Photo from ready4repeal.com

by Augustine Low

One side calls the other out for moral corruption and degradation. The other side points the finger at hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

When there are two vigorous opposing sides to Section 377A of the Penal Code, things can get pretty polarising.

And the “government is in the middle,” according to Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam. How neat! Just let society decide if it wants to keep or repeal 377A. The problem is that it is an issue which can sow discord and division, as seen by the tit-for-tat petitions, contentious videos and heated rhetoric.

Achieving common ground for 377A is clearly not easy – maybe near impossible.

It’s ingenious of the government to stay on the sidelines because even Pope Francis, the supreme pontiff, could not set the tone on sexuality issues for his flock of 1.2 billion Catholics.

In 2013, Pope Francis said in a media interview: “If someone is gay and is looking for the Lord, who aim I to judge him? You should not discriminate against or marginalise these people.”

Not words you would expect to hear from the head of the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that gay sex is a sin.

The liberal and progressive Pope faced rebellion and fierce pushback from conservatives and traditionalists in the Vatican. They took issue with his openness and relaxed stance not only on homosexuality but also on cohabitation, abortion and divorce.

Opposition became so heated that some advisers explicitly warned Pope Francis to tread carefully to avoid a “schism” or split and division in the Church.

The result is that the Pope has had to take a step back, weighed down by conservative forces wanting to preserve the status quo on Church doctrine and sacred institutions like traditional marriage.

The supreme pontiff felt the impetus for the Church to transform and embrace contemporary cultural mores. But he could not overcome the huge blowback from those who resisted vigorously and even called him a ‘heretic” because they wanted to preserve the Church exactly as it was.

So here we are in Singapore, conservatives and traditionalists pushing back against liberals and progressives.

Advocates and activists say gay men face discrimination, have to live “in hiding, in shame and in fear” and are subject to “online assaults, vitriol and abuse.”

While institutions like the National Council of Churches of Singapore is against repealing 377A because the homosexual lifestyle “is not only harmful for individuals, but also for families and society as a whole.”

Each side opposes the other with vigour, sometimes even contempt. In such a scenario, how do we ever hope to achieve common ground?

Sooner rather than later, the government or Parliament will have to break the impasse. The longer the forces for and against 377A have a go at each other, the more polarising it becomes and the greater the likelihood of things coming to a boil.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Desperate call for action by cat feeders of Beach Road

A website, savebeachroadcats.com (SBRC) is being set up by cat feeders at Beach Road to chronicle…

民主党达曼胡理:民众已厌倦和抵制旧有政治模式

民主党成员达曼胡理直言,旧有的政治模式让新加坡人愈发反感和抵制。 达曼胡理昨日(21日)在脸书上发文形容,仍有顽固的双重标准拒绝离开,因为旧有政治拒绝从既得利益中改革。 他也表示,人民行动党必须推翻过去才能达到改变,与时并进,避免过时。他说,“终有一天传统铁票会离开,如果这种情况真的发生,它也只能怪自己。” 达曼胡理也表示,如今人民行动党若想依赖新公民的票数,以此取代传统票,将会是一把双刃剑,如同执政政府创造的集选区制度一样。 他续指,从其他国家的调查可发现,刚加入的新公民,大约二至三届选举,都会投向执政党派。但当他们明智地意识到,自己和本国公民都同样身陷困境时,他们就会选择改变,或离开。 总的来说,达曼胡理强调,最终决定权还是会落在土生土长的本国公民身上,因为无论如何,他们都会选择留在自己的国家。 “或许会需要一段时间,但它最终将会发生,因为平衡才是常态。这不是高端的学问,而是生命循环的本质。” 达曼胡理连同民主党成员方月光、林文兴、江伟贤等人于今年大选中角逐马西岭-油池集选区,对战人民行动党的黄循财、任梓铭、扎吉哈、苏慧民等人,最终人民行动党以63.18巴仙对36.82巴仙得票率,拿下该集选区。

MTI: Singapore-EU FTA with Britain to continue throughout Brexit transition period

According to the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MITI) on Friday (31…

Indonesian PRs cannot serve in SAF?

Two Indonesian citizens who are Permanent Residents in Singapore are currently under investigation…