Majulah Singapura! Nation's Courts Reject Legal Challenges to Anti-Sodomy Statutes

Flag of Singapore

Well, this is good news, indeed!

This morning, I received a number of texts and updates from pro-family contacts in Southeast Asia about the 377a court challenges in Singapore. I had been keeping an eye on these legal proceedings.

Flyer to Advocate for "Keep 377a"

For the uninitiated, Statute 377a criminalizes immoral acts between men, aka sodomy (but also covers all other sexual perversions among men).

If Singapore falls, and the statute decriminalizing sodomy and other indecent acts among men is struck down as unconstitutional, the entire host of LGBT perversions will overrun the country, just as they have in Taiwan, and they are poised to overrun Hong Kong. It just breaks me up inside to see an entire continent ignore the warning signs which are blazing out of the Western World about the LGBT onslaught-juggernaut.

Decriminalization of LGBT behaviors, gay marriage, etc. are just the first of an avalanche of evil monstrosities that will be visited on a country should they occur. The homosexual lobby does not know the word "Enough" or the phrase "We've arrived."

Gay Star News (sadly, it appears that they are back online), reported the following about the significance of 377a remaining on the books in Singapore:

However, the law hangs over all LGBT+ people. It stops the community advancing other rights. Trans people can change gender in Singapore but there is no same-sex marriage or discrimination protection.

And this is precisely the point why it is welcome news that the statute has not been struck down. Notice the larger agenda of "advancing other rights". The need to end discrimination, to push for "discrimination protection" should be setting off alarm bells for anyone reading that phrase. "Discrimination protection" is not about protecting individuals from harm, but rather allowing a small group of militant activists to discriminate against everyone else at will, i.e. the LGBT lobby demanding more privileges and persecuting those who don't agree and don't comply.

Channel News Asia reports on the LGBT litigants' latest failure to strike down 377a:

High Court judge dismisses all three challenges to Section 377A

SINGAPORE: Three men have failed in their challenges against Section 377A of the penal code, after a High Court judge dismissed their court actions against the law that criminalises sex between men on Monday (Mar 30).

In a case summary released by the court, Justice See Kee Oon rejected arguments that the law is unconstitutional, and defended the decision not to pro-actively enforce Section 377A.

He said that Section 377A "serves the purpose of safeguarding public morality by showing societal moral disapproval of male homosexual acts". It cannot be said to be redundant simply because of its non-enforcement, he added.

Yes! Governments and laws exist to protect the rights of the governed. The Declaration of Independence could not be clearer:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...

Amen to that! The drafters and signers of the Declaration of Independence were declaring universal principles from natural law, not just a narrow set of values which pertained to Englishmen living in the American colonies. These principles belong to everyone in the world, including Singaporeans. 

"Created equal", yes. "Created homosexual"? No.

Channel News Asia continues:

According to Section 377A of the Penal Code, any man who commits any act of gross indecency with another man in public or in private can be jailed for up to two years. This extends to any man who abets such an act, procures or attempts to procure such an act.

The verdict was delivered in chambers, four months after arguments were made by the lawyers for the three men: Disc jockey Johnson Ong Ming, retired general practitioner Roy Tan Seng Kee and Bryan Choong Chee Hoong, the former executive director of LGBT non-profit organisation Oogachaga.

One Singaporean expressed complete outrage that the LGBT lobby was pushing this matter in the first place:

"Waste of news bandwidth. So much bigger issues to worry about now. The LGBT community should shut the hell up and no one gives a rat's ass."

It's precisely this kind of outrage which has become prevalent across the globe, I believe. The LGBT lobby, like a bunch of discontented, spoiled children, simply will not stop pushing, prodding, demanding special privileges. They have wrapped their warped arguments in the rhetoric of victimhood and benign eccentricity. "We just want to love people of the same sex. What's wrong with that? How is my sexual relationship hurting you?"

Singaporeans by and large are aware that the LGBT agenda is not about mere decriminalization.

Dr. Thio Li-Ann in Singapore's 2007 parliament exposed this agenda for what it really is:

"Repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties."

Yes, indeed. The tragic facts of this agenda cannot be ignored. Brian Camenker, the President of MassResistance, also declared forcefully: "The slippery slope is real."

From gay marriage comes the demands for all kinds of accommodations, privileges, and perks for the homosexual lobby. This agenda has gone so far, that in other Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia, homosexuals can sue individuals and corporations for defamation or discrimination, because they are telling the truth about homosexuality! (Thank God for the First Amendment in the United States).

The Channel News Asia report continues:

Mr Choong said in a statement that he is "of course disappointed", but said his eyes "are firmly on the road ahead".

"I’ll be studying this judgment closely with my lawyers. For now, I want to thank them for their hard work and all well-wishers for their support," he added.

Mr Tan's lawyer, M Ravi, told the media after that short hearing that he is working with a team to study the prospects of appeal.

Roy Tan, Gay Activist and one of the three LGBT Litigans. He admits in interviews that
he had sex with many other boys while in primary school

He said the decision was "astounding" and "utterly shocking" because "you still criminalise these people".

Notice the false rhetoric: "You are still criminalising these people." That is the fundamental lie of the homosexual lobby, that people are "born that way," and therefore anyone who criminalizes such perverse behaviors is a massive bigot. No, the true bigotry lies with the LGBT lobby which insists on normalizing behaviors that are inherently destructive and demeaning. These behaviors do not, and do not have to, define an individual. People are not born gay, and there is no natural right to sodomy.

Mr Ravi had argued on behalf of Mr Tan that the "absurd and arbitrary application" of the law is a violation of the Constitution as all gay and bisexual men are obligated to report their consensual private sexual acts to the police.

There's a proper way to deal with this problem, that the lawyer does not want to mention: don't engage in those sexual acts to begin with! I would agree that anti-LGBT statutes should target women and well as men. Homosexual acts among women are aberrant and perverse, as well. The level of domestic violence and child abuse among lesbians is quite shocking, too.

This is "incongruous with the so-called non-proactive enforcement of Section 377A", said Mr Ravi, who also argued that this law infringes the right to equality, life, personal liberty and expression.

One of these days, I will provide an extended set of remarks about "right to equality." That is nonsensical. Equality is not a natural right, nor even a natural occurrence in nature. A government cannot promote liberty and equality as two demanding co-equal principles. The greater the push for equality, the greater the diminution of liberty, and vice versa. Equality before the law, yes, but equality as an end in itself is unthinkable, even tyrannical.

However, Justice See found that issues relating to how the law is enforced are distinct from issues relating to whether it is constitutional, maintaining that it does not violate various articles in the Singapore Constitution.

He held that legislation remains "important in reflecting public sentiment and beliefs".

YES! Exactly. Would that more countries embraced these views and held these common beliefs. Nations and peoples have no idea the troubles, the trials, the tragedies which they are courting should they decriminalize homosexual acts. Public sentiment must be informed, must be kept abreast of the truth that

Mr Choong's lawyers, led by Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal, had argued based on new historical material that was not available during a 2014 appeal.

They pointed to recently declassified documents demonstrating that the introduction of Section 377A in 1938 was to criminalise "rampant male prostitution" when Singapore was under British colonial rule.

However, Justice See ruled that Section 377A "was not targeted solely at male prostitution when it was enacted", adding that it was "intended to safeguard public morals generally and enable enforcement and prosecution of all forms of gross indecency between males".

Exactly. I wish that the United States had had similar justices when LGBT litigants had contended against the anti-sodomy and pro-natural marriage statutes in my country. Public morality matters, and private behavior has public consequences. The state does not have to place telescreens or recording devices in every bedroom, but the state has a duty to outline morals and guidelines for what is right, and what is wrong.

Mr Ong's lawyers, helmed by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, put forth expert scientific evidence on the nature of sexual orientation, arguing that homosexuals cannot wilfully change their orientation and that Section 377A is discriminatory and violates the Constitution.

This is the biggest load of crap yet. I apologize for my scatological bluntness, but I cannot refrain. People are not born gay. This is abject nonsense. There is no genetic, statistical, or biological evidence to confirm or even suggest that homosexual tendencies exist. The latest study on this subject surveyed hundreds of thousands of genetic data to confirm that "There is No Gay Gene."

The court found that "there was no comprehensive scientific consensus that a person's sexual orientation was biologically determined such that it is immutable".

Wow! The courts actually provided a biological truth to combat the legal fraud perpetrated by the LGBT litigants! I have yet to hear any legal scholar or advocate make that case in the United States. For the ten years leading up to the Obergfell decision in 2015, pro-family and constitutionalist lawyers refused to make the simple yet compelling argument that "No one is born gay." The reticence of those legal and political leaders is just stunning.

