Been talking about s377A pretty much in law school this semester. Well for the record, I think it's by now too over-used and over-rated that we should move on? But yeah, I do know it'll still be brought up now and then because it's pretty much a good example to talk about morality and the law. Anyways, just decided to pen down my views for s377A (which I have to disclaim first do not represent any formal views of any organisations, institutions, ministries, religion etc; nor does this seek to further any political agenda. All perspectives raised are solely personal opinion which has no other intention apart from penning down my own thoughts. And if the discussion of sex and homosexuality offends you, then please do not read this. Further, I perhaps should label this at least an NC16 post.)

For the uninitiated, 377A was widely debated a few years back when the government was reviewing the Singapore Penal Code (Cap. 224). Essentially, the provision criminalises sex between 2 consensual males, even if the act is done in private. It escalated into the whole Repeal377A faction against the Keep377A camp. And largely, the arguments were based on morality issues.

After all, what harm can there be if 2 guys had consensual sex behind closed doors and no one else knows. Granted they harm themselves because gays spread HIV/AIDS. As much as the label of AIDS as a 'gay disease' has relatively waned in recent times, it is note-worthy that my mum was bordering on the edge of falling prey to the misconception that gays = AIDS and vice versa.

Then there's the argument that should 377A be repealed, we are endorsing the homosexual lifestyle and thus undermine the larger social fabric - essentially the harm done to society. The main thesis there is that 377A stands to protect the community's standard of decency. Should we decriminalise homosexual sex, there will be rampant increase in homosexuality, which would be disastrous to society.

Well, wrong on both counts.

1) It is fallacious to argue that repealing 377A will result in a rampant increase in homosexuality. Ask a straight guy, 'Now that 377A has been repealed and consensual homosexual sex is no longer illegal, won't you want to try/do it?' and the reply you are likely to get is more like than not, 'Hell no!'

2a) An increase in homosexuality prevalence in Singapore would be disastrous to society. Well, if you're looking at the family building block as the core unit of making up your society because they are the one who will produce offspring for the next generation, then arguable, yes it is disastrous to that effect. Yet, there are homosexual couples who would love to have their own kids and, should the law allow adoption of kids for homosexual couples, I don't quite see the concern behind it.

2b) And apart from the falling birth rate, I don't quite see what other major social repercussions there can be. Unless you buy the whole homosexuality = immoral theory.

In fact, s377A has been seen to serve a more denunciatory function - that it expresses the social condemnation and the law expresses the state of social norms/morals at that time. Yet we have seen the government take the lead in some socially-not-too-well-received policies. I'm not saying that the government should do this all the time - indeed, I do agree that it takes a delicate balance to sort this out, but we should not forget that one of the main aims of the government is to steer the country in the 'right' direction.

Before I sound one-sidedly biased and sound like some ardently-repressed poor soul, let me qualify myself by saying that this is meant to be more of an academic discussion of which, if by now it is not clear, I am for repealing 377A. No, I'm not some gay rights activist, and neither would I push strongly for repealing 377A. But if ever there comes a day for a national referendum, I think it's pretty clear where my vote will go to.

Living in a multi-cultural, multi-racial country has seen a good deal of tolerance with regards to the law. The law doesn't favour one race over the other, nor discriminate one religion more so than the other, for after all, Singapore is a secular country. If that's the case, shouldn't or can't sexuality be viewed as a form of 'minority' such that even if we do not confer on them 'minority rights', surely they have a right to be recognised and respected?

Then, I will foresee social vehemence at my suggestion - because homosexuality is wrong and immoral!

Uh, question... Wrong and immoral by whose standards? Your standard, my standard, the govt's standard, a particular religion's standard?

Oh, no, it's just that it's obviously an unsaid thing that everyone feels that it's immoral and wrong!

Hmm, alright maybe so, maybe not. By doing a random simple asking around sort of survey, you may find people who are against homosexuality and its status as an alternative lifestyle, but when asked whether they think homosexual sex should be criminalised, more often than not it's replied in the negative.

So the above are some of my views to the issue - putting down for the record. Well, if you really want to discuss anything with me, I'm more than happy and welcome to talk about it.

With all the above said, let me progress to something more optimistic before I conclude.

While 377A is still good law, and I do find it oxymoron-ic and paradoxical that the government strikes a compromise by stating in no unclear terms that they will not actively enforce the statute (which even more supports my proposition that it should be repealed because it seems to be left there to pacify part of the masses), I am equally thankful that the government has at least promised not to actively enforce it. This is a paradigm shift from the 1990s where the police frequently conducted what is known as sting operations to flush out the well-known 'gay areas'. Sting operations are, in its most simplified terms, operations where policemen infiltrate such areas and pretending to be a gay, and seeking to procure/encourage homosexual advances, which would then allow them to successfully arrest and prosecute them under the law.

