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.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Where's the Debate?
This is in response to Minister Dr Lee Boon Yang and Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s comments on mrbrown’s article in Today.
I don’t think anyone is disputing the Government’s right of reply to any allegations or distorted statements. If someone makes comments that implied wrongdoings by another party, it is fair for the affected party to defend its stand and rebut the allegations. The person who makes the original comments stands to be corrected, but also has the right to defend his views. This is all fair debate.
Dr Balakrishnan said that Singapore’s mainstream media has a crucial role in ensuring the quality and standard of discourse and national debate. But the question is, where’s the debate?
To make an analogy of this situation, debate Team A makes its opening statements. Team B rebut Team A’s statements and also claiming that Team A cannot inject humour into a serious debate. The studio that hosted this debate then decides that the quality of this debate is not up to standard, then went on to ban Team A from participating further.
So where is the debate?
How do you assess the quality of debate when both sides merely made opening statements?
Who should decide what is constructive comment and what is not?
If mainstream media can decide what is constructive comment and quality debate, shouldn’t the Editor of Today censor mrbrown’s article before it gets published? But wouldn’t this push mainstream media into self-censorship?
The Government should take a positive view of such comments, distorted or not. At least they provide an opportunity for the Government to correct the views, rather than let misperceptions brew in coffee shops and cyberspace.
I don’t think anyone is disputing the Government’s right of reply to any allegations or distorted statements. If someone makes comments that implied wrongdoings by another party, it is fair for the affected party to defend its stand and rebut the allegations. The person who makes the original comments stands to be corrected, but also has the right to defend his views. This is all fair debate.
Dr Balakrishnan said that Singapore’s mainstream media has a crucial role in ensuring the quality and standard of discourse and national debate. But the question is, where’s the debate?
To make an analogy of this situation, debate Team A makes its opening statements. Team B rebut Team A’s statements and also claiming that Team A cannot inject humour into a serious debate. The studio that hosted this debate then decides that the quality of this debate is not up to standard, then went on to ban Team A from participating further.
So where is the debate?
How do you assess the quality of debate when both sides merely made opening statements?
Who should decide what is constructive comment and what is not?
If mainstream media can decide what is constructive comment and quality debate, shouldn’t the Editor of Today censor mrbrown’s article before it gets published? But wouldn’t this push mainstream media into self-censorship?
The Government should take a positive view of such comments, distorted or not. At least they provide an opportunity for the Government to correct the views, rather than let misperceptions brew in coffee shops and cyberspace.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Making Singapore an Elderly/Disabled-Friendly Country
About seven or eight years ago, there was an interview in the Straits Times in which the then chief of the Land Transport Authority (LTA) touched on the high cost of providing MRT stations with barrier-free access to the elderly and the disabled. His comments caused a public furore with a flurry of letters filling the ST Forum page for weeks, including those from Prof. Tommy Koh, disabled societies and myself. I am not sure if our voices have had any influence on LTA’s policy and attitude towards providing barrier-free access, but am nevertheless glad to see that today, most MRT stations have installed lifts and are more friendly to the elderly and the disabled. With the implementation of the Building & Construction Authority’s (BCA) Code on Barrier-Free Accessibility, and with public buses being fitted with disabled access platform, we can look forward to Singapore becoming an elderly/disabled-friendly country.
Unfortunately, despite these improvements in public facilities for the elderly and the disabled, there is a hitch – some of our physically challenged citizens living in older HDB estates may have problem leaving their own home because the lifts do not land on every floor and there are no ramps around the blocks. In a Straits Times front-page article dated 13 April 2006, the plight of these physically challenged citizens were well highlighted.
The cause of this appears to be politics – lift-upgrading programme is complementary to the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP), which is in turn an election strategy of the People’s Action Party. In the 17 June 2006 ST Forum letter, Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan explained that ‘the upgrading of our older public-housing estates is over and above these basic obligations of the Government’, hence this will remain part of the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) general election strategy. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had also reiterated the same argument during his visit to Australia.
