377A - Phantom Menace 6

Alas, the Buddhist Fellowship’s President Lim Phang Hong is not taking the beaten path that some of the monotheistic religions here are taking. His seems to be the enlightened middle pathway.

Unlike National Council of Churches of Singapore, the head of the Catholic Church of Singapore and the Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association, which have collectively stood out in public to show unanimous support against the repeal of 377A, Lim however supports repealing that “impotent and anachronistic section” (per VK Rajah). 

Lim cited the Metta Sutta, a Buddhist text as a guide, and said: - 

“In this same spirit of care, empathy and compassion, I support the repeal of any law which criminalises, discriminated or marginalised particular groups. We seek to reconcile marginalised communities with society in a way that promotes respect and harmony across different communities in Singapore and the world.”

Lim added: “Buddha’s teaching encourage Buddhists to develop understanding and care for all communities, regardless of their race, religion, language or sexual orientation.”

Interestingly, it takes a religion that subscribes to no particular god or supernatural personal being (or at all) to support the repeal of a law that singles out a minority in the society for a particular conduct that it deems criminal minus the sanction.

Even more interestingly, it is also a religion that does not argue about some “worrying implications” should the section be successfully repealed as a ground for their stand. 

On this point, the former Court of Appeal’s justice, VK Rajah, said: -

“Understandably, there are concerns that repealing Section 377A could be the thin end of the wedge, inexorably moving towards same sex marriage and same sex adoptions. Nevertheless, other conservative Asian societies such as China, Japan, South Korea and now India have shown that a line can in fact be drawn without criminalising such conduct, even while societal more evolve organically.”

He added: “Concerns about future imponderables do not justify the continued criminal stigmatisation of an innate trait. Even if one were to insist that such a trait is not innate, it is not the province of either the State or society to regulate such inherently private consensual conduct among adults.”

What adds to the depth of discussion is the line that VK Rajah talks about that delineates which conduct invites intervention by the state and which conduct does not or should not.

He said: “A line can certainly be drawn between private “self-regarding” conduct, and public “other-regarding” conduct. Certain laws, such as those designed to prevent self-harm like sado-machosim and necrophilia, can be legitimately paternalistic (intervention needed). Section 377A is not one of them, even if it is not universally accepted that individuals “are born that way.””

Sadly, while this particular sodomy law is decriminalised for the heterosexuals, the section is deliberately amended to criminalise the homosexuals. That deliberateness seems to have sow the wind, and we as believers may just be reaping the whirlwind now. 

The petition for retention has garnered nearly 109,000 signatures; this is on top of LHL and Shanmugan’s assurance that the government will not repeal the section. 

And on the other corner of the wrestling ring are those who are petitioning for the repeal under the banner “Ready4Repeal”. They have garnered 44,650 signatures. 

Unfortunately, the wedge is widening, which is partly ironic since the leaders of religion are supposed to bridge it with their teachings and lifestyle. 

You see, as we speak, the petitioners for Ready4Repeal had already set up a townhall meeting at SMU and 848 participants had attended. Talk about political agenda and LGBT activism. 

They have lots of stories to tell and most of them are about open discrimination and even abuse. 

According to this ”criminalised” minority, they are sharing about how the retention of section 377A has emboldened others to harm them. 

The coauthor of the petition, Johannes Hadi, said: “Stories are how you can change the conversation because if you don’t speak up, the Government and society will take this as proof that there’s no hatred and suffering.” 

It is beginning to seem like a shouting match on both sides. But not to worry, the religious majority is still the loudest (so loud that they risk drowning out their core message). 

Lesson? Just one. 

As believers, in our rush to tell the government where we stand and make it a public fight with petitions mixing concerns about some “future imponderables” and a doom’s day narrative when the government has already assured us that 377A will stay, are we acting out of fear or faith? 

And in doing so, that is, by raking up the signatures with the singleminded aim of asserting in no uncertain terms who are in the majority and who are in the minority, are we encouraging hate or love, division or unity, stoking inflammatory diversity or bridging common grounds? 

As believers, I think some of us are guilty of the ossification of groupthinking, especially when it comes to a religion that is organised around dogmatic values that have little practical application on the grassroots level. 

And this moralistic blind-sightedness is made even more insidious and infectious when we put a condemnable label on a particular behaviour that we ourselves do not commit and is completely and categorically exempted from. 

This only makes the need to understand and show compassion a dispensable and unnecessary prerequisite. 

But why “particular behaviour”? Because we are particularly selective about what is to be condemned (on a united religious/political front) and what is not. 

Adultery is not. Homosexuality is. Corporate greed is not. Homosexuality is. Poverty and inequality are not. Homosexuality is. Corruption is not. Homosexuality is. 

Some may argue that I am too myopic, looking only at things in a dualistic, binary manner. While we sign up against repeal, there are many who are praying for homosexuals (or against homosexuality) and counselling homosexuals (to admit that their lifestyle is against the biblical laws and the order of nature). 

Be that as it may, ultimately, we choose our battles, we run the good race, and we keep our eyes on the Cross. 

And if we do just that, we ought to know that some battles are not our fight because they only widens the gap and divide society (or worse, sabotage our evangelistic efforts). 

Some race calls for us to stop, turn around and run back to help those who are marginalised, discriminated against, and left to fend for their own. 

More importantly, the finishing line is not about fulfilling some moral code or standard, but it is about making spiritual friendships along the way, and showing that you care enough not to make them feel that you are being disingenuous about it. 

And finally, keeping our eyes on the Cross means to never forget our own failings and frailties. 

For Jesus did not hang on that stake to remind us that we are better than the rest. On the contrary, he reminded us that we are in fact no different from the rest. Cheerz.