A letter to Senior Pastor Lawrence Khong

By On January 16, 2013 · 27 Comments · In Activism, Civil Rights, Community, Other Issues, Singapore

Dear Pastor Khong

My name is Kirsten. Like you, I too think of Family as a noble endeavour.

However, I was confused by your reference to “homosexual activists” in your statement to Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong. You see, unlike you, I support the repeal of Section 377A of our country’s penal code. I cannot wait for this discriminatory, hateful piece of legislation to be tossed out. To that end, I have written about homophobia in Singapore, I have attended pro-LGBT events like Pink Dot and IndigNation and I have spoken about the supposed “traditional family unit” in Singapore. I have no intention of stopping. Yet I am not a “homosexual activist” – I am just a Singaporean, who, like you, wants to be proud of the society in which I live.

In your statement you asserted that “[e]xamples from around the world have shown that the repeal of similar laws have led to negative social changes, especially the breakdown of the family as a basic building block and foundation of the society.” But Pastor Khong, you forgot to name a single example.

You claim that the repeal of Section 377A “takes away the rights of parents over what their children are taught in schools, especially sex education.” Yet a sexuality education programme that teaches children that abstinence is best and implies that being gay is a crime is also an infringement of the right of parents over what their children are taught in schools, not to mention incredibly painful for young gay students. I don’t have personal experience of such pain, but others do. What do we say to these children and teenagers? How do we address the pain, discrimination and shame inflicted upon them simply for who they are and who they love?

You say that the repeal of Section 377A “attacks religious freedom and eventually denies free speech to those who, because of their moral convictions, uphold a different view from that championed by increasingly aggressive homosexual activists.” Well, I’ve spent plenty of time with these activists – a lot more than you have, I dare say. I can tell you this now: not all of them are homosexual. None of them are aggressive. None of them are out to attack your religious freedom, or your right to free speech.

Even after Section 377A is repealed, you will still have your right to your religion and your religious beliefs. You will still have your right to say what you want, as long as you are aware that people will also have the right to rebut your arguments. All the LGBT rights advocates are asking is that we all respect everyone’s freedom to love who they love, and that your beliefs are not taken as a norm to be imposed upon those who, because of their moral convictions, uphold a different view from that championed by you.

Pastor Khong, I too love Singapore. But this is precisely why I want Section 377A to be repealed. Section 377A is not just about homosexuals. It is about all of us. It is about how we treat one another, how we judge one another, how we accept one another.

Much has been said in Singapore about inclusivity. You mention social cohesion. Yet how can we be inclusive, and how can our society be cohesive, if we consistently criminalise and alienate a significant part of our community?

Pastor Khong, I am sure you’ve done good work for your church. I’m sure there are many who look up to you and respect you. But I simply cannot help but feel disappointed that someone like you could have such a closed mind, that you would reject those who have done nothing to you, only loved someone you think they should not.

Sincerely,
Kirsten

Tagged with: •
 
Remember, sharing is caring!
Reddit Facebook Twitter Delicious
  • gpak3762

    Well written letter. Polite yet well-argued. Thank you.

  • http://kirstenhan.me kixes

    Thank you for your comment!

  • Pingback: @joeyfjj

  • Winking Doll

    377A is going to be a long-haul fight. It is unfortunate that it is a highly politicized issue, with people from the pro-377A camp campaigning for PAP because they think that PAP will support their stance of retaining 377A. I just had another Facebook sparring session over homophobic remarks made by a friend on his Facebook page.

    http://winkingdoll.blogspot.ca/2013/01/facebook-exchange-homophobic-hate-speech.html

  • C S

    Thank you. Thank you so much :)

  • http://kirstenhan.me kixes

    Yes, it’s a huge pity that some would want it to be a “PAP agenda”. It’s really not about that at all, and shouldn’t be.

