Parliamentary debate on Section 377A, part 17: Lim Biow Chuan

Editor’s note: Only the parts of his speech that touch on 377A are archived here

Source: Parliamentary Reports

23 October 2007, 5:07 pm, in Parliament

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Finally, Sir, on the issue of section 377A, I wish to state my support for the Government’s position of retaining section 377A of the Penal Code.  I had originally not intended to speak on this topic.  But in view of the Petition presented by Nominated MP Mr Siew Kum Hong, I feel that I should state that not all MPs agree with Mr Siew’s arguments.  I do not agree, Sir, that the role of the criminal law is only to punish those who have caused harm to others.  If that is the case, as my fellow MPs had said yesterday, why do we have laws on attempted suicide?  Why do we have laws prohibiting the sale of obscene materials?  Why do we have laws against incest?  Should we be bothered whether a father decides to sleep with his adult daughter in the privacy of their own home?  Why do we bother to make it an offence for someone to have sex with animals?  This is in section 377B.  In fact, with this current amendment Bill, Sir, we have just introduced a new offence of necrophilia, which is this abhorrent act of engaging in sex with a corpse.  Does this offence harm society?  Does it make Singapore unsafe or less secure?

Sir, the basic position of Parliament should be that we make laws to reflect the public morality of our times.  In this situation, Sir, I agree with the views of Ms Indranee Rajah.  I support the Government’s stand because I do not agree with the practice of homosexuality.  This is not just my personal view but also the views of many of my residents when I sought their opinion.  With the greatest respect to the Prime Minister, I must state that I do not think that there is conclusive evidence that homosexual behaviour is inborn.  The jury is out on this issue, and different scientists would have different views on the matter.

Let me state unequivocally, Sir, that I am not anti-gay.  The fact that I disagree with the practice of homosexuality does not mean that I despise homosexuals.  In fact, like the hon. Member, Mr Baey Yam Keng, I have friends who are gay, and my approach to them is simply that “I do not agree with your lifestyle.  But I would respect you for who you are.  So if you are a decent chap, an honest and hardworking person, your sexual orientation or preference does not affect the way I see you.  I would treat and respect you as another fellow citizen.”  And I do not believe that any Member in this House would turn away a person who comes to him during a meet-the-people session seeking financial help simply on the ground that this person is a homosexual.  I believe that the majority of Singaporeans do not condemn a homosexual or a gay simply because of his lifestyle.  Nor do they wish to criminalise a homosexual.  However, as my fellow MP, Mr Christopher de Souza, said, the messaging or signpost is important.  As MPs, we have to send the message that Singapore is a conservative society whereby the family unit is still seen as the basic structure of society.  I believe, Sir, we have not accused gays of being criminals, nor do I know of any petition to enforce section 377A.

Advertisements

0 Responses to “Parliamentary debate on Section 377A, part 17: Lim Biow Chuan”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Archives


%d bloggers like this: