EL Blog Post 1

Source Text: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/11/15/singapore.sex.reut/index.html

Singapore's Sex Life: Now and for the Future.

It has been 4 years since this article was written. Since then, Singapore has been hit by the winds of change, and whether these winds are merely breezes that will whistle past the ears of Singaporeans, or gale-force hurricanes that will sweep the establishment off its feet, still remains to be seen.

Under this backdrop of developments, many major, if rather archaic Singapore laws on sex are also experiencing the tides of change.

Latest in these developments is the revision of the Penal Code of Singapore, which repeals Section 377 (on penetrative , non-reproductive sexual acts), and also the discussion over the feasibility of repealing its companion Section, 377A (the same, save for it affecting homosexuals instead), which remained untouched in the earlier revision.

It appears to be that the main issue is that it appears discriminatory to allow the same act for one group of people, but disallow it in another. Also, given Singapore's long running image of being conservative, and a semi-autocratic government, this discrimination does not particularly reflect well in our current society, as it makes Singapore, even to its own people (among the liberals at least), an archaic society.

But, to look deeper behind this supposed step towards a freer society, we must ask ourselves: even if we did become more liberal in our laws and regulations, would it be a good thing? Is this progress, or simply some form of regress under a thin, positive veneer of what we label "progress"?

Once we have some freedom, we will want more, and that is the painful, but inevitable truth. The government has effectively been withdrawn from the heterosexual bedroom, and now they wish to withdraw it from the homosexual bedroom.

While this can still be justified by raising the concept of "discrimination", I believe that if we keep on taking on this route, we will soon reach a point when there is no behavior, now regarded as vile and impermissible, that we cannot eventually find some concept, or some group of law practitioners, or some rights group to explain away or lobby for.

Granted, the homosexual minority in Singapore actually does have a lot of valid reasons to complain that they are being discriminated against, and if I wanted to be sympathetic, I would even say that it is somewhat justified for them to desire their own rights. The laws were, and some still are, against them, so it is natural for them to have ants in their pants over it.

However, the danger of losing our old moral standards, and the possibility of losing sight of the idea that "something is surely a wrong thing, no matter how good it may look" is still very real.

So, I shall refrain from joining the ranks of those who would celebrate and embrace this concept of freedom, and instead warn that we are facing a serious problem. Even if we could now claim that “there are some things we will never accept”, it’s really not a big deal, or even in the slightest a guarantee that there are some moral barriers we will not cross. Words about these were cheap 100 years ago, and words like these are still cheap now.

But, actions are not cheap, they have consequences. Instead of being besotted with what we think is a “beneficial revising of the law”, we should sit down and think about what these things could do to us, or the generations to come.