Perhaps I'm being far too optimistic but as the saying goes 'To live is to want, to want is to suffer' and hence to break out of it, I guess a good way would be to find things that one can be thankful for.

Back to my optimistic view of liberalisation of Singapore, such issues are now more frequently raised (as compared to the past where such topics are hush-hush or even taboo), and the media seems to take into account the rise of homosexuality. Or so I term it. Starting from brokeback mountain which is the classic example of homosexuality in the theatres, there has been more subtle undertones along the way. And in Valentine's Day which I watched with my cousins some 2 weeks ago, *spoiler alert* yes, there's the usual lovey-dovey plotlines with the predictable twists, with very awesome actors/actresses, but what struck me pretty hard was the inclusion of a gay couple. It was more of a sideplot and the development to the final culmination in such a revelation caught me off guard. I did not see it coming at all.

Perhaps, I rejoice too soon, too much, at the most little of things. Indeed, as I said, I'm no gay rights activist, nor do I seek to further any such agenda. I'm picking up this clues/hints as I go along in my daily life which makes me bear the hope that in the not-too-far future, 377A will be brought up again, and that the whole homosexuality issue will surface once more, with a more positive outcome, with one step forward in the name of liberalisation. I think more can be done if we shift our focus to helping poor teenagers (and indeed, even people of older ages) struggling with their sexuality grow up and receiving proper help/counselling such that they will not feel being an outcast - all these rather than spending the efforts in downplaying the plausible alternative of homosexuality, condemning it as a social abomination, and seeking to suppress it as much as we can.

If you think I'm feeling too strongly about this issue, then maybe you can consider that I've seen too many people struggle with such issues that it becomes destructive, they lose sight of their purpose in life, they spend more time agonising over it than other arguably more important things, they end up being all so emotional and unaccepting of themselves that it becomes dysfunctional, when all they need is support in order to have a childhood which is not all that traumatic. Do we really want to continue using such labels of social immorality and abomination which are inevitably destroying the childhood of our loved ones (even though we may not know it)? And when you realise that you have friends who are determined in leaving Singapore for another country because they find the culture here too unaccepting and too judgmental, perhaps you may also then find such an impetus to write in support of this issue. I'm not saying that we should promote homosexuality, or that homosexuality is right or wrong. I just urge everyone to be more tolerant (like we have been of different races and religions) and accept how some people are, and to love them the way they are simply because they are fellow human beings, with a rational mind and the same emotional needs.

Just this week alone, the week right after CNY, I already know of 5 break-ups - of relationships lasting 1 year, 5 years and even 10 years. And when you heard of someone who has just broken up with a partner of 10 years, your heart just goes out to that person. No matter how much dislike you have against that person, no matter how much bias you have against that person, surely, as a fellow human being you just feel for that poor soul. After all, it's 10 years of life-sharing, of spending awesome joys together, and walking through those dark valleys with each other.

And then in comparison, the 1 year relationship seems less consequential. Still, feelings can't be measured by time and space, can they? Perhaps it was the very first relationship one has gotten into, perhaps it was a relationship where one felt ready/willing to commit to for the rest of his life.

And so the magic question: why, even after we have been hurt (some more than a few times), do we still go on to look for another person and then plunge into a relationship eventually?

I guess as much as we may hate to admit it, deep deep inside all of us there exists this innate desire which yearns for company and attention. Something more than what your family gives you, and something more than what your friends can give you. The desire of possession and a sense of belonging and a shared life. Do we not crave for a partner who, at the end of our crazy day, we can go back to and simply rest in whose company?

As the Robbie Williams song goes - 'Send someone to love me, I need to rest in arms, Keep me safe from harm, In pouring rain.'

And so that's the irrational side kicking in, telling you that even though you may be hurt once more, it's worth risking a shot because you never know if things might just turn out well this time round. Ahh Jay Chou's 轨迹 suddenly comes to mind:

如果说分手是苦痛的起点，那在终点之前，我愿意再爱一遍。

And from Mitch Albom's Five People You Meet In Heaven - 'That's the thing. Sometimes when you sacrifice something precious, you're not really losing it. You're just passing it on to someone else.'

问世间：情为何物，只叫人生死相许？

No more random weird self-indulgences, no more self-pitying, no more over-anxiety, and no more horribly prolonged procrastination.

'Nothing worth having ever comes easily'. How true indeed. So time to work my ass off and be productive and less inefficient in utilising my time and resources.

Here we go again..

Well, I guess that's very true - you pretty just need someone else who is seeking to fulfill that physical or physiological urge/desire; opposed to finding that special someone whom you would have certain feelings for and having these feelings reciprocated, it would be easier to just fulfill that urge. After all, you can pay someone to have sex with you, (or it might even be free if both parties are consensual), but you certainly cannot pay someone to love you. Though of course technically one can argue that money can buy anything, including love, but I'll choose to believe that true love cannot be bought. You might be able to buy a person's company, buy a person's attention and display of affection, buy a person's time of entertaining you and chatting with you on the phone, but that doesn't mean that you would have bought the person's very heart. It goes beyond the superficial.

That said, love and sex need not be two mutually exclusive concepts. Yes, you can give sex to someone without loving the person (think red-light-districts), and you can give love without giving sex (think pre-marriage relationships). Yet, more often than not, with love comes sex. And somehow I could never fully explain that notion, especially when there are those rarer cases of 'with sex comes love'. At least, not until another of my friend introduced me to another concept which effectively threw in another variable into the whole love-sex equation - intimacy.

With that, things start to make more sense. Why do couples make out when they are not planning to have kids? Well, physical pleasure aside, there's always that larger and more intense feelings of pleasure and satisfaction. That knowledge that the two individuals are engaged in an act so private and intimate that it's exclusive. It's a sensation so intangible that we can only label it as intimacy. That sense of closeness, familiarity, warmth and belonging. It's the time when you show your vulnerability to the other party, and such sheer exposure is reciprocated.

And so, now I start to see the triangular relationship of love-sex-intimacy. It's not that I have always seen things as clear-cut either love or sex, it's just that now I can pin it down to this particular word.

Indeed, intimacy is THE essential in any relationship. Love is what keeps it going, but it's generally under-rated and understated. You don't go around telling your friends that you love them, but you act it out. Of course, not by kissing them every other day, but by showing that sense of closeness, that sort of intimacy that exists between you two. Be it a simple hug, or a touch on the face, or simply anything at all to display that human touch to an otherwise very intangible thing called relationship. It may also be a simple appreciative gesture like a word of thanks, a phrase of compliment, or a sentence of elaborate praise that is so over-the-tops it hints more of sarcasm - it's something which tells the person that he is appreciated, loved, recognised and not taken for granted.

And yes, we all thrive on those simple gestures which shout love, affection and appreciation. Sometimes because that's the evidence of the other party's love for you, something that affirms the reciprocation of whatever you are giving the person.

Having 4 kids, with the youngest being 20 this year, my dad can start to take things slightly easier, to relax and enjoy his life more. And I could see that joy emanating from his radiant face and ever so cheerful disposition. It's not that he has not gone through any hardships, nor any turbulent storms to get to where he is now. It's just, how many people can actually say that they have 4 kids who are competent in their own ways, responsible and filial to the degree that it's sufficiently comforting/reassuring. Well, before this post sounds like a self-complimenting chunk of words, I best qualify myself by saying that if not for my parents, the kids wouldn't have turned out exactly the same.

The point of this entry is not to expound on my parents' way of bringing us up, and most definitely it's not about compliments either. I was just wondering, when I reached the age of my dad some 30 years later, would I be able to share this similar joy?

Would I still be fighting hard for my career, and would I still be single and alone? I know I've said countless of times that I really don't mind staying a bachelor, and I still do recognise the value of staying a swinging single, but that's not to say that I don't see the point of having a partner. After all, it's only natural that we all desire some form of love, affection and attention.

At the end of the day, we're all just scared of getting hurt (again) isn't it?

Rationalise it away, rationalise over it, rationalise it.

That's the way things work, that's how it's gonna be like.

It's not within your control, it's not within your control, it's not within your control.

Maybe that's what makes it worse? Maybe, but don't think about it for now.

Rationalise, rationalise, rationalise.

a simple chat;

a simple drink,

a simple touch;

a stroll of catching up,

a stroll of joy;

a stroll of knowing more,

a stroll of ease;

a drink of surprise,

a drink of touch.

Wonder what's with the gush of feelings and thoughts.

Maybe it was the simplicity of it all, or the sincerity of it all.

Perhaps it was the quietness of it which spoke volumes to me.

And I finally understand how wonderful and fortunate it is to have unassuming friends - the sort of ease you feel when someone simply wears his cards on his sleeve. Knowing that he has no hidden agenda, nor being secretly manipulative, the trust and comfort level is gratifying to say the least.

Which made me think of the friends I have in life, and I once again said a silent prayer for you - for strength, wisdom and joy.

And it struck me that it would be indeed wonderful if I could have that simple someone, being unassuming and understanding, being always there for me. Being sensitive too. I don't ask for a lot. Just someone for a quick hug, and a peck on the cheek, and someone to reassure me when the world is crumbling that everything will be alright. Ahh, suddenly this song comes to mind again.