Justice See added that the court is not the "appropriate forum to seek a resolution of a scientific issue that remains controversial".

Another welcome point. Courts are not supposed to make laws or enact policies. Their role serves to safeguard constitutional rights and governance, as well. There is no constitutional nor natural right to sodomy, and thus no court has any right to grant such a privilege.

Mr Ong intends to appeal the decision, lawyer Suang Wijaya told CNA.

The Attorney-General's Chambers had maintained that Section 377A serves a "legitimate and reasonable" state interest, "regardless of whether and how it is enforced".

YES!

They said the issue was "a deeply divisive socio-political" one that should instead be decided by Parliament, as the latter comprises democratically elected representatives accountable to Singaporeans.

Final Reflection

"Majulah Singapura" is the national anthem of the Republic of Singapore. The phrase is Malay for "Onward Singapore". Indeed, true progress for any nation must be founded on defense of the family and opposition to sexual degradation and perversion.

The country is still clinging to this moral progress as long as they hold onto #377a and reject the corporate, globalist bullying of the LGBT lobby and their allies in different governments, international institutions, and the media.

Singapore LGBT Historian, "Repeal 377a" Plaintiff Roy Tan: Serial Sex Fiend

Roy Tan, Singapore's LGBT "Historian"

In a previous post, I reported on retired physician yet ongoing LGBT activist Roy Tan.

I pointed out from his own words in an interview with "Dear Straight People" that people are not born gay, and that the gay lifestyle is not about promoting life, but is destructive and dysfunctional, as well as outright deadly.

Then I saw this post on his Facebook page:

EEK. Indeed, scary.

The comments below in the Facebook post were also quite scary:

From this post, I am compelled to point out that Mr. Tan was not just sexually active, but let's state the truth plainly: he was a child molester! More than a zombie, but a real monster!

Does this seem harsh? Does this seem untenable?

Not at all. Consider his own words:

His attraction to the same gender grew stronger with age. By the time he started primary school, Roy was already busy experimenting with his male classmates.

His male classmates. More than one. How old were they? Were they one year younger? Two years younger? Five years younger?

Even if they were still the same age, it's still wrong. It's still abuse. It's still perversion.

And repealing 377A will cause this perversion to explode in Singapore's schools.

And check out his other statements on this:

"When I attended school from Primary 1 onwards, I always had a best friend in class which I would become strongly attracted to.

"We would proceed to explore each other’s bodies when the occasion was appropriate in a very innocent way, mainly out of curiosity. I had no inkling at the time that it was a sexual interaction."

"Exploring each other's bodies ..." Really. "In a very innocent way ..." taking off one's clothes? Touching one's genitals? This is innocent? Not at all. It's downright disgusting, and it's clearly abusive.

It's child molestation.

Again: How old were Roy's young "partners"? And what else did Roy do to them?

Tan continues:

As I progressed from primary to secondary school and then pre-university and National Service, my best friend would change but the intensity of the relationship and the love I felt was the same with each new, unique person.

The main problem about my relationships with my best friends was that even though we shared carnal pleasure, none of them identified as gay and they all got married to women later on in life.

"My best friends", Roy writes. How many? How old were they?

This is very disturbing.

No one wants to talk about the marked connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. But it must be brought out. Here's one study which draws out this very worrisome correlation.

Here's another.

And consider this report by Bryan Fischer, as well.

And then notice the comments under Roy Tan's photo as a 13 year old (when he was already "experimenting" with other boys.

"You can see the shape of it too ... so fine" -- sadly, but most likely referring to Roy's genitals.

Then this remark:

"Pornographers. Aha!"

WHAT?!

More interesting than all of this ... those comments were deleted for some reason:

No more mention of pornographers. No mention of "You can see the shape of it."

I wonder why ...

Final Remarks

It's both worthwhile and proper for Singapore to maintain its statute criminalizing sodomy. The risks to children as well as to adults, the costs to individuals and society, the perverse effects on the country and the community cannot be overstated in regards to homosexuality, transgenderism, and other paraphilias.

The champion, the chief plaintiff in the lawsuits to repeal 377a, engaged in serial child abuse. He flaunts this sexual perversion as if it's something to be proud of. And it will become manifest and mainstream should 377a be repealed.

The correlations of homosexuality, pornography, and pedophilia are too great to ignore. Singaporeans need to wake up and demand the full protection of the common good and public order. Expose Roy Tan, and #Keep377a

Singapore's LGBT "Historian" Proves "Not Born That Way" (Inadvertently Shows Support for 377A)

Singapore, an economic and cultural miracle in Southeast Asian, is facing some heavy cultural head  winds. One of the a number of countries around the world which still criminalizes sodomy.

What's interesting about Singapore it that the country is not a third-world backwater, but a first-world powerhouse in the region.

Furthermore, some of the most able minds in the country, whether in the university or in parliament have spoken out forcefully against homosexuality and have rigorously, effectively defended maintaining the anti-sodomy laws on the books.

For more information on Prof. Theo Li-Ann's spirited and well-informed defense, click here.

Recently, I discovered one of the oldest, most vocal pro-LGBT advocates--and activists--in Singapore.

His name is Roy Tan:

Mr. Tan Demanding Repeal of 377A in ... 2008!

Roy Tan is the so-called historian of LGBT in Singapore.

Really.

What kind of history does he have?

He shares it openly, and what he shares is nothing short of horrifying, providing proof that these behaviors are not innate, but rather acquired, and ultimately destructive.

Furthermore, his account on "Dear Straight People" shows not just the militant opposition to defending natural marriage and healthy intercourse among adults, but also why Singapore is doing the right thing to keep the anti-sodomy laws, aka 377A, on the nation's books.

First, let's look at his childhood, as told by himself, by the way:

Roy was just 5-years old when he first experienced same-sex attraction.

A five-year old having sexual feelings? This is unseemly and unfounded. The hormonal developments which invite sexual feelings and physical growth does not take place until puberty.

What does Tan claim that he had "same-sex attraction"? There is nothing wrong with fellow-feeling for other men. There is also nothing wrong with having a profound admiration or affirmation for someone of the same sex. Deep friendships are founded on that kind of love.

Trips to the swimming pool were a frequent family affair. And it was there that Roy had his first brush with homosexuality.

Reminder: we are talking about a child, a five-year old. This account is becoming more disturbing.

Tan shares:

I would stare in fascination at the men walking around in the changing room, especially at their bushy pubes and large genitalia – appendages which I noticed I lacked as a child.

I have heard a similar account to this.

Vincent Yang of Taiwan shared a similar story from his childhood:

In the first part of his testimony, Vincent talks about the disturbing effect of showering with older relatives in public showers. He noticed the erect members of his older sibling, and he became engrossed with the private parts of other men.

From this fascination, he entered into liaisons with men in public toilets, then one-night stands with other men. Like Vincent, Roy's "initiation" into same-sex attraction began in a public shower around other men, but notice also that Roy mentions a sense of shame: "appendages which I noticed I lacked as a child."

It's not a wise idea to have children shower around strangers. This sense of shame emerges, and it causes great harm in the future for the person. There is something wrong, even destructive, about allowing children, boys and girls, to be around so many naked strangers at one time. And that's what happened to Roy.

His attraction to the same gender grew stronger with age. By the time he started primary school, Roy was already busy experimenting with his male classmates.

"Same gender"? What? There is biological sex. That is a static, genetic characteristic. Why alter that?

Gender is the term used to suggest that male and female are mere constructs. That is not true.

"Experimenting"? Is that what the interview calls sexual conduct between boys? The attitude about this is all wrong from the outside. Children should not be "experimenting" with their bodies at all. The physical pleasure gives way to a sense of loss, shame, and longing which cannot be assuaged or ignored without something better.

I am still in shock reading "experimenting with his male classmates". This is tragic, and yet a very common feature in the lives of many homosexuals.

Roy shares:

"When I attended school from Primary 1 (First Grade in the United States) onwards, I always had a best friend in class which I would become strongly attracted to.

"We would proceed to explore each other’s bodies when the occasion was appropriate in a very innocent way, mainly out of curiosity. I had no inkling at the time that it was a sexual interaction."

"A best friend", Roy writes. He had many such encounters, then? Was there more than one "best friend"? This is really disturbing. Roy was abused, and now he is acting out this sense of shame on others. If a teacher in the United States found out that a child was behaving like this toward other students, the parents would have been informed immediately. I wonder if teachers in Roy's classes did find out about this.

I submit to you that Roy's interactions were not really "sexual", but rather a curiousity borne out by a lack of wisdom and training, particularly when it comes to boundaries. This kind of behavior is neither normal nor healthy among children. Especially first graders!