  • Lim Bernard

    I respect your idealism…But it will take a long time before Singapore society as a whole embrace changes…There are still plenty of people who are ok with gays but fear the changes that will be brought about inevitably…i.e. there will be more gays making out in public…Can the society as a whole embraced that? Parents will most likely be protective of their child, for fear of being “influenced” by them…Which may not entirely wrong either…Environmental factors have a significant impact on the genes possessed by humans…

    I mean lets take for example, unnatural forms of sexual practices are banned in Singapore, i.e. anal sex and etc…But people still do it, be it gay or not…But most people chose to be hush about it….Do they feel that their rights are infringed? Probably not, since it is not enough to push for a change in the law in that area….

    We have openly gay opposition leader….Did Singapore prosecute him for being gay? No. But yet gay activist and some gays feel that their rights have been infringed upon…You may argue that the law itself restrict them from being an open gay and stuff like that… But lets be realistic…Will repealing make a difference? Probably it will be even worst. This is for a simple reason. There is still social stigma against their unnatural practices. Lets not delve into whether such acts are natural or not…But its a fact that they oppose societal norms…Yes, they are harmless to the society…Just like PRCs who speak loudly on a train…But people will still view these people differently, because they are indeed different…

    My point is, there is no point in repealing a law that does not incriminate gays. Yes, you can argue that since its useless, why not repealed it? I tend to see it in a very pragmatic view point, because the society should function in a pragmatic manner. Repealing the law will result in mass dissatisfaction (trust me, although people are ok with gays but most people still want these people to practice their acts “underground”)…When the gay population increases (whether is it due to the increase of closet gay becoming open gays or to other reasons), Singaporeans who are already relatively against the repealing of the act will start to question the correlation between them….This will only further ostracize the gay population….

    Since repealing the act does not serve any fruitful purposes, why not focus energy on educating the population and convincing them that gays and non-gays are normal human beings….This is the root cause of the entire issue…If society can eradicate such stigma, 20 – 30 years down the road gay sex will be as common as oral sex…

    Just my 10 cents worth of thoughts….By the way, I have lots of gay friends…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002561610059 James Tan Chuan Xun

    Civil words won’t have any effect on the uncivil.

  • Pingback: @chillcrook

  • Pingback: @rainybluedawn

  • http://www.facebook.com/deLoOo Del Oo

    I do agree with your point that we should or at least bring out educating that being lgbt is actually normal. And they are the new normal that deserve to be known as well. We are all human but just that we are different .. (:

  • http://kirstenhan.me kixes

    Actually Section 377A does incriminate gay men – it criminalises sex acts between men even if it was consensual. Whether the law has been enforced recently or not, this is clearly discriminatory and at the very least is a symbol of homophobia and prejudice in our society. It sets the tone for those who would advocate discrimination against the LGBT community in Singapore, and its repeal would be very significant in sending the signal that Singapore will begin to no longer institutionally discriminate against the LGBT community.

    And being gay is hugely different from having an unusual sexual fetish.

    Of course, I agree with you that mindsets will take a very long time to change, and that the repeal of 377A will not bring this change (not overnight, anyway). If 377A were repealed I dare say SP Lawrence Khong would still disapprove of gay people, but at least his views will not be validated or backed up by such a prejudicial law.

  • Lim Bernard

    lol yeap…totally agree with you…repealing of the law only serve at best a symbolic purpose…And I think you misunderstand me…”And being gay is hugely different from having an unusual sexual fetish” I am just trying to draw a parallel between Singapore laws banning oral sex and the law criminalizing gay…Essentially its the same thing….No one actually get prosecuted in the process but the former gets so common and accepted in the society that whether the act is repealed and modified, it doesn’t really matter…Although the magnitude of the issue is so much different but it has some similarity to it in this sense…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=703341689 Vince Viknesh Jeg Pillay

    Dear sir, the answer
    lies within your argument. You say it will take time for people to embrace
    change? Repealing 377A is not going to immediately and inevitably lead to an
    increase in the number of people who are gay, prancing around the streets,
    fornicating. While there is a very slim possibility of epigenetics, it has in no
    way been proven that acceptance of gay people would influence others to be gay.
    If anything, many countries in Europe which have legalized gay marriages have
    got relatively smaller proportion of lgbt people in their countries than those
    that have not (prime example is Sweden).

