
...
1 May 2007
Whether heterosexual or gay, treat all equally
SAFE is a group of family and friends who affirm and support gay and transgendered people as persons with equal rights to respect, dignity, acceptance and empowerment in society.
We are writing to express our thanks to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for his recent comments at the dialogue with Young PAP and in the interview with Reuters.
We appreciate the two cogent points he made:
That homosexuality is a genetic variation, not an aberration.
That the law against homosexual acts is outmoded.
We at Safe are hopeful that the law that criminalises homosexual acts will be abolished. Whether heterosexual or gay, we believe that all Singapore citizens and residents should be treated equally under the law.
We cannot agree with a law that proclaims our sons, grandsons, brothers, nephews, uncles, relatives and friends as criminals for a propensity that is not of their volition, is innocuous and part of their private lives. For far too long our gay loved ones from a young age have suffered deep internalised oppression, often resulting in the disintegration of family, compromised relationships, low self-esteem, stunted maturity and unavoidable deceitfulness.
We support the decriminalisation of oral and anal sex as proposed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and ask that it apply equally to all consenting adults.
Homosexual men and women enrich our lives through their participation in business, the professions, the arts and government. As we focus on the richness gay people bring to our lives and our love and support for them, we not only liberate them, but we also become a society committed to the Asian values of real family.
Susan Yap Siu Sen (Ms)
Founding member S A F E
Supporting, Affirming & Empowering our lgbtQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, questioning) friends and family
...
Read our press release:
SAFE responds to MM Lee's comments on homosexuality
Read the Reuters article:
Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew questions homosexuality ban
Read a related letter on today's Forum page:
Justify why gay acts should remain criminalLabels: News |
|
|
|
| SAFE responds to MM Lee's comments on homosexuality |
Below is a SAFE press release in response to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's comments on homosexuality and the Penal Code, as reported in a recent Reuters article.
...
PRESS RELEASE
27 April 2007
SAFE is a group of family and friends who affirm and support gay and transgendered people as persons with equal rights to respect, dignity, acceptance and empowerment in society.
We are writing to express our appreciation and thanks to MM Lee for his recent comments at the dialogue with Young PAP and the interview with Reuters.
We appreciate the two cogent points he made,
1. That homosexuals are born with this propensity and not by choice. It is a genetic variation, not an aberration.
2. That the existing criminal law against homosexual acts in the Penal Code is outmoded.
We at SAFE fully agree with and support these points and are hopeful that the law that criminalises homosexual acts will be abolished in the proposed amendments to the Penal Code. We see this as a logical and responsible next step.
As with all complex human traits and behaviours such as intelligence, homosexuality is probably a result of many factors. Rather than arguing about whether particular genes can be found for these traits and behaviours, we should continue to accept our fellow Singaporean citizens and residents who deserve the same rights to respect, dignity, acceptance and empowerment as everyone else, and to be treated equally under the law.
We cannot agree with a law that proclaims our sons, grandsons, brothers, nephews, uncles, relatives and friends are criminals for a propensity that is not of their volition, is innocuous and part of their private lives. For far too long our gay loved ones from a young age, have suffered deep internalized oppression, often resulting in the disintegration of family, compromised relationships, low self-esteem, stunted maturity and unavoidable deceitfulness.
We therefore support the proposed decriminalisation of oral and anal sex as proposed by the Ministry of Home Affairs this past November, and ask that it apply equally to all consenting adults.
Since the 1970s, the law has been used in Singapore as an educational tool; we implore the Government to use it again for the same purpose. This will be a first step in educating the public on the nature of homosexuality, educating them to become more understanding, respectful and accepting of our human diversity.
The homosexual community is an essential element in the tapestry of peoples that make Singapore such a unique and cosmopolitan community. Homosexual men and women enrich our lives through their participation in business, the professions, the arts, and government. They are our sons and daughters, colleagues, neighbors, and friends.
