I had to write this entry while hiding my title input box because the “sex” word is very catchy and I don’t want everyone walking past me to look at what I am writing about. Hmm… I don’t quite know what to make out of this. I can’t tell if the writer is making a mockery out of the entire situation, or is he genuine on asking NMP Thio to address the issues of oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples, adultery between heterosexual couples, premarital sex, prostitution, masturbation, and sex between lesbian couples. This basically covered quite a fair bit of things under Christianity – which I feel, is mixing politics and religion again.

The issues of oral and anal sex was already disputed since the repeal of Section 377 – a result of some agreement that these were rules of the colonial times (or something to that extent). Adultery and premarital sex, although immoral in most religions, is not enforced in Singapore simply because it is not a religious state. Prostitution is one of the oldest trade in the world since the olden times – and there’s very little way to control it – and hence, the best way is to regulate it.

M is something that, erm… occurs naturally to a certain extent… which I believe will help reduce the number of rape cases. Haha… ya, maybe there’s no link, but besides engaging yourself spiritually and not letting your mind wander off, I think this is probably a good avenue to vent out your… erm… desires.

Lastly… lesbian sex. Heh… sometimes I wonder if the term is oxymoron. Hmm…

However, the whole idea behind this post is that – people have a tendency to mix religion and politics. The writer did acknowledge that his views are Christian in nature – but if NMP Thio were to align to his agenda, then shouldn’t she align to the views of the Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists? I still strongly believe that religion should be separated from politics – unless the writer wants to be a vegan for the rest of his life. What rights does he have to think that his religion rules over the rest? If there is no religious harmony – i.e. the co-existance of different religions, then there could be chaos – the same applied for racial harmony.

There is something though, that I can’t agree with how the writer has put in the letter, in particular, the following statements:

… Unless she makes fervent calls for the criminalisation of these directly related issues, she may well seem to the public to have double standards, and a hypocritical viewpoint, and to be a homophobic ‘hate-mongerer’, bullying only a particular segment of the community.

In order not to be perceived as a hypocrite, Dr Thio must also address abortion and the death sentence, as Christianity does not condone killing another human being. These are far more important moral issues than homosexuality, and I hope that as our NMP, she will not be, in her own words, a ‘lousy friend’, or in this case, a ‘lousy citizen’ or ‘lousy NMP’ by keeping silent on these issues, and make known her views with even greater fervour and directness. Remaining silent and/or equivocal on these issues will only affirm her detractors’ worst criticisms…

I thought it was a rather smart but underhanded means to get someone to agree with his personal views and agenda – by questioning the integrity of someone else. Personally, I think this is a despicable way of doing things – by indirectly insulting the morality of someone else and painting a worst-case scenario should the other person not agree with him. As much as the gay community do not agree with NMP Thio on her arguments, I don’t think the gay community can be as vicious as accusing the morality of NMP Thio. The writer should be ashamed of himself for bringing his personal agenda and motives to the public.

NMP Thio must also address abortion and death sentence in order not to be branded a hypocrite

THANK you for presenting Dr Thio Li-ann’s case on the repeal of Section 377A to the public, ‘A fiery NMP gets her baptism of fire’ by Ms Li Xueying (ST, Nov 2).

I think Dr Thio is right to express her moral position on this issue. However, I think a lot of the negative reaction she is getting may stem from the fact that she is perceived to be solely targeting the homosexual community with her views on sexual licentiousness and gross indecency. As sexual licentiousness is a problem afflicting all genders and sexualities, Dr Thio must be equally outraged about unnatural and immoral acts among heterosexuals as well, all of which are not criminal acts in Singapore, such as:

1. Oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples (after all, this is also akin to ‘drinking with a straw through the nose’ and must be equally repugnant to her).

2. Adultery between heterosexual couples.

3. Premarital sex.

4. Prostitution.

5. Masturbation.

7. Sex between lesbian couples.

When your journalist, Ms Li, asked her about her views on other moral issues, she gave a rather vague reply. As Dr Thio believes policy making in Singapore should be guided by some form of morality, and has made a stand on sex between homosexuals, suggesting that what is morally unacceptable to her should be considered a criminal act, she must make equally strong stands on the abovementioned issues. These are sins of equal magnitude in Christianity, all of which are as detrimental to family values as homosexuality. Unless she makes fervent calls for the criminalisation of these directly related issues, she may well seem to the public to have double standards, and a hypocritical viewpoint, and to be a homophobic ‘hate-mongerer’, bullying only a particular segment of the community.

In order not to be perceived as a hypocrite, Dr Thio must also address abortion and the death sentence, as Christianity does not condone killing another human being. These are far more important moral issues than homosexuality, and I hope that as our NMP, she will not be, in her own words, a ‘lousy friend’, or in this case, a ‘lousy citizen’ or ‘lousy NMP’ by keeping silent on these issues, and make known her views with even greater fervour and directness. Remaining silent and/or equivocal on these issues will only affirm her detractors’ worst criticisms.

Peter Lee Peng Eng

Article obtained from the straitstimes.com online forums on 10th November 2007



Reader's Comments

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: