HPB’s sexuality FAQs provide advice from public health perspective: Minister
Health Minister Gan Kim Yong said that the FAQs on sexuality published by the Health Promotion Board (HPB) do not encourage same-sex relationships, “but rather provide advice to young persons and their parents on mental and physical health issues from a public health perspective”.
He was responding to a parliamentary question filed by Mountbatten Member of Parliament Lim Biow Chuan, who asked why the HPB was promoting a same-sex relationship as not being different from a heterosexual relationship.
In a written reply, Mr Gan said that the statement “A same-sex relationship is not too different from a heterosexual relationship” — which was part of a response in the FAQ — should be taken together with the statement that followed it: “Both require the commitment of two people.”
HPB FAQs do not encourage same-sex relationships: Gan Kim Yong
Health Minister Gan Kim Yong clarified that frequently asked questions (FAQs) on sexuality and sexual health on the Health Promotion Board's (HPB's) website do not encourage same-sex relationships.
Mr Gan stressed that the government's policy is that the family is the basic building block of society.
Heterosexual married couples are encouraged to have healthy relationships and to build stable nuclear and extended family units.
related: HPB homosexuality FAQs remain online amid debate
read more
MP Hri Kumar Nair weighs in on HPB FAQs on homosexuality
“Them” versus “Us”
In the last few days, I have received several email and other messages urging me to take a position on HPB’s FAQs on homosexuality. Taking one side, whatever the reason or basis, will alienate the other. That is why you have not heard a peep from the Workers’ Party MPs on this issue.
In contrast, my friend and PAP colleague Lim Biow Chuan has made his views clear and filed a Parliamentary Question for next week’s sitting. Baey Yam Keng has also weighed in on the matter.
Yam Keng and I, along with Charles Chong, were the only PAP MPs who argued against S.377A (which criminalises homosexual acts) during the 2007 parliamentary debate on the amendments to the Penal Code. Most of the PAP MPs who spoke supported it. The Workers’ Party MPs of course did not take a position.
read more
A Member of Parliament has become the latest to weigh in on the Health Promotion Board’s (HPB) posting of an FAQ section on sexuality on its website, which has drawn polarised reactions — including petitions both for and against the board’s move — after it went viral last weekend.
Mountbatten MP Lim Biow Chuan yesterday hit out at one of the responses, which said homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not too different. Writing on his Facebook page, he said: “I cannot agree that ‘A same-sex relationship is not too different from a heterosexual relationship’. The two relationships are different and they go against the Government’s policy of promoting heterosexual married couples to have healthy relationships and to build stable nuclear and extended family units.
“I am utterly disappointed at the HPB’s stand in issuing such a statement,” said Mr Lim, who has also filed a question asking the Health Minister to clarify his ministry’s stand on the board’s online resource when Parliament next sits on Feb 17.
read more
Don’t condemn homosexuals: MP Lim Biow Chuan
More parties wade into debate over HPB sexuality FAQ
As more parties waded into the debate over the FAQ on sexuality the Health Promotion Board (HPB) posted on its website — including another petition that counters an earlier one criticising the board’s move — the HPB said yesterday it would take into account feedback from various quarters in the “continual review” of its public education resources.
However, the board did not answer this newspaper’s query on whether it had, as alleged by some, removed the links to a few support groups in that online resource in response to criticism, including from Faith Community Baptist Church Pastor Lawrence Khong.
The HPB said: “We will take into consideration relevant inputs we have received to see how we could further improve in our communications as well as better reach out to Singaporeans in our health promotion educational materials.”
read more
Catholic Church urges constructive dialogue over HPB's sexuality advisory
A day after the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) called on the Health Promotion Board (HPB) to review its online sexuality advisory, the Roman Catholic Church in Singapore has weighed in, urging constructive dialogue over the FAQs, which have stirred up opposing views since its publication last November.
A statement from the Office of the Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Singapore issued on Thursday - its first response on the issue - said that the Catholic Church advocates "sensitive, love and compassion for all regardless of one's sexual orientation", even as it maintained that "sexual acts outside of a heterosexual nature is not in accordance with the laws of creation".
"We believe that the best way forward is for all to engage in constructive dialogue in a spirit of patient understanding, mutual respect and compassion, working towards the promotion of justice and dignity of the individual and for the greater good of society and the future of humanity," the statement read.
read more
Islamic association calls HPB’s FAQ insensitive to prevailing view on homosexuality
The Singapore Islamic Scholars & Religious Teachers Association (PERGAS) says it is disappointed with the Health Promotion Board’s (HPB) FAQ section on sexuality, calling it insensitive to the prevailing view on homosexuality in Singapore and saying it hopes to be consulted in future on such sensitive matters.
“This is to ensure that the interests of all groups are represented in the consideration of government agencies such as HPB,” said PERGAS in a statement issued on Tuesday.
Yesterday, Faith Community Baptist Church pastor Lawrence Khong, who had previously voiced his objection to the FAQ, said in a Facebook post that he has written to Health Minister Gan Kim Yong to seek a public inquiry into who was responsible for the publication of the FAQ. He also encouraged FCBC parishioners to support an online petition calling for a review of the FAQs, saying the aim was to collect at least 25,000 signatures.
read more
PERGAS’ RESPONSE TO HPB’S FAQ ON SEXUALITY
This response is to record Pergas’ disappointment to the Health Promotion Board’s (HPB) recent FAQ on sexuality.
Pergas finds that the FAQ is insensitive towards the prevailing view of the Singaporean society. This is as reflected in the recent Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) survey which reported that 78.2% of Singaporeans views are generally conservative towards same-sex relation. As a national health board, Pergas is of the view that HPB should not have presented its FAQ in a manner that can be construed by some as tacit support in normalising same-sex relations.