Sure, if a candidate had a proposal to improve the overall environment of the constituency he is contesting in, or a plan to improve economic viability of neighbourhood businesses, by all means he can call this his own and his strategy. I believe most Singaporeans do not dispute the fact that MUP involving changes to building’s facade, environment, interior, covered walk-ways and barbeque pits, etc. are beyond the Government’s obligations. And yes, it is fair that the PAP Government give priority to upgrade constituencies that had voted for the PAP.
However, does the PAP Government agree that all Singaporean citizens, including the elderly and the disabled, have equal rights? If we recognise our physically-challenged citizens as equals, then shouldn’t it be their basic right to have access to their own home and to public facilities? Is it then an essential, and not a luxury, to provide barrier-free access regardless of which political party a constituency belongs to? Shouldn’t the lift-upgrading programme be mandatory, rather than complementary to the MUP?
The Government has pledged that it will provide lift-upgrading for all eligible blocks, regardless of whether they are PAP or non-PAP wards. However, the target to do so by 2015 seemed suspiciously long, given that the HDB had initiated a study on barrier-free design features as far back as mid-70s (“Towards a barrier-free environment in public housing” - BCA Seminar 21 July 2002), and the BCA Code on Barrier-Free Accessibility has been implemented since 1990, with subsequent revisions in 1995 and 2000. In the 13 April article, ST quoted a former HDB chief architect saying that while older flats were built without lift landing on every floor due to different priorities then, the designers had an eye on the future…the blocks were built with a lift shaft which could by knocking out the wall at each level, allow the lift to stop at every floor’. So why does it take so long to upgrade the lifts now?
Let’s not let politics get in the way of our goal of providing barrier-free access in Singapore. Spare a thought for our elderly and the disabled, they are after all, our fellow Singaporean citizens too.
Unfortunately, despite these improvements in public facilities for the elderly and the disabled, there is a hitch – some of our physically challenged citizens living in older HDB estates may have problem leaving their own home because the lifts do not land on every floor and there are no ramps around the blocks. In a Straits Times front-page article dated 13 April 2006, the plight of these physically challenged citizens were well highlighted.
The cause of this appears to be politics – lift-upgrading programme is complementary to the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP), which is in turn an election strategy of the People’s Action Party. In the 17 June 2006 ST Forum letter, Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan explained that ‘the upgrading of our older public-housing estates is over and above these basic obligations of the Government’, hence this will remain part of the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) general election strategy. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had also reiterated the same argument during his visit to Australia.
Sure, if a candidate had a proposal to improve the overall environment of the constituency he is contesting in, or a plan to improve economic viability of neighbourhood businesses, by all means he can call this his own and his strategy. I believe most Singaporeans do not dispute the fact that MUP involving changes to building’s facade, environment, interior, covered walk-ways and barbeque pits, etc. are beyond the Government’s obligations. And yes, it is fair that the PAP Government give priority to upgrade constituencies that had voted for the PAP.
However, does the PAP Government agree that all Singaporean citizens, including the elderly and the disabled, have equal rights? If we recognise our physically-challenged citizens as equals, then shouldn’t it be their basic right to have access to their own home and to public facilities? Is it then an essential, and not a luxury, to provide barrier-free access regardless of which political party a constituency belongs to? Shouldn’t the lift-upgrading programme be mandatory, rather than complementary to the MUP?
The Government has pledged that it will provide lift-upgrading for all eligible blocks, regardless of whether they are PAP or non-PAP wards. However, the target to do so by 2015 seemed suspiciously long, given that the HDB had initiated a study on barrier-free design features as far back as mid-70s (“Towards a barrier-free environment in public housing” - BCA Seminar 21 July 2002), and the BCA Code on Barrier-Free Accessibility has been implemented since 1990, with subsequent revisions in 1995 and 2000. In the 13 April article, ST quoted a former HDB chief architect saying that while older flats were built without lift landing on every floor due to different priorities then, the designers had an eye on the future…the blocks were built with a lift shaft which could by knocking out the wall at each level, allow the lift to stop at every floor’. So why does it take so long to upgrade the lifts now?
Let’s not let politics get in the way of our goal of providing barrier-free access in Singapore. Spare a thought for our elderly and the disabled, they are after all, our fellow Singaporean citizens too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)