Legal discrimination against homosexuals is unfortunate, outdated, and regrettable. It tells them that they are less than fully welcome; that their participation in Singapore life is subject to government forbearance. It diminishes the entire Singaporean community by allowing laws to stand that criminalise many of our fellow citizens. While contributing to intolerance it leaves the government and legal authorities open to the charge of being hypocritical for not enforcing a standing law.
As we focus on the richness gay people bring to our lives and our love and support for them, we not only liberate them, we also become a society committed to the Asian values of real family – strong, whole and committed to love against all odds.
...
Read the Reuters article: Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew questions homosexuality banLabels: News |
|
|
|
| Straits Times: Law Society calls for decriminalisation of homosexuality |
The following text was taken from the Straits Times Online edition. Bolding done by SAFE Admin.
...
April 5, 2007
PROPOSED CHANGES TO PENAL CODE
Law Society: Give judges leeway to set aside death penalty
It also wants homosexual acts among consenting men decriminalised
By K.C. Vijayan
THE Law Society wants the mandatory death penalty for crimes such as murder, drug trafficking and firearms-related offences scrapped.
Instead, it wants judges to be given the discretion to either sentence offenders to death or to a jail term.
This is a key plank in the Law Society's response to proposed changes to the Penal Code by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
Currently, the death penalty is mandatory in capital punishment cases, and judges have no choice but to impose it if a person is found guilty.
The Law Society also made several other proposals, including one to decriminalise homosexual acts among consenting men, in a 55-page report which was drafted by an ad-hoc committee of 16 lawyers and academics, and endorsed by its council.
The society's views, submitted to the MHA on Friday, were drawn up after Senior Minister of State (Home Affairs and Law) Ho Peng Kee invited it to study the proposed changes in November last year.
The report was posted on its website on Tuesday.
In arguing for discretion to be given to judges in capital punishment cases, the society pointed to a new law mooted by the ministry.
The proposed law deals with hostage-takers who hold the government or others to ransom.
A person convicted of breaking this law will face either the death penalty or a jail term extending to life and caning or a fine, the ministry proposed.
Noting that judges in such cases were allowed discretion in sentencing, the Law Society proposed that this be extended to all capital offences.
It said that changing the mandatory death penalty for capital offences will not reduce the deterrent element.
'This flexibility in sentencing humanises the law and reflects the evolving standards of decency in Singapore society,' said the report.
Turning to sexual offences - in particular, Section 377 of the Penal Code, which deals with sexual acts 'against the order of nature' - the society said the MHA's proposal to retain homosexuality as an offence in Section 377A 'cannot be justified'.
It described the retention as 'out of step with legal norms in the modern law'.
The society stressed that it was not arguing that homosexuality is morally acceptable, and said a 'significant minority' wanted the provision to remain, but the majority view prevailed.
The MHA's approach is that homosexuality is not widely accepted here. Having said that, the ministry has said it will not be 'proactive' in enforcing this law against consensual acts that take place in private.
But the society sees this as an admission that the section is 'out-of-step' and 'runs the risk of bringing the law into disrepute'. It suggests a complete review, and a new chapter in the Penal Code on sexual offences.
The society, expressing its gratitude that the MHA consulted both the public and it, also urged that a commission be set up to review the reforms.
Contacted yesterday, an MHA spokesman said all views received were being studied.
Source and copyright: The Straits Times
For SAFE's press statement on the Penal Code, click here.Labels: News |
|
|
|
| SAFE's response to The National Council of Churches |
SAFE's response to the feedback given by The National Council of Churches (NCCS) on the proposed amendments to the Penal Code.
SAFE is a group of family and friends who affirm and support gay and transgendered people as persons with equal rights to respect, dignity, acceptance and empowerment in society.
SAFE is appalled at the NCCS's view that, not only should criminalisation of men who engage in same-sex acts be upheld, but that the government should further criminalise women who engage in same-sex acts as well. In the same breath, they claim to express their love for sinners, but hatred for the sin, as if it were possible for our sexuality to be separated from our personhood.