Pergas views that the message should be directed at the importance of a traditional family unit rather than implicitly showing support towards same-sex behaviour.
read more
Petitions put spotlight on Health Promotion Board’s FAQ on sexuality
Could HPB have communicated its LGBT stand better?
As a heterosexual, I find the Health Promotion Board’s (HPB) FAQ on sexuality to be useful.
Previously, when a friend told me that she was lesbian, it took me time to come to terms with her sexual orientation and identity. I wish the HPB’s FAQ, which is factual, informative, well-written and easy to understand, had been available when I was searching for answers.
It is a resource not only for gays and bisexuals but also for heterosexuals, to help us understand our gay and bisexual friends and family members better, to love and support them the same as we would any friend and family member.
read more
HPB's sexuality FAQs undermine family
HE FAQs On Sexuality page on the Health Promotion Board (HPB) website is shocking and deeply upsetting.
The tone of the entire article gives the impression that HPB condones same-sex relationships and promotes homosexual practice as something normal.
The author appears to have taken sides on a highly contentious and politicised subject. Here, I address five issues covered in the FAQs.
ISSUE 1 - The FAQs draw a false equation between heterosexual and homosexual relationships in a manner that smacks of liberationist propaganda intended to mainstream homosexuality.
read more
HPB homosexuality FAQs remain online amid debate
A Health Promotion Board (HPB) online brochure on homosexuality has sparked debate on social media.
It has led to an MP to file a parliamentary question asking the Health Ministry to clarify its stand on the matter when Parliament sits on February 17.
The list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) about homosexuality in the brochure was first posted in November 2013, but only recently went viral.
read more
HPB’s FAQ on sexuality sparks online debate
Lawrence Khong’s misreading of the FAQs on homosexuality – an issue of inclusiveness
Reading the online debates that have ensued as a result of the Health Promotion Board’s (HPB) FAQs on sexuality has given me great grief. Before the so called “traditional values” bandwagon round on me, let me categorically state that despite strongly disagreeing with their opinions, I respect their right to hold their views in its entirety. What I find objectionable is the line of logic in which their arguments are based.
Using Lawrence Khong’s article as an example, let me attempt a point-by-point rebuttal.
Propaganda, or not?
read more
Relationships, HPB FAQs, Lim Biow Chuan and Pastor Lawrence Khong
Relationships are relationships. They are not heterosexual or homosexual. Relationships are not respecters of persons. Relationships are also not a statistic, as much as statistics are not facts. A sample size of less than 7 billion guarantees that.
A relationship is a state of being connected. An ever-changing, interchangeable flow of fact and feeling. Romantic relationships exist between two persons. They exist, and are sustained, regardless of, and sometimes in spite of, race, religion, sexual orientation or sleeping position.
Yahoo Newsroom - Singapore pastor Lawrence Khong said his network’s guide to promote support for Section 377A of Singapore’s Penal Code is not against “people who practise alternative sex”.
A guide to promote support for the retention of a law which criminalises sex between men is not against “people who practise alternative sex”, said the chairman of the network of Christian churches backing the move.
Lawrence Khong, who is the senior pastor of Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) and chairman of LoveSingapore Network, said that the guide was created to help the church give feedback in a civil manner.
“We are not against people. Not even people who practise alternative sex. We are against any attempt to take down a good moral law of the land which our government upholds and which the silent majority wants to keep,” said Khong in a statement issued on Tuesday in response to queries from Yahoo Singapore.
read more
LAWRENCE KHONG: THE LEAKED LETTER WAS ONLY MEANT FOR SENIOR CHURCH LEADERS
Pastor Lawrence Khong of Faith Community Baptist Church and also chairman of LoveSingapore, has admitted to TODAY that he was the one behind the leaked guide on how to support S377A of the Penal Code.
The guide created a lot of debate online because of some of the points and tips that it gave.
For example, church leaders were encouraged to write in as concerned citizens instead of writing in as someone affiliated with any church.
read more
LOVE SINGAPORE AND PASTOR LAWRENCE KHONG IS NOT HOMOPHOBIC
I just downloaded this and had a quick read. Lawrence Khong and company claim that they are not homophobic. I take it to mean that they will not be violent crusaders of the past. However they will work to prevent the social enlargement of LGBT.
On the other hand LGBT people wants to live with all the rights like the rest of us including the right to marry and adopt kids of their own. I suppose if it were possible for science to show how two same sex gametes could produce a baby, they will want that. That is science fiction at the furthest end for now.
To me the issue is very simple. This government do not want to be the arbiter of morality. At the end of the day society decides, i.e., the majority rules even if they are mostly quiescent. Nevertheless if the LGBTs push too hard the backlash would be unambiguous and severe. They must be aware and be careful of the tipping point of reaction.
read more
Lawrence Khong used to be my pastor
A mysterious PDF and hidden agenda
A mysterious PDF has been circulating on Facebook these past few days, reaching many more eyes than it was ever intended to. Issued by the Christian “unity movement”, LoveSingapore, the document is addressed to pastors and church leaders. It provides a handy guide for these leaders to mobilise and deploy supporters of Section 377A of Singapore’s Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men.
The problem with this document is not that it’s a guide encouraging church leaders to organise and mobilise in favour of 377A. Plenty of campaign groups do – and probably should – find ways to make it easy for people to take action in favour of their cause, such as providing draft letters for people to send in to the Members of Parliament.
What’s disturbing about the document, though, is that it deliberately asks that these pastors and church leaders hide their religious affiliation.
read more
Welcome to the Animal Farm: MOH's response to HPB FAQs on Sexuality
The Ministry of Health (MOH) responded to questions about the Health Promotion Board's FAQs on Sexuality in Parliament, giving a statement which reads:
read more
Leave God Out Of This
Recently Lawrence Khong wrote this on his Facebook posting:
Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone
A lot of furore has been raised over the past few days over the the .pdf document that instructed Christian leaders in Singapore to oppose the repeal of Section 377A, a law that criminalizes sexual behaviour between men. Both sides have debated heatedly over the issue, with no compromise in sight. I doubt there will ever be one, because both are not arguing for the sake of discovering an answer, because both already have an answer in mind. One side is claiming that science proves homosexuality is wrong and it tears the fabric of society, while the other is arguing that science disproves the concept that homosexuality is wrong.
A lot has been written from the science and civil perspective in regards to the issue, so I will not touch on that. It's an endless debate that can never be solved, especially when both sides are so entrenched in their position. I for one, however, despise the position taken by the supposed leaders of Christianity, one that seems to promote hate rather than love. One that judges other, when it is stated clearly in the bible that no one should judge except God himself, in the supposed name of "protecting" society.
A friend of mine had a valuable nugget of wisdom over a slice of pizza today. One that I could not help but to agree too. One that reflects the real voice of the silent majority, not the one Pastor Lawrence Khong claims to represent.
read more
Court of Appeal allows anti-gay law challenges to be heard
Couple loses bid to get top lawyer in Section 377A appeal
Modern Singapore grapples with archaic sex law
High Court upholds anti-gay sex law, gay couple's appeal rejected
Record-breaking attendance at Pink Dot 2013
read more
On LGBT
The discussion of LGBT raises much debate, especially in the religious and organisational sectors. There are petitions, protests, and even preaching from the pulpits to go against legalising gay marriages. Remonstrations as such are often publicly aired on CNN. I suppose that nothing has challenged the gay movement as vehemently as religious organisations. After all, personal opinion is one matter, going against the wishes of a higher power is another.
Today’s society is a diverse world. People’s opinions vary widely in almost anything, ranging from politics to family matters. We, in a way, have to accept diversity in values as well. But please be clear that accepting diversity in values does not mean I embrace every differing value. I don’t. But I can accept gay people as friends. I have nothing personal against them. They are, like anyone of us, ordinary human beings.
Today, the LGBT community has grown, regardless which part of the world you live in. Disagreeing with someone’s lifestyle doesn’t mean coexistence is impossible. Disagreement does not mean antagonism is appreciated. There are many of us who may be gay or have gay friends, and we know them to be good people at heart.
read more
Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)
Section 377A is the main remaining piece of legislation which criminalises sex between mutually consenting adult men. It (Outrages on decency) states that:
One hypothesis is that prostitution, including that by transvestites, was rife during the early decades of the 20th century. In endeavouring to curb it, the British must have found it difficult to use Section 377 to prosecute cross-dressers, who were legally men, for having sex with their male clients if prima facie evidence of anal or oral sex could not be found. In these cases, a new law such as Section 377A which was vague enough to convict any form of non-penetrative sexual activity between men, or more accurately, a cross-dressing man and his outwardly male partner, could be used as a backup. The fact that two "men" were found naked together in an enclosed space would be sufficient for a charge to be made against them.
read more
The Singapore Daily
Section 377A (What is Section 377A?)
– Yahoo: Guide is to support 377A, it’s not against people: Pastor Lawrence Khong
– TOC: Religion’s place in parliament and politics
– Akikonomu : Religion in the public square: 2014 edition
– Chemical Generation Singapore: Pro-377A Astroturfing
– JX Writings: On LGBT
– Tim Nga’s slice of life: HPB FAQs, Lim Biow Chuan & Pastor Lawrence Khong
– Politically inconsiderate: Why Lawrence Khong is a complete and utter idiot
– New Nation: Letter writer: S’pore needs to make asexuality a crime
– TOC: FAQ on Sexuality promotes “Be faithful” message, says Health Minister
– Song of a Reformed Headhunter: LoveSingapore? Call It Hate Instead
– Singapore atheists: Lawrence Khong used to be my Pastor
– Desparatebeep: Le’t's Give it Up the Bum
– I on Sg: Squealer in the Animal Farm: Straits Times’ blackwhite and doublethink
– Blogging for Myself: Love Singapore is not homophobic
– Mothership: Here is an alternative to S’pore church’s anti-gay lifestyle ‘guide’
– [FB] Hri Kumar: “Them” versus “Us”
– Salt * Wet * Fish: Weighing in on Hri Kumar’s “them vs us”
– Lawrence Khong: “FAQ educational tool that should remain in its original form”
– flâneurose: FCBC’s Lawrence Khong Comes Out as the brain behind the petition
– Homosexualityandscience: Letter to Today: I am not Lawrence Khong
– Akikonomu: Imperial overreach: Singapore Health Promotion Board edition
– Balderdash: How NOT to write an FAQ about LGBT health issues
– Chemical Generation Sg: The HPB FAQ Controversy: The Conservatives March
– Jeremy Chen: A Letter to any Christian Who Would Read It:The HPB Furore & Us
– TOC: Lawrence Khong’s misreading of the FAQs on homosexuality – an issue
– Burn The Witch: Take Your Mama – Scissor Sisters
– Innersanctum: We Are Family
– WONDERRRGIRL: Love has no gender
– The Independent, SG: What a pity, HPB’s FAQs would have been helpful
– Lawrence Khong: The greatest fallacy of the LGBT argument
– TOC: I want my kids to be happy – and safe
– Lukeyishandsome: Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone
– Kirsten Han: Why pro-377A guide and Lawrence Khong is skewing gay debate
– A Singaporean in Melbourne: Christianity and the Gay society in Singapore
– My Singapore News: A big moral battle in the making
– Blogging for Myself: LGBT: Lawrence Khong stirs up a storm
– I on Sg: Welcome to the Animal Farm MOH’s response to HPB FAQ on Sexuality
– Musings From the Lion City: Let Singaporeans Decide
– Literally Kidding: Sexuality in Singapore and a response to Lawrence Khong
– Sparrows and Sandcastles: skewing the gay ‘debate’
– [FB] Nina Khong: Family Under Attack!
– Mothership: Openly gay S’porean responds to Thio Su Mien’s open letter
– New Nation: Pro-asexuality guide making the rounds online in S’pore
read more
related:
Follow the rainbow: LKY’s grandson weds in South Africa
Pink Dot 2019
PM Lee’s Nephew Supports Pink Dot
For or Against Section 377A
Pink Dot 2018
The Great Barricade @ Pink Dot 2017
Foreigners barred from Singapore annual LGBT pride event
Furor over a Pink Dot 2017 advert
Pink Dot 2016 @ Hong Lim Park
Pink Dot 2015
Pink Dots @ Hong Lim Park 2014
'Wear White' 2014
‘Wear White’ vs ‘Pink Dot’
Pink Dots @ Hong Lim Park 2013
Singapore Court Ruling for Gay Rights
FAQs on Sexuality, LGBTs and Section 377A
Section 377A and the LGBTs
Pink Dot 2012
HPB FAQs do not encourage same-sex relationships: Gan Kim Yong
Health Minister Gan Kim Yong clarified that frequently asked questions (FAQs) on sexuality and sexual health on the Health Promotion Board's (HPB's) website do not encourage same-sex relationships.
Mr Gan stressed that the government's policy is that the family is the basic building block of society.
Heterosexual married couples are encouraged to have healthy relationships and to build stable nuclear and extended family units.
related: HPB homosexuality FAQs remain online amid debate
read more
MP Hri Kumar Nair weighs in on HPB FAQs on homosexuality
Singapore should raise the level of debate, and "have a frank conversation about our approach towards homosexuality", wrote MP Hri Kumar Nair in a Facebook note on Friday night. - ST PHOTO: MARK CHEONG
The controversy over the Health Promotion Board's (HPB) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on sexuality should not be reduced to an "us" versus "them" issue.
Instead, Singapore should raise the level of debate, and "have a frank conversation about our approach towards homosexuality", wrote MP Hri Kumar Nair in a Facebook note on Friday night.
Still, it is important to realise that information on sexuality should be readily available for people who need it, he said.
“Them” versus “Us”
In the last few days, I have received several email and other messages urging me to take a position on HPB’s FAQs on homosexuality. Taking one side, whatever the reason or basis, will alienate the other. That is why you have not heard a peep from the Workers’ Party MPs on this issue.
In contrast, my friend and PAP colleague Lim Biow Chuan has made his views clear and filed a Parliamentary Question for next week’s sitting. Baey Yam Keng has also weighed in on the matter.
Yam Keng and I, along with Charles Chong, were the only PAP MPs who argued against S.377A (which criminalises homosexual acts) during the 2007 parliamentary debate on the amendments to the Penal Code. Most of the PAP MPs who spoke supported it. The Workers’ Party MPs of course did not take a position.
read more
‘Disappointed’ MP criticises HPB for its FAQ on sexuality
A Member of Parliament has become the latest to weigh in on the Health Promotion Board’s (HPB) posting of an FAQ section on sexuality on its website, which has drawn polarised reactions — including petitions both for and against the board’s move — after it went viral last weekend.
Mountbatten MP Lim Biow Chuan yesterday hit out at one of the responses, which said homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not too different. Writing on his Facebook page, he said: “I cannot agree that ‘A same-sex relationship is not too different from a heterosexual relationship’. The two relationships are different and they go against the Government’s policy of promoting heterosexual married couples to have healthy relationships and to build stable nuclear and extended family units.
“I am utterly disappointed at the HPB’s stand in issuing such a statement,” said Mr Lim, who has also filed a question asking the Health Minister to clarify his ministry’s stand on the board’s online resource when Parliament next sits on Feb 17.
read more
Don’t condemn homosexuals: MP Lim Biow Chuan
Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Member of Parliament for Mountbatten, says he is “glad” that the Health Minister has given “affirmation” of the government’s policy that the family is the basic building block of our society.”
Mr Lim was referring to Mr Gan Kim Yong’s written reply to his parliamentary question on the Health Promotion Board’s (HPB) set of FAQs published on its website.
Mr Lim had asked the minister to “explain why the Health Promotion Board promotes a same-sex relationship as not being different from a heterosexual relationship.”
More parties wade into debate over HPB sexuality FAQ
As more parties waded into the debate over the FAQ on sexuality the Health Promotion Board (HPB) posted on its website — including another petition that counters an earlier one criticising the board’s move — the HPB said yesterday it would take into account feedback from various quarters in the “continual review” of its public education resources.
However, the board did not answer this newspaper’s query on whether it had, as alleged by some, removed the links to a few support groups in that online resource in response to criticism, including from Faith Community Baptist Church Pastor Lawrence Khong.
The HPB said: “We will take into consideration relevant inputs we have received to see how we could further improve in our communications as well as better reach out to Singaporeans in our health promotion educational materials.”
read more
Catholic Church urges constructive dialogue over HPB's sexuality advisory
A day after the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) called on the Health Promotion Board (HPB) to review its online sexuality advisory, the Roman Catholic Church in Singapore has weighed in, urging constructive dialogue over the FAQs, which have stirred up opposing views since its publication last November.
A statement from the Office of the Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Singapore issued on Thursday - its first response on the issue - said that the Catholic Church advocates "sensitive, love and compassion for all regardless of one's sexual orientation", even as it maintained that "sexual acts outside of a heterosexual nature is not in accordance with the laws of creation".
"We believe that the best way forward is for all to engage in constructive dialogue in a spirit of patient understanding, mutual respect and compassion, working towards the promotion of justice and dignity of the individual and for the greater good of society and the future of humanity," the statement read.
read more
Islamic association calls HPB’s FAQ insensitive to prevailing view on homosexuality
The Singapore Islamic Scholars & Religious Teachers Association (PERGAS) says it is disappointed with the Health Promotion Board’s (HPB) FAQ section on sexuality, calling it insensitive to the prevailing view on homosexuality in Singapore and saying it hopes to be consulted in future on such sensitive matters.
“This is to ensure that the interests of all groups are represented in the consideration of government agencies such as HPB,” said PERGAS in a statement issued on Tuesday.
Yesterday, Faith Community Baptist Church pastor Lawrence Khong, who had previously voiced his objection to the FAQ, said in a Facebook post that he has written to Health Minister Gan Kim Yong to seek a public inquiry into who was responsible for the publication of the FAQ. He also encouraged FCBC parishioners to support an online petition calling for a review of the FAQs, saying the aim was to collect at least 25,000 signatures.
read more
SINGAPORE ISLAMIC SCHOLARS & RELIGIOUS TEACHERS RESPOND TO HPB'S FAQ ON SEXUALITY
PERGAS’ RESPONSE TO HPB’S FAQ ON SEXUALITY
This response is to record Pergas’ disappointment to the Health Promotion Board’s (HPB) recent FAQ on sexuality.
Pergas finds that the FAQ is insensitive towards the prevailing view of the Singaporean society. This is as reflected in the recent Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) survey which reported that 78.2% of Singaporeans views are generally conservative towards same-sex relation. As a national health board, Pergas is of the view that HPB should not have presented its FAQ in a manner that can be construed by some as tacit support in normalising same-sex relations.
Pergas views that the message should be directed at the importance of a traditional family unit rather than implicitly showing support towards same-sex behaviour.
read more
Petitions put spotlight on Health Promotion Board’s FAQ on sexuality
Yahoo Newsroom - Petitions put spotlight on Health Promotion Board’s FAQ on sexuality. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) published a FAQ about sexuality on its website last November. However, the FAQ has
The Health Promotion Board (HPB) published a FAQ about sexuality on its website last November, addressing questions such as “What does it mean to be gay/bisexual?” and “Where can my child find support in Singapore?”
However, the FAQ has gone viral in recent days, making the rounds on Facebook after an individual posted a petition against the FAQ and subsequently sparking a counter-petition.
A individual named “Aaron” started it all when he put up an online petition on 3 February to have the FAQ reviewed.
Could HPB have communicated its LGBT stand better?
Towards the end of last year, The Health Promotion Board (HPB) published a FAQ about sexuality on its website. The online portal addressed questions on sexuality and provided support for those in the LGBT community.
The portal soon became a point of heated deabte from the local public, with some supporting the move and others slamming the HPB for it.
HPB in the face of criticism it seems, removed links to various lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender organisations and counseling hotlines, in what was seen as it taking steps backwards on its stand. It also took steps to alter some of the responses on the site.
What a pity, HPB’s FAQs would have been helpful
Looking back, 24-year-old Sarah* wishes the Health Promotion Board (HPB) had made the move to address sexual health for the LGBT community when she was 13
“It would have made growing up a lot less confusing,” she said..” I did not even realise that I was attracted to women until I turned 22 and that was after years of failed relationships and not understanding why I was not romantically attracted to any of the men I dated.”
HPB first published the “FAQs on Sexuality” online brochure in November last year. The brochure contains answers such as, “homosexuality and bisexuality are not mental illnesses” and “a person’s sense of sexual orientation is influenced by environmental, biological and sociological factors”.
It ruffled the feathers of the conservative majority in Singapore. An online petition ensued, calling the brochure’s content “questionable and objectionable”. It was written by a person known only as “Aaron”. Later, Mountbatten GRC MP Lim Biow Chuan expressed his disappointment with HPB and said its action went against government policy.
Health Promotion Board’s FAQ on sexuality draws positive response online
Activist groups laud information as objective and aligning with globally accepted scientific standards
An FAQ section on sexuality posted by the Health Promotion Board (HPB) on its website recently has gone viral, after its answers to topics such as homosexuality raised some eyebrows.
The answers provided by the statutory board to questions such as “Is being gay or bisexual a mental illness?”, and “Are homosexual and bisexual men more likely to get STIs/HIV?”, among others, were received positively by many.
For instance, its answer to the question “How different is a same-sex relationship from a heterosexual relationship?” noted that same-sex relationships, as with heterosexual ones, “take the commitment of two people ... (and are) also a connection of two families, cultures and sometimes racial backgrounds and values”.
FAQ a useful resource for understanding homosexuals better
As a heterosexual, I find the Health Promotion Board’s (HPB) FAQ on sexuality to be useful.
Previously, when a friend told me that she was lesbian, it took me time to come to terms with her sexual orientation and identity. I wish the HPB’s FAQ, which is factual, informative, well-written and easy to understand, had been available when I was searching for answers.
It is a resource not only for gays and bisexuals but also for heterosexuals, to help us understand our gay and bisexual friends and family members better, to love and support them the same as we would any friend and family member.
read more
HPB's sexuality FAQs undermine family
HE FAQs On Sexuality page on the Health Promotion Board (HPB) website is shocking and deeply upsetting.
The tone of the entire article gives the impression that HPB condones same-sex relationships and promotes homosexual practice as something normal.
The author appears to have taken sides on a highly contentious and politicised subject. Here, I address five issues covered in the FAQs.
ISSUE 1 - The FAQs draw a false equation between heterosexual and homosexual relationships in a manner that smacks of liberationist propaganda intended to mainstream homosexuality.
read more
HPB homosexuality FAQs remain online amid debate
A Health Promotion Board (HPB) online brochure on homosexuality has sparked debate on social media.
It has led to an MP to file a parliamentary question asking the Health Ministry to clarify its stand on the matter when Parliament sits on February 17.
The list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) about homosexuality in the brochure was first posted in November 2013, but only recently went viral.
read more
HPB’s FAQ on sexuality sparks online debate
An FAQ on sexuality featured on the Health Promotion Board’s website was put up to help educate a younger audience on sex matters, but it has drawn more attention than is intended after it went viral online (Photo: Screen grab from Health Promotion Board)
It started out as a simple way to reach out to the young on matters of sexuality and sexual health, but now, the feature has become a point of contention as more communities get involved to debate on the topic of homosexuality.
The Health Promotion Board’s (HPB) put up a feature titled ‘FAQs on Sexuality’ on its website to address frequently asked questions (FAQs) on sexuality, complete with pictorial images and done in a question-and-answer style for easy reading.
“FAQ on Sexuality” by HPB turns controversial
A set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on sexuality on the website of the Health Promotion Board (HPB) is now the focus of two petitions – one asking the “elected government of Singapore” to “do thorough comprehensive research before they take such a committed stand as taken by the Health Promotion Board”, while another is urging the HPB to restore the original version of the “FAQ on Sexuality”.
The FAQ was published by the HPB last week. In it, the Board addressed the issue of homosexuality and provided its answers to questions about the topic. These questions included: “What is homosexuality/bisexuality?”; “Am I normal? Is being gay or bisexual a mental illness? Do I need to seek medical help?”; “Can homosexuals have long-lasting relationships?”
The HPB’s answer to the last question was: “Yes, homosexuals can have long-lasting relationships. A homosexual relationship, like any other, is based on trust, love, commitment and support.”
Lawrence Khong’s misreading of the FAQs on homosexuality – an issue of inclusiveness
Reading the online debates that have ensued as a result of the Health Promotion Board’s (HPB) FAQs on sexuality has given me great grief. Before the so called “traditional values” bandwagon round on me, let me categorically state that despite strongly disagreeing with their opinions, I respect their right to hold their views in its entirety. What I find objectionable is the line of logic in which their arguments are based.
Using Lawrence Khong’s article as an example, let me attempt a point-by-point rebuttal.
Propaganda, or not?
read more
Relationships, HPB FAQs, Lim Biow Chuan and Pastor Lawrence Khong
Relationships are relationships. They are not heterosexual or homosexual. Relationships are not respecters of persons. Relationships are also not a statistic, as much as statistics are not facts. A sample size of less than 7 billion guarantees that.
A relationship is a state of being connected. An ever-changing, interchangeable flow of fact and feeling. Romantic relationships exist between two persons. They exist, and are sustained, regardless of, and sometimes in spite of, race, religion, sexual orientation or sleeping position.
A religious leader who trumpets his personal beliefs in public is wholly entitled to do so.
Everyone else who is not the religious leader, including his followers, is entitled to agree or disagree with his point of view. Each person, has the right, and perhaps the responsibility, to choose whether they want to begin or sustain a relationship with this religious leader, based on whether his values and methods mesh with theirs.
Guide is to support Section 377A, it’s not against people: Singapore pastor Lawrence Khong
Yahoo Newsroom - Singapore pastor Lawrence Khong said his network’s guide to promote support for Section 377A of Singapore’s Penal Code is not against “people who practise alternative sex”.
A guide to promote support for the retention of a law which criminalises sex between men is not against “people who practise alternative sex”, said the chairman of the network of Christian churches backing the move.
Lawrence Khong, who is the senior pastor of Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) and chairman of LoveSingapore Network, said that the guide was created to help the church give feedback in a civil manner.
“We are not against people. Not even people who practise alternative sex. We are against any attempt to take down a good moral law of the land which our government upholds and which the silent majority wants to keep,” said Khong in a statement issued on Tuesday in response to queries from Yahoo Singapore.
read more
LAWRENCE KHONG: THE LEAKED LETTER WAS ONLY MEANT FOR SENIOR CHURCH LEADERS
Pastor Lawrence Khong of Faith Community Baptist Church and also chairman of LoveSingapore, has admitted to TODAY that he was the one behind the leaked guide on how to support S377A of the Penal Code.
The guide created a lot of debate online because of some of the points and tips that it gave.
For example, church leaders were encouraged to write in as concerned citizens instead of writing in as someone affiliated with any church.
read more
LOVE SINGAPORE AND PASTOR LAWRENCE KHONG IS NOT HOMOPHOBIC
I just downloaded this and had a quick read. Lawrence Khong and company claim that they are not homophobic. I take it to mean that they will not be violent crusaders of the past. However they will work to prevent the social enlargement of LGBT.
On the other hand LGBT people wants to live with all the rights like the rest of us including the right to marry and adopt kids of their own. I suppose if it were possible for science to show how two same sex gametes could produce a baby, they will want that. That is science fiction at the furthest end for now.
To me the issue is very simple. This government do not want to be the arbiter of morality. At the end of the day society decides, i.e., the majority rules even if they are mostly quiescent. Nevertheless if the LGBTs push too hard the backlash would be unambiguous and severe. They must be aware and be careful of the tipping point of reaction.
read more
Lawrence Khong used to be my pastor
Lawrence Khong in chains as part of an act
Recently a letter allegedly written by him was leaked to the public.
In a mega-church, a pastor is like God in the sense that the probability of meeting him face to face is about the same as the chance of meeting God. That used to be the common joke shared among Christians during the time about being in a mega-church. FCBC is about 8000+ now, I heard. In my days, it came close to 10,000. I remember chanting 10,000! 10,000! with my hands raised up together with 9000+ others. We were that close. City Harvest exceeded that by a mile some time later. Or it could be my faulty memory. Don’t take anything I say to be the gospel truth, it’s just my personal recollection.
The photo in the article (top-right) was not very flattering to him, it was probably a photo of him while in one of his magic acts, probably some kind of Houdini-esque performance. Positive impressions about him.
Why controversial pro-377A guide and Lawrence Khong is skewing gay debate
LoveSingapore's controversial pro-377A guide has sparked heated debate. (Screengrab)
Following the leak of a LoveSingapore document advising church leaders on how to mobilise supporters for Section 377A, chairman Lawrence Khong has come out to (once again) assure us all that he is not a homophobe.
“We are not against people. Not even people who practise alternative sex,” he wrote in a statement to the press. [Pro-377A guide is available in full here.]
According to Khong, he and his fellow pro-377A campaigners are merely concerned about the nation, and concerned about families. They portray themselves as the valiant protectors of Singapore’s “silent majority” and “moral law”.
related:
Singapore church publishes controversial pro-377A guideGay couple in Singapore in legal battle to repeal Section 377AA mysterious PDF and hidden agenda
A mysterious PDF has been circulating on Facebook these past few days, reaching many more eyes than it was ever intended to. Issued by the Christian “unity movement”, LoveSingapore, the document is addressed to pastors and church leaders. It provides a handy guide for these leaders to mobilise and deploy supporters of Section 377A of Singapore’s Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men.
The problem with this document is not that it’s a guide encouraging church leaders to organise and mobilise in favour of 377A. Plenty of campaign groups do – and probably should – find ways to make it easy for people to take action in favour of their cause, such as providing draft letters for people to send in to the Members of Parliament.
What’s disturbing about the document, though, is that it deliberately asks that these pastors and church leaders hide their religious affiliation.
read more
Welcome to the Animal Farm: MOH's response to HPB FAQs on Sexuality
The Ministry of Health (MOH) responded to questions about the Health Promotion Board's FAQs on Sexuality in Parliament, giving a statement which reads:
1 The Government’s policy is that the family is the basic building block of our society. This means encouraging heterosexual married couples to have healthy relationships and to build stable nuclear and extended family units. There has been no shift in the Government’s position on this. HPB takes reference from this consistent position in its health promotion activities.
2 The Health Promotion Board (HPB)’s mission is to promote healthy living for all Singaporeans. HPB thus conducts outreach and educational programmes to raise awareness among the public, including youths, on sexual health matters, such as the prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV and AIDS.
3 HPB tailors its sexual health education initiatives to the health concerns of specific target groups. HPB has identified Young Men Who have Sex with Men (YMSM) as one target group for STI and HIV education. To reach out to this group, HPB works with NGOs, VWOs and professional counsellors to produce educational resources.
Leave God Out Of This
Recently Lawrence Khong wrote this on his Facebook posting:
"The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us (Isaiah 33:22 NKJV). This means our faith should not be confined within the walls of the Church, but spread outwards throughout our nation so that Kingdom values are manifested in our communities. The Lord is not just the Lord of the church, He is the Lord of the jury of our nation for He is our Judge. The Lord is not just the Lord of the Christian community, He is also the Lord of the legislature of our Parliament for His is our Lawgiver."His active response to the Health Promotion Board (HPB)'s FAQs on Sexuality - including the controversial pro-377A guide - prompted one commentator to highlight the legal angles in play:
"This and his lobbying letter clearly fall under section 8(1)(b) and (d) of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act: The Minister may make a restraining order against any priest, monk, pastor, imam, elder, office-bearer or any other person who is in a position of authority in any religious group or institution or any member thereof for the purposes specified in subsection (2) where the Minister is satisfied that that person has committed or is attempting to commit any of the following acts:
(b) carrying out activities to promote a political cause, or a cause of any political party while, or under the guise of, propagating or practising any religious belief;
(d) exciting disaffection against the President or the Government while, or under the guise of, propagating or practising any religious belief."read more
Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone
"Our message is clear: we are on the same page as our government. We are speaking their language."
A lot of furore has been raised over the past few days over the the .pdf document that instructed Christian leaders in Singapore to oppose the repeal of Section 377A, a law that criminalizes sexual behaviour between men. Both sides have debated heatedly over the issue, with no compromise in sight. I doubt there will ever be one, because both are not arguing for the sake of discovering an answer, because both already have an answer in mind. One side is claiming that science proves homosexuality is wrong and it tears the fabric of society, while the other is arguing that science disproves the concept that homosexuality is wrong.
A lot has been written from the science and civil perspective in regards to the issue, so I will not touch on that. It's an endless debate that can never be solved, especially when both sides are so entrenched in their position. I for one, however, despise the position taken by the supposed leaders of Christianity, one that seems to promote hate rather than love. One that judges other, when it is stated clearly in the bible that no one should judge except God himself, in the supposed name of "protecting" society.
A friend of mine had a valuable nugget of wisdom over a slice of pizza today. One that I could not help but to agree too. One that reflects the real voice of the silent majority, not the one Pastor Lawrence Khong claims to represent.
read more
Court of Appeal allows anti-gay law challenges to be heard
Yahoo Newsroom - Human rights lawyer M Ravi has successfully applied for both constitutional challenges against Section 377A to be heard together in the Court of Appeal
The highest court in Singapore on Thursday allowed two challenges to the country's controversial anti-gay law to be heard, lawyers representing the individuals involved said.
In a statement sent to the media, human rights lawyer M Ravi said he successfully applied for his client Tan Eng Hong's case to be heard by the Court of Appeal alongside a parallel appeal on the same challenge filed by couple Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee.
Tan, now 50, was in 2010 caught engaging in fellatio with another man at a shopping centre and charged under Section 377A, a law that criminalises same-sex intercourse between men.
related:
Singapore court dismisses challenge to anti-gay lawCouple loses bid to get top lawyer in Section 377A appeal
Modern Singapore grapples with archaic sex law
High Court upholds anti-gay sex law, gay couple's appeal rejected
Record-breaking attendance at Pink Dot 2013
read more
On LGBT
The discussion of LGBT raises much debate, especially in the religious and organisational sectors. There are petitions, protests, and even preaching from the pulpits to go against legalising gay marriages. Remonstrations as such are often publicly aired on CNN. I suppose that nothing has challenged the gay movement as vehemently as religious organisations. After all, personal opinion is one matter, going against the wishes of a higher power is another.
