Here are my reflections on the article 377A. tried to make it as coherent as possible but i've got work to do. Still, i felt it was important for me to think through this issue carefully and blogging about it does help. I'm not sure that this will be of any use to anyone but if you do find it useful and wish to publish it, please ask for my consent first. that's my disclaimer. :)

about 3 weeks ago, the news of the singapore government not repealing 377A was announced and there was much relief on the side where I stand. I remember reading the Straits Times report about this decision by the government and yes, i did make that sigh of relief as well but at the same time, i felt a little queasy. From what i understood of the article and reading in between the lines as well, the government is truly not taking a stand to this issue. Key leaders in the government have at one point or another admitted that being homosexual is something that could probably be inborn and not something that one can be treated for. But other than that, the government remains non-commital to its stand regarding this issue and this makes me uneasy as the issue is hardly solved or sufficiently addressed. One can argue that this is indeed a pragmatic, judicious and political move by the government to not enrage both camps that have been described as extremes and whose voices seem to be even more discordant and enraged as the issue .

But i feel that the government should do more than adopt a cautious and wait-and-see attitude. It is as if it were saying that the problem is too big for us to handle. let's just wait and see and perhaps, cross our fingers, someone else might resolve it for us. I think leadership is the courage to make decisions at crucial moments with conviction and gumption. If the average Singaporean needed a voice or a nudge in the right direction, this would have been the best time to do it but sadly, things took such a turn.

As for my honest opinions about 377A, the whole debate about repealing or maintaining it really made me think about the purpose of the law. deterrent? moral temperament of the country? If it were just these 2 aspects which are the only ones i can think of, 377A is certainly not the embodiment of them. It will certainly act as a deterrent, discouraging and suppressing the gay community here. But what is suppressed cannot be adequately addressed or engaged by the conservatives, the religious, the majority and the liberals. my belief as a christian compels me to reach out to these groups of people with the faith and belief that the Lord will redeem them and renew their minds. Even if they utterly reject such help and label us as judgmental or bias, we still need to reach out to such a group of people whether it be through talks, seminars, therapy sessions or through prayer. and this law does not enable these to happen as people are still afraid of the possibility of being prosecuted if they identify themselves officially as gay.

And as an accurate gauge of the moral temperament of the country, it is woefully inadequate. I cannot imagine living in a country where there is a possibility that i may be prosecuted because of my Christian beliefs. Neither do i think it fair that one should face the possibility of being prosecuted because one is gay, even though the government does repeatedly affirm its position never to prosecute individuals for being gay. Thus, to see 377A as an accurate gauge of the moral climate of this country, it simple is not sufficient.

Speaking of the moral leanings of most moderate singaporeans, i think two articles have reported on this, stating that most singaporeans in general have a live and let live attitude. They may not condone homosexual behaviour but if it is not publicised widely and kept within the covers, they are alright to let things be. And strangely, that's the attitude our government adopts as well. It is not in its interest to stir things up further. Just let things simmer down for awhile and everything will be fine.

But consider the above implications that i had mentioned in the paragraph before. would you want to be prosecuted for your convictions and beliefs? if you had any in the first place? it's a cowardly move and this emphasis on pragmaticism lands us on dangerous ground as i believe that it is in essence a morally ambivalent attitude that in today's world, will not hold ground for long as the happenings around the world will soon divide the world against each other based on morals, ethics and convictions.

That's my vision of the world to come and we need a moral position in this debate to be prepared for what lies ahead. I honestly think that we need to form a panel to review 377A. We should not repeal it immediately without being able to craft a law that not only can truly embody the two characteristics that I have mentioned above but also, give us a headstart in the events of the future. We may not be completely successful in revising the law such that everyone will be satisfied but we must begin to take judicious and cautious steps to address this situation and not sweep it under the covers again.

From a christian perspective, i have always felt that the law is inadequate to express the convictions and beliefs that i have held onto. The law as a tool is myopic in its application as it can only judge or vindicate a person. The law needs to be accompanied by grace in its application such that sin is condemned by the law, conviction arises and the person is saved by grace. Thus, i think i will be one of the few that will not be satisfied even if the law is revised.

Nevertheless, we should commit ourselves to such an endeavor. We should still continue to work for there is still light. The bible says that there will come a time when darkness will cover the earth and men can no longer work. We are so close to such times but while there is still light, there is work to be done.