The recent forum on repealing Penal Code Section 377A has resulted in a lot of post forum discussions. In particular, Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao’s comments attracted strong reactions from Christians. Reading the comments on online forums, I noted the outright objection and even sensed hate expressed by Christians toward the gay community. I cannot help but wonder if such reactions are indeed compatible with Christian teachings.
Thankfully, Bishop Dr Robert Solomon’s response and the Methodist Church in Singapore (MCS) General Conference’s position in this matter are balanced and sensitive to all parties.
Nevertheless, I personally cannot understand the strong reaction from the Christian community against repealing of Penal Code Section 377A. There are many behaviours and practices that may be unacceptable by moral or religious standards, but not all are classified as crimes in a secular court of law. Similarly, decriminalizing a homosexual act does not necessarily mean that homosexuality is right or that we have embraced this alternative lifestyle. It only means that we do not classify this consensual homosexual act as crimes punishable by law.
So what do Christians really want from Section 337A?
As an enforceable deterrent, Section 377A is “a paper tiger that provides for a punishment of up to two years in prison for homosexual acts but which the authorities have an official "close-one-eye" policy to. Indeed, for over 10 years, there has been no prosecution under section 377A for gay sex between consenting adults” (Thomas Koshy, Dy Public Prosecutor in TODAY, 8 May 2007).
As a symbolic deterrent, Section 377A has not stopped anyone from engaging in homosexual activity, from coming out of the closet, nor has it deterred homosexuals from visiting Singapore.
With Section 377A intact, how should Christians act when someone confided in them that he or she is gay? Report the person to the police and put him/her behind bars? Or keep it a secret and council the person with religious teachings? Surely, withholding truth or lying is also incompatible with any religious or cultural standards.
Going back to Bishop Dr Solomon’s reply and MCS’ position on homosexuality, the Church recognizes that “homosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. They need the ministry and guidance of the church as well as the spiritual and emotional support of a caring fellowship.” How could Christians expect to guide and provide emotional support to anyone if we treat the person as a criminal in the first place?
It also states that “since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practising homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as itinerant ministers or approved to serve in the MCS.” It did not mention that people engaging in homosexual acts, as explicitly described in Section 377A, should be punished.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Friday, March 02, 2007
Who’s Causing the Traffic Jam?
A traffic accident occurred along the Farrer Road flyover at about 2045hrs on Friday, 2 March 2007. A mini van apparently hit a taxi from the back, then crashed onto the road divider wall on the right lane. The taxi came to a halt further down on the left lane of the road. The driver and passengers of the mini van appeared to have left the scene by foot, refusing assistance from motorists, for unknown reasons.
For the next 10-15 minutes, traffic continued to be smooth with vehicles simply maneuvering around the two stationary cars, which were at least 20 meters apart from each other. Then came the traffic police.
The traffic police stopped cars from all three lanes abruptly, causing all traffic to grind to a halt for a few minutes, before letting the cars go lane by lane. By then, a jam has been formed along the flyover. He did not realize his action also caused vehicles on the right lane to have to swerve to the right to avoid his motorbike, which was dangerously parked jutting out at the edge of the right lane. What is the wisdom behind the traffic police’s action?
Yes, the unattended van may cause another accident if drivers of oncoming vehicles are not alert. However, there are simpler solutions for this situation:
1) Make sure the hazard lights of the mini van and the taxi are turned on;
2) Place traffic triangles behind both, or at least one of the cars;
3) Traffic police to signal oncoming traffic to avoid the van in the right lane; the taxi driver can help to signal traffic away from his vehicle on the left lane.
For the next 10-15 minutes, traffic continued to be smooth with vehicles simply maneuvering around the two stationary cars, which were at least 20 meters apart from each other. Then came the traffic police.
The traffic police stopped cars from all three lanes abruptly, causing all traffic to grind to a halt for a few minutes, before letting the cars go lane by lane. By then, a jam has been formed along the flyover. He did not realize his action also caused vehicles on the right lane to have to swerve to the right to avoid his motorbike, which was dangerously parked jutting out at the edge of the right lane. What is the wisdom behind the traffic police’s action?
Yes, the unattended van may cause another accident if drivers of oncoming vehicles are not alert. However, there are simpler solutions for this situation:
1) Make sure the hazard lights of the mini van and the taxi are turned on;
2) Place traffic triangles behind both, or at least one of the cars;
3) Traffic police to signal oncoming traffic to avoid the van in the right lane; the taxi driver can help to signal traffic away from his vehicle on the left lane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)