We strongly object to the NCCS calling "criminals", our adult gay sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, aunts, uncles and friends. That Christians would call for the criminalisation of gay people surely speaks against their faith ideals of love, kindness, compassion, acceptance, humility and justice.
Different religions hold different stands on homosexuality, from the Christian right's view that it is sinful to the Buddhist one that it is not immoral and has the same moral status as heterosexuality. The NCCS, by attempting to turn their Christian moral teachings into state law, contradicts what the government has been trying to build and strengthen - mutual respect and harmony in our pluralistic society, as evidenced in the Penal Code S298 and proposed S298A which oppose prejudice and ill-will amongst religious groups and call for religious harmony.
As is commonly recognized, homophobia largely emanates from the West's conservative evangelical Christian religious right, that is today, the main context for almost the entire Christian community in Singapore. This is evidenced not only by their stand on homosexuality but also their stand on the casino issue, stem cell research, and inter-faith dialogue. Hardly do they speak up for human rights, civil society and justice.
The NCCS is merely reflecting a traditional western conservative religious position on homosexuality, refusing to acknowledge their place in a multi-cultural and multi-religious Asian society, where in our history, same-sex love has been an integral part and parcel of Asian life; a society which respects and values the wisdom and tolerance of traditional yet diverse Asian cultures; and a society which upholds the Asian value of family against all odds.
SAFE
Supporting, Affirming & Empowering our LGBTQ friends and familyLabels: News |
|
|
|
| Interview with SAFE founder Khoo Hoon Eng, by Plume |
The following interview was first published on Plume on 11 Dec, 2006. Plume stands for People Like You and Me, and is a platform that highlights the thoughts and reflections of LGBT youth. It hopes to foster the growth of an LGBT youth community in Singapore, and in doing so, provide support and resources for queer youth.
We thank Zee, the author, for helping spread the word about SAFE, and his permission to reprint the interview here.
SAFE Singapore is a support network born at a Mother’s Day Forum on the 7th of May by the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE). Plume speaks to Dr Khoo Hoon Eng, the founder, who was also featured in SQ21: Singapore Queers in the 21st Century as the mother of two gay sons on her motivation, reaching out to other parents and a word or two for young people like you and me on coming out on the family front.
What motivated you to start SAFE?
I wanted to share information and resources that I would have liked to have had when my sons came out to me. I was so ignorant back then. Later, after I had become comfortable with being a parent of two gay sons, I was horrified to learn that some parents throw their children out of their homes when they come out to them. I want to show parents and friends that we can learn about our gay children's lives and continue to love and support them.
A majority of parents are not Internet savvy. How does SAFE intend to reach this audience, and how do I, as a gay person bridge this disconnect?
Eventually, we would like to have face-to-face discussions. We will have to depend on Internet savvy LGBT and other supporters to bridge this divide. Many of our resources can be printed out and shared with those who do not have Internet access.
Will there be physical meetings for you to speak to these parents?
Yes, we can currently do it on a small scale but in future, hope to have bigger discussions.
Have you met or gotten in touch with any parents and/or family members in these few months? If so, how much impact have you made on their lives?
I have corresponded by email with a few parents. They have thanked us for the information we shared. I met one and she felt comforted and has accepted that her gay son is not going to "change" his sexual orientation. So she is focusing on how to support and look after him. We sent out information in Chinese to a sibling who wanted to get their mother to accept his lesbian sister.
How do you intend to reach out to everyone regardless of language, ethnicity, religion and socio-economic class?
The website is open to everyone. We are trying to get other parents and supporters who are fluent in other languages so that we can reach out to non-English speaking parents.