Today’s society is a diverse world. People’s opinions vary widely in almost anything, ranging from politics to family matters. We, in a way, have to accept diversity in values as well. But please be clear that accepting diversity in values does not mean I embrace every differing value. I don’t. But I can accept gay people as friends. I have nothing personal against them. They are, like anyone of us, ordinary human beings.
Today, the LGBT community has grown, regardless which part of the world you live in. Disagreeing with someone’s lifestyle doesn’t mean coexistence is impossible. Disagreement does not mean antagonism is appreciated. There are many of us who may be gay or have gay friends, and we know them to be good people at heart.
read more
Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)
Section 377A is the main remaining piece of legislation which criminalises sex between mutually consenting adult men. It (Outrages on decency) states that:
Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.Section 377A was introduced into the Singapore Penal Code in 1938 to criminalise all other non-penetrative sexual acts between men. Research is currently underway, facilitated by the digitisation of local newspapers in 2008, to fathom the reasons why the colonial administration sought to enact such a law here when there were more pressing concerns in an era when civilised nations were on the brink of the second World War.
One hypothesis is that prostitution, including that by transvestites, was rife during the early decades of the 20th century. In endeavouring to curb it, the British must have found it difficult to use Section 377 to prosecute cross-dressers, who were legally men, for having sex with their male clients if prima facie evidence of anal or oral sex could not be found. In these cases, a new law such as Section 377A which was vague enough to convict any form of non-penetrative sexual activity between men, or more accurately, a cross-dressing man and his outwardly male partner, could be used as a backup. The fact that two "men" were found naked together in an enclosed space would be sufficient for a charge to be made against them.
read more
The Singapore Daily
Section 377A (What is Section 377A?)
– Yahoo: Guide is to support 377A, it’s not against people: Pastor Lawrence Khong
– TOC: Religion’s place in parliament and politics
– Akikonomu : Religion in the public square: 2014 edition
– Chemical Generation Singapore: Pro-377A Astroturfing
– JX Writings: On LGBT
– Tim Nga’s slice of life: HPB FAQs, Lim Biow Chuan & Pastor Lawrence Khong
– Politically inconsiderate: Why Lawrence Khong is a complete and utter idiot
– New Nation: Letter writer: S’pore needs to make asexuality a crime
– TOC: FAQ on Sexuality promotes “Be faithful” message, says Health Minister
– Song of a Reformed Headhunter: LoveSingapore? Call It Hate Instead
– Singapore atheists: Lawrence Khong used to be my Pastor
– Desparatebeep: Le’t's Give it Up the Bum
– I on Sg: Squealer in the Animal Farm: Straits Times’ blackwhite and doublethink
– Blogging for Myself: Love Singapore is not homophobic
– Mothership: Here is an alternative to S’pore church’s anti-gay lifestyle ‘guide’
– [FB] Hri Kumar: “Them” versus “Us”
– Salt * Wet * Fish: Weighing in on Hri Kumar’s “them vs us”
– Lawrence Khong: “FAQ educational tool that should remain in its original form”
– flâneurose: FCBC’s Lawrence Khong Comes Out as the brain behind the petition
– Homosexualityandscience: Letter to Today: I am not Lawrence Khong
– Akikonomu: Imperial overreach: Singapore Health Promotion Board edition
– Balderdash: How NOT to write an FAQ about LGBT health issues
– Chemical Generation Sg: The HPB FAQ Controversy: The Conservatives March
– Jeremy Chen: A Letter to any Christian Who Would Read It:The HPB Furore & Us
– TOC: Lawrence Khong’s misreading of the FAQs on homosexuality – an issue
– Burn The Witch: Take Your Mama – Scissor Sisters
– Innersanctum: We Are Family
– WONDERRRGIRL: Love has no gender
– The Independent, SG: What a pity, HPB’s FAQs would have been helpful
– Lawrence Khong: The greatest fallacy of the LGBT argument
– TOC: I want my kids to be happy – and safe
– Lukeyishandsome: Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone
– Kirsten Han: Why pro-377A guide and Lawrence Khong is skewing gay debate
– A Singaporean in Melbourne: Christianity and the Gay society in Singapore
– My Singapore News: A big moral battle in the making
– Blogging for Myself: LGBT: Lawrence Khong stirs up a storm
– I on Sg: Welcome to the Animal Farm MOH’s response to HPB FAQ on Sexuality
– Musings From the Lion City: Let Singaporeans Decide
– Literally Kidding: Sexuality in Singapore and a response to Lawrence Khong
– Sparrows and Sandcastles: skewing the gay ‘debate’
– [FB] Nina Khong: Family Under Attack!
– Mothership: Openly gay S’porean responds to Thio Su Mien’s open letter
– New Nation: Pro-asexuality guide making the rounds online in S’pore
read more
related:
Follow the rainbow: LKY’s grandson weds in South Africa
Pink Dot 2019
PM Lee’s Nephew Supports Pink Dot
For or Against Section 377A
Pink Dot 2018
The Great Barricade @ Pink Dot 2017
Foreigners barred from Singapore annual LGBT pride event
Furor over a Pink Dot 2017 advert
Pink Dot 2016 @ Hong Lim Park
Pink Dot 2015
Pink Dots @ Hong Lim Park 2014
'Wear White' 2014
‘Wear White’ vs ‘Pink Dot’
Pink Dots @ Hong Lim Park 2013
Singapore Court Ruling for Gay Rights
FAQs on Sexuality, LGBTs and Section 377A
Section 377A and the LGBTs
Pink Dot 2012