Despite the fact that Roy grew up at a time when gay apps haven’t yet permeated the gay scene, Roy was never short of company.

His peculiar trend of engaging in carnal activities with his best friend at each stage of his life was something that would continue right up through to his Army days.

This passage points out clearly that homosexuality is promiscuous. There is little in the way of fidelity or integrity when it comes to these kinds of interactions. Homosexuals have a number of sexual interactions with different men throughout their "tenure" in that lifestyle.

That does not sound like love. That does not sound like a set of behaviors to promote in any culture.

Then Rouy shares this:

"As I progressed from primary to secondary school and then pre-university and National Service, my best friend would change but the intensity of the relationship and the love I felt was the same with each new, unique person.

"The main problem about my relationships with my best friends was that even though we shared carnal pleasure, none of them identified as gay and they all got married to women later on in life."

Roy admits inadvertently, perhaps, but he admits it nonetheless: that people are not born gay. The men he slept with got married and had children later on. A number of studies do point out that women engage in homosexual encounters in certain settings, too, and then marry and have children. Men can engage sexually with other men, but then return to natural relations with women, too. Why would anyone want to disrupt this blessed arrangement?

Earlier in this post, I had asked about Roy's parents. Where were they when Roy was "experimenting" with other boys? Did they know about his homsoexual activities?

Yes, they did.

Born to a Buddhist family, his parents believed in the typical Chinese syncretism of Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism. Thus, homosexuality was never considered a sin in the household and Roy was free from the religion induced guilt that haunts many other gay youths.

The sense of shame is a natural response. It's not the fault of "religion." Furthermore, this statement suggests Tan's hostility to people of faith. Very troubling.

During his twenties and thirties, Roy would often bring men back to his home to spend an intimate night with. Although his parents were well aware of what their son was doing behind closed doors, they never showed much of a reaction.

Or did they?

In fact, Roy's parents were quite indulgent! Roy shares:

“On one occasion when I brought a boy home for the night and was going down on him in my bedroom, my father peeped through the keyhole to see what we were up to.

“When I suddenly opened the door to go to the toilet, my father quickly stood up sheepishly from his crouched, spying position and walked away.”

Roy's father knew what his son was doing. Instead of doing something about it, he walked away. That is not love. No wonder Roy was looking for love in other men. What kind of father would allow his son to dishonor his body in such a fashion-and say nothing? That's just unloving, to say the least. 

The Bible, of course, calls such parental inaction "hate".

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." (Proverbs 13:24)

Since his parents did not care that their son was so promiscuous, it really shows what little love they had for their son!

The "Dear Straight People" continues with details about Roy Tan's political activism. From the underground gay bars to chat boards to parades, Tan has taken every step possible to promote and normalize homosexual relations. He know serves as the unofficial LGBT historian for Singapore, as well.

Analysis:

First of all, Tan gives away the fact that homosexuality is not a stable affair. The behavior is rife with promiscuity. Second, it's a lifestyle which is demeaning to women. He was dating a women because of pressure, but spent so much of his time hanging out with one of his best friends. His girlfriend at the time was very annoyed about this. Tan recounts:

"She was rather envious of my best friend and would wonder why we spent so much time together.

"She used to ask, “Why do you always listen to him?” I didn’t have the heart to reply, “Because I love him more than you'".

How selfish is that?

But let's be candid here. Mr. Tan offers the argument which LGBT activists around the world are throwing out to the public: that being gay is a civil right.

It's certainly not an immutable characteristic, as proven by his carnal encounters with other men who went on to marry and have children.

The origins of this behavior stem from one who was not loved, not reared to be a strong, stable, capable adult. Just because homosexuals also engage in more noble pursuits (working, recreational activities, etc.) does not mean that 377A should be repealed.

Many people are functioning alcoholics, drug addicts, and even porn addicts. People commit other crimes in secret, and then go about their daily lives in public with little reason for scrutiny.

Prof. Thio Li-Ann, at one time a member if Singapore's Parliament, gave a rousing, comprehensive defense of 377A. Her words of wisdom and caution should be accepted and shared. For the entire speech, click here.

To summarize, Mr. Tan's defense of repeal for 377A leaves much to be desired. The behaviors are inherently destructive, the lifestyle draws individuals into aberrant, destructive patterns. Because the basis for LGBT as a civil right is based on the "born that way" argument, Mr. Tan has no real argument to make for striking down 377A.