Listening to the talk at the launch of SAFE's website, you do have a representative from a Christian standpoint which is good because the loudest homophobic voices come from religious conservatives. However, while standing around, I heard a person from a non-Christian background murmur to her friend that she suddenly felt excluded. How does SAFE aim to navigate such murky waters in letting people of other faiths (or people who reject faith) feel included?
I am a freethinker myself and perhaps I should have emphasised that. Thanks for informing me about this. Perhaps I will try to make this clear on the website. SAFE is a completely non-religious group. Susan is fully accepting of non-religious people. I think she emphasised her Christian faith because she felt compelled to apologise for the strong homophobia exhibited by the conservative Christian community. SAFE has also had expressions of support from a Buddhist group.
Being a founder of a youth initiative myself, you tend to meet raving supporters, die hard cynics and homophobes alike. What difficulties have you faced?
I have had a couple of people writing in telling me I am a sinner in accepting my sons' gay identity and that my sons “became” gay because of my marital problems with their father!! I just let that slide off my back. Rabid homophobes will always be around. They do not understand anything about love. As for die hard cynics who think we can never change the world, I want to quote Margaret Mead who wrote, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Where do you see SAFE heading towards? Do you intend to have more affirming parents on your team to manage better should the demand increase?
Yes, we will try to get more supportive parents, siblings and friends on board to help us manage our activities and website. So I hope you will help publicize our existence so that more people will step forward.
How do you and your sons feel now that you've done so much for the gay community here in Singapore?
We have not really done that much. We have only decided that we did not want to live in the closet any more and if we can help others not feel so isolated and alone by coming out, then we will have done a little bit toward dispelling myths and homophobia. Every time some gay person and his/her family decide to live life openly, this will help some closeted gay person and his/her family realise that they need not continue to be ashamed.
As a mother, do you have anything to say to our young readers in their journey to growing up and ultimately finding peace in their surroundings and with themselves?
My advice to young people is to accept yourself, get involved in healthy activities, make the world a better place and be patient with your parents and family if they do not accept your sexual orientation straight away. You have had time to accept yourself. They need time to accept their position as family to a gay person too. They will also need all the help and information you can share with them about how to support you and how they can be supported. Always be cognisant of the fact that you don't want to come out to your family and then drive your family into the closet.
Source: Interview with Dr Khoo Hoon Eng, by PlumeLabels: Interviews, News |
|
|
|
| SAFE in the news: Safe Singapore |
Look out for SAFE Singapore, a new support group for straight family and friends of GLBT people with an upcoming website launch on Saturday, Dec 9 at Mox Bar. Fridae talks to Dr Khoo Hoon Eng, a co-founder of the group and a supportive mother of two gay sons.
Article by Ng Yi-Sheng, Fridae.com, Dec 7, 2006
It's never easy for a parent to hear a child say the words, "I'm gay." Even liberal parents have been known to panic at the news, and in religiously conservative families, the backlash is often worse.
But with the launch of SAFE Singapore (Supporting, AFfirming and Empowering our LGBTQ [Questioning] friends and family) coming out to your parents should be that much easier.
Founded by a team of four straight women, the group operates a web site to provide information and resources for straight people struggling to accept their queer friends and relatives.
One of the founders of SAFE, Dr Khoo Hoon Eng, is already a minor celebrity in the Singapore queer community. A lecturer and biochemistry researcher by profession, she was featured earlier this year in the book SQ21: Singapore Queers in the 21st Century, describing how both her sons came out to her as gay.
"My first thought was, he's going to have a really tough life," she says, describing her reaction to her first son, Shin Ming, coming out. Rather than rejecting this news, however, Dr Khoo made further efforts to understand the situation of her sons, talking to them and consulting books to understand how to be supportive of GLBT children.
"Why be afraid of them?" she tells other parents. "They really are the same children that you loved the day before they outed themselves."