    Now Mr Lim, please do
    place yourself in context. Let us assume that there is a provision in the Penal
    Code that criminalises you for being Chinese. They claim that they would never
    prosecute you (though they have many years ago). Would you sit back and
    convince yourself that since they wouldn’t shoot the gun that is pointed at you,
    it is alright to accept it lying down? Not repealing it because it would not be
    enforced is not practical – it is illogical.

    Also, there is no such
    thing as natural sex – sex is for procreation, and sex is also for enjoyment.
    When one has non-vaginal intercourse with his wife, that does not make it unnatural.
    Also, if anal sex is that ‘unnatural’, why is the prostate located in there?

    Arguing for the need
    to conform to societal norms is like asking an Indian woman not to wear saree
    because it is not the norm, or similarly asking a Muslim woman not to wear a
    Tudung. Who are we to dictate what others do in their own lives. Again I must
    emphasise that the ramifications that many allege are unfounded, exaggerated and
    mostly stems from insecurity in their own lives.

    I do agree with your
    concerns about educating the public. Many are however unwilling to partake in a
    healthy discussion or learn about differences. Censorship laws and 377A make it
    difficult for people to be educated and learn!

  • A Mere Mortal

    More gays making out in public just because of “change” ?? Honestly I don’t get this point. I wonder if you have visited societies that are open such as Amsterdam. I don’t really see gay people making out on streets everywhere.
    The problem with Singapore today is that parents leaves the “teaching” to the schools and the government. Family and moral values should be passed down from parents to child. If one is so afraid of external influences, please by all means, keep their child at home and home school them.

  • Reuben

    so should pedophilia be legalized too? Because it’s a sexual orientation.

  • gretzelle

    you may wanna recheck on your definition of ‘sexual orientation’. the last i’ve checked, pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder more than anything else. unless you’re okay with the notion of someone else (who are much older) having sex with your prepubescent kids or even babies… i suggest it’s best to rethink your statement. sexual orientation is a personal choice. it does not harm anyone else. it shouldn’t be a criminal act to have a different sexual orientation from others. and also, as long as you are having sexual intercourse with a consenting party, it doesn’t constitute to a breach of the law.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=703341689 Vince Viknesh Jeg Pillay

    A child cannot consent to sex. Neither can an animal or a corpse. There is no basis for comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. Two mature adults can mutually consent and that should be the benchmark.

  • Pingback: @ickacangmachine

  • Pingback: Tweet SG / Rui Qing (@hellofrmSG)

  • Liveit

    sexual orientation isn’t necessarily a choice. It just is – some people are not into durians, others are allergic to nuts. It just is. But it doesn’t and shouldn’t hurt another when it is expressed.

  • Stuly Kan

    Dear Pastor Khong,
    You are confusing religion and morality with the law of the country. Being both a modern and multireligious, multiracial, multicultural country, the laws of Singapore will be more liberal than what some groups prefer and more strict than what others want. You can’t just think of your own views alone and think they are absolutely right and not consider that others may hold very different values and beliefs. No one in Singapore is going to go to jail for homosexuality as no judge is going to enforce this law. Singapore has legalized oral sex a few years ago, and no one is going to go to jail for anal sex either. And if the law is not going to be enforced, it should be removed because our justice system is going to look funny if someone makes a police report on somebody practicing homosexuality but the judges and police refuse to act. This tolerance is a good thing as it protects all religions including yours. The same intolerance for others beliefs is being used against Christianity in other countries and other times. One day the same intolerance you preached may be used against you. Be careful what you ask for and be aware of what you are asking for : intolerance.

    If you believe that all homosexuals are going to burn eternally in hell, you should be sympathetic and you be trying to save them by crossing over to them to mix and hang out with them to understand them better, and not try to criminalize them, shame them, and put them in jail. They are already facing eternal torture and damnation, and your reaction should be one of pity and love. Get to know some gay people well, really well. Many of them are nice sinners, just like you and me, just that we fall short of the glory of God in different ways.

    I am not a homosexual but I know some very nice people and relatives who were just made differently.

    Jesus Christ didn’t condemn homosexuality if I remember correctly. It was mostly in the old testament of the bible. Nowadays with the genetic basis of disease and personality so strongly established, it would be premature to condemn homosexuals of a crime or sin.

  • http://twitter.com/diddi_eis Monitor_Lizard

    Thank you Kirsten, this is well written and politely yet pecisely to the point.
    Yet the point about this drama that frustrates me most is why G.C. Tong accepted the stage he was offered to speak on in the first place. Now I don’t know much about his religious preference or if he really thought the best way to reach out so Singaporeans was to speak to one group of people only, but he should have known better, or maybe he did. Khong may be entitled to his homophobic opinion, but it was our former PM’s visit who gave his opinion political relevance. As much as I’d like to see the pastor as an open minded man or am disgusted by him using the treat of freedom of speech against the LGBT community, I can’t but think that his statements are a good part of, yet not the main problem itself that needs to be focused on.

  • disqus_opYEae4cXJ

    If homosexuality shld not be crimminalized, so incest shld not be too. if you believe that the boundaries of sexual relationships are up to us to define, and as long as there’s ‘love’….then you are saying incest can be correct too.
    ridiculous, right?

  • Daphne

    thank you for writing this in a calm and polite manner. I would have never been able to do it myself.. my reaction to what I’ve read on the man’s facebook post has been anything but calm or polite. So thank you.

    I really don’t get why people are opposed to repealing 377A. I had a recent conversation with a work friend who claimed that repealing it would send a ‘wrong’ signal to the gay community. This friend claims he is not homophobic, accepts homosexuals but feels that allowing / accepting gays on a societal level would lead to ‘weak minded’ people turning gay. He also threw the parent card at me, saying he would not want his daughter to see such things (? I can’t remember the exact words he used) while growing up. I told him that I disagreed and that just like he would never look at a guy in a sexual way, a gay man would never look at a woman that way either. He said that yes for strong willed people that would be a non issue but ‘weak and young’ minds could be influence. SIGH. The problem is, I don’t think he is the only one with such a view. I think the ‘silent majority’ have a similar view point and that is what worries me. Suggestions on what and how to deal with this would be good too.

  • http://www.facebook.com/flower.paddock Flower Paddock

    To Vince Viknesh Jeg Pillay,
    I have a few things to point out regarding your rebuttal of Lim Bernards’ view. I noticed that you have skewered his points to the unfortunate extremes and I would just like to even out the argument.

    Unless you mean that the social equal you are aiming for is for homosexual activities to merely not be criminalized (which I assure you I would like to stand for) and you are sure that keeping it indoors and behind curtains is part of the plan of all the homosexual couples out there then okay I accept.
    Let’s be realistic and human. If you consider homosexual couples to be anything like the latter, with a change in mindset over time, unintentional public displays of affection (as of any ordinary couple) will become inevitable.
    So while is it, as you say, that repealing 377A is not going to immediately lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals “prancing around the streets”, the increase may happen a lot sooner and faster than our society maybe ready for.

    You may quote Europe, but this is not Europe. Our societies have
    different values and such, even without which, you have fail to notice that we must pinpoint in specific our attention on the Singaporean context.

    I do not speak of rights and wrongs.
    Looking at Europe we can say that it is a state of society possible to achieve. However, looking at Singapore, I say that it is a state that we are not yet ready for even if there are those who want it.

    Looking at our state of awareness, I believe our society is ready for some form of change, but not for exacting something as radical nor as complete.
    Whether the law can be bent and structured to accommodate these small changes I cannot say.

    Also I believe that it not simply the type of intercourse, but the type of persons involved.that was of the original debate – e.g. incest.
    I think this is where the lawful answers will never reach a satisfactory conclusion since it involves matters of the heart.

  • Pingback: @automathic