Dr Khoo realised the need for a group like SAFE in 2003, when well-known gay activist Alex Au mentioned to her how some young gay people he knew were thrown out of their homes by their parents. "That just horrified me," she says. "I decided we really should start up a parents' support group of some sort." Sadly, the stress of negotiating her divorce at the time made it difficult to start such an initiative at the time, but she continued to source for allies to help her in her project.
As a committed member of the Singapore feminist group AWARE (Association of Women for Action and REsearch), Dr Khoo was able to find willing collaborators in the Association President Tan Joo Hymn and Ex-Co member Ong Su-Chzeng. She also met Susan Yap Siu Sen, an active member of Free Community Church, a non-denominational, gay-inclusive Christian group and daughter of retired Methodist Bishop and pastoral advisor to FCC Reverend Yap Kim Hao. All four women are mothers and are relatives or close friends with GLBT people in Singapore.
The team consolidated this May, at a special AWARE Mothers' Day Forum to share the experiences of mothers of gay children. Leading the discussion was a panel of six women, including Dr Khoo, Susan Yap, lesbian activist Eileena Lee and her mother, Mdm Yiap Geok Khuan. All shared heart-warming stories of being mothers and friends of gays and lesbian.
Immediately after the forum came the planning. "The four of us sat down and decided how we're going to do this," Dr Khoo recalls. "We threw a few names around and decided that SAFE was the best. Then we were introduced to lesbian visual artist Regina De Rozario, and she agreed to help us pro bono with the design of the website."
A panel which comprised Dr Khoo, Mdm Yiap and her daughter Eileena, and two other speakers shared heart-warming stories of being the mother and friends of gays and lesbians.
The launch of ''SQ21'' created some welcome publicity for SAFE, which formed the subject of a story in the Sunday Times on Sep 3, 2006. Several readers, including parents and siblings of gay Singaporeans, were able to later contact Dr Khoo through an e-mail address printed in the papers. Her appearance at bookstore promotions stimulated further gestures of support for SAFE from the public. Naturally, a handful of homophobic readers also wrote in to attack her, but she took this in her stride.
The website of SAFE Singapore includes basic information on GLBTQ identities, references for counselling centres, essays against homophobia, separate FAQs for friends, parents, co-workers and teachers, and an as yet unpublished press statement stating the team's opposition to Section 377A, the portion of the Penal Code which criminalises gay male sex. The final sentence spells out the group's mission: "Our agenda is to strive for a society based on justice and equality, respect for individual dignity and opposed to bigotry, homophobia or any other form of hatred and discrimination."
Dr Khoo notes that similar resources already exist online, but mostly speaking from an American perspective. "Parents here are different," she explains. "I wanted to get our own local information and stories to share." Once established, the group may hold meetings and other activities, forming a support network for queer Singaporeans and their loved ones. In the meantime, the team invites visitors to the site to offer their names in support of their efforts by writing in.
The SAFE website will launch on Saturday afternoon, 9 December 2006 at the Pelangi Pride Centre, housed at Mox Bar and Café. This event will be accompanied by a fair featuring various groups from Singapore's gay community. Most of the SAFE team will be present to meet supporters, but Dr Khoo's children will unfortunately be unable to attend, since both are studying in America. Nonetheless, both sons are extremely proud of their mother.
"I just spoke to Ming yesterday, and I was telling him about all my activities, and he said I'm doing more gay activist work than he's done in the last few months!" Dr Khoo laughs.
Shin Ming himself, writing in support of his mother, thinks SAFE Singapore will have tremendous potential, since nearly everyone, whether they know it or not, has a friend or relative who is queer. In a sentence, he neatly sums up the motivation behind the group: "We're here, we're queer, and apparently people need some help getting used to it."
SAFE Admin note: The Fridae.com article also reprints SAFE's statement to the press on The Penal Code.
Source: Fridae.comLabels: News |
|
|
|
| SAFE's statement on The Penal Code |
SAFE Singapore has sent out the following Statement to our Press and Media contacts in Singapore. The Government has asked for public feedback on the proposed changes to the Penal Code and it would be very helpful if you could write in to the feedback unit, identifying yourself as a straight ally,
Feedback link: reach.gov.sg
Thank you one and all for your continued encouragement and support!
------------------
13 Nov 2006
To The Press
We are a group of parents, families and friends of lesbian and gay people who believe in a society that accepts, affirms and empowers everyone to participate fully in it regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.
We write to voice our opposition to the proposed changes to the Penal Code and in particular to the retention of s.377A which criminalizes male same-sex acts even if conducted in private.
The Ministry of Home Affairs has come public to say they will "not be proactive in enforcing the section against adult males engaging in consensual sex with each other in private." Why then have a law if it is not going to be enforced? Is it not illogical
and a self-contradiction to have a law on the statute books and not enforce it? It appears that the government wants to have its cake and eat it too -- employing gay people in civil service, welcoming foreign talent even if they might be gay and benefiting from the contributions of intelligent and creative gay brains while not doing anything at all to protect these same gay people's human rights.
Are we to remain on the surface, according to MHA, "by and large, a conservative society (where) many do not tolerate homosexuality, and consider such acts abhorrent and deviant" while covertly wooing the gay community's pink dollar and creative talents?
As friends and families of gay people, we are strongly against any law that makes the people we love and respect -- our adult gay sons, brothers, grandsons, nephews and friends, "criminals" simply by what they do in private with another consenting adult.
Do we have an agenda? Yes indeed. Our agenda is to strive for a society based on justice and equality, respect for individual dignity and opposed to bigotry, homophobia or any other form of hatred and discrimination.
Ms Khoo Hoon Eng
Ms Susan Yap Siu Sen
Ms Tan Joo Hymn
Ms Ong Su-Chzeng
SAFE
Supporting, AFfirming and Empowering
Our LGBTQ friends and family.Labels: News |
|
|
|
| SAFE in the news: Support group started for those with gay children |
Support group started for those with gay children
by Sarah Ng, The Straits Times, Sep 3, 2006
When her 15-year-old son told her that he was gay, Dr Khoo Hoon Eng wished she had guidance from other parents in similar situations.
Now, 10 years later, she is starting an online support group for parents with gay children, providing a platform for them to share their stories, understand homosexuality better and discuss their experiences.
With the help of friends from various non-profit organisations, she hopes to get it ready by the year end.
She told The Sunday Times: 'At that time, I would have liked it if there were other parents I could talk to so that I would have an idea of what to expect.'
Dr Khoo's story was recently documented in a new book called SQ21: Singapore Queers In The 21st Century. Her account of how she found out that both her sons were gay is one of 15 stories featured in the book.
She said: 'I want parents to know that it really does get easier to accept...as you think, read and talk more about it.'
Dr Khoo, 55, a biochemistry lecturer and researcher at the National University of Singapore, says she is fairly liberal. When elder son Shin Ming told her he was gay, her immediate concern was that he might face a life of discrimination.
Then, three years later, her second son Shin En, by then also 15, told her he too was gay.
Dr Khoo learnt that their confessions did not mean they were sexually active. She also never wondered if she and her husband had caused their homosexuality.
Her husband, however, did not react well. He continues to love and support them, said Dr Khoo, but he is also disappointed.
When they separated three years ago, he told her: 'Good. Now that I have the chance to marry another woman, maybe my future children will not be gay.'
Dr Khoo stressed that their sons' homosexuality was not the reason her 25-year marriage broke down.
Her older son Shin Ming, now 25, graduated in philosophy from Stanford University and is currently reading law at Hastings Law School at the University of California in San Francisco. His brother Shin En, 22, is an undergraduate at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.
With her support group, Dr Khoo hopes that other parents can put aside their prejudices and try to accept their gay children.
As she wrote in the book: 'Why be afraid of them? They really are still the same children you loved the day before they outed
themselves.'Labels: News |
|
|
|
|
|
|
