There has been so much debate following my letter regarding the Aware controversy, that I just have to respond to it, to provide a kind of summing up and drawing of conclusions.

This will be my last piece on the subject, following the 3 recent pieces—my remarks as reported in the Sunday Times, my first letter posted on this site, and an unpublished letter to the Straits Times Forum. In all, I have said everything I wish to share with fellow Singaporeans on an episode that will surely go down in the history of Singapore’s development as a civic society.

In this final piece, I want to express my deep appreciation to all of you who have written in on the controversial issue of homosexuality. I am really pleased to have provoked such a diversity of views from committed Christians to ardent secularists, from entrenched conservatives to freewheeling liberals, from anxious parents to young, independent-minded persons demanding to be heard and understood. There has also been an amazing diversity of expositional modes, from philosophical argument to scriptural exegesis to the personal anecdote, conveyed in tones that range from calm and measured to animated to pure vitriol.

And in all this clamour of voices, nobody told anybody to shut up!

It is exactly this diversity and expressiveness that marks an active, alert and robust citizenry that Singapore has often been accused of lacking. I expect that never again will Singaporeans be described as apathetic (Dare I hope, as a long-time political commentator, that the same critical voices will also be heard in the other, even more controversial arena of political issues, so that at long last, we will truly have matured as a society?)

So whether you are a fundamentalist Christian, a Buddhist, a Kabbalist, an agnostic, an atheist, a Raelian, a Scientologist, a New Age sun-worshipper, etc., you are absolutely entitled to your views. Any criticism of you can never be of your views as such, but for your imposing them on others.

It is surely one of democracy’s most thrilling paradoxes that while you may passionately disagree with another’s views, you are expected, with the same passion, to defend his right to them.

Which brings me to the special dilemma of you parents whose concerns regarding the homosexuality issue were the focus in my first letter, and will again feature large in this, my second. If you are an abiding Christian with strong beliefs regarding the outright condemnation of homosexuality, do you have the right to impose them on your children? The question is more meaningfully phrased thus: Should you whose role it is to be models, guides, protectors and nurturers, instil your religious beliefs and values in your children, indeed, enforce them, even if this is seen as going against the prevailing trend in society and the world at large?

The answer, in accordance with custom and common sense, is a clear yes, since you act only for their good and would never deprive them of what you yourselves hold dearest—the religious values to which you owe your entire well-being. Should this guidance then include measures such as blocking out harmful moral influences that, for instance, the Aware CSE program is alleged to be? Assuredly so, if you are convinced about the harmfulness (although there must still be some puzzlement as to how this had escaped, for so long, the combined vigilance of teachers, principals and Ministry of Education officials whose judgment parents traditionally trust).

Clearly, stern, even harsh strictures are all in order in the carrying out of your sacred parental responsibility. It is sacred, for upon it rests the very stability of society.

But it remains the special parental quandary, unique to our changing times, that as soon as your child reaches adulthood, society does an about-turn and is on his side as he asserts his independence and individuality. Suddenly you discover, to your dismay, that while you yourselves had meekly submitted to your parents, your own offspring are going in exactly the opposite direction.If the very crucial matter of sexual identity is involved, your sons and daughters are likely to forge out their own path, whether through covert or overt means. Either will result in deep anguish, confusion and heartache all round, as indeed so many personal anecdotes have revealed.

Only understanding, acceptance and love on your part—indeed, to a heroic extent in each case—can prevent such unhappiness, not recourse to holy books or revered tradition. As real life goes, in the event of a clash between human needs and divine ordinance, it is usually the former that wins in the end, for two reasons: firstly, because what is prescribed as moral law by religion is non-negotiable, and secondly, because human needs are underwritten by that strongest of forces, biology itself. If acceptance of a child’s homosexuality is too hard a pill to swallow, estrangement from one’s flesh and blood must be even harder. Many parents have come to realize this truth, and in time have let love transcend all emotions of disappointment, anger and frustration. This transcendence is both peril and privilege, pain and triumph, that only parents can understand, and for which they are to be appreciated and honored.

Being a compulsive story-teller, I can only end this letter to you concerned parents with another story on this engrossing theme. Or rather many stories from my wide circle of relatives, friends and acquaintances: it’s astonishing how virtually every family in its extended form has at least one gay member, and how virtually all of us know at least several gays. And it’s heartening to observe how easily, once the religious hurdle is cleared, for parents and children to pick up once more that natural bond of loving and connecting. My stories all have a happy ending, precisely because in the end, a universal, biologically endowed (and hence God-given?) attribute of parents prevailed—the desire to see their children happy, even if it is not exactly on their terms.

The following is a letter regarding the Aware saga, that I had sent to the Forum Editor of the Straits Times, but that was not published. You can see how keenly I’m following the controversy which, with its many implications for the social and moral life of our society, has clearly gone beyond a mere fight for power among women.

After the new Exco of Aware was overwhelmingly given a vote of no confidence at the Extraordinary General Meeting on 2 May, the president announced that they would ‘graciously’ step down.

Graciousness, alas, was the biggest casualty in the long-drawn out Aware controversy. Both the old and the new leaderships of Aware had missed the opportunity to rise above petty politics to demonstrate this attribute which, with its concomitants of courtesy, respect, goodwill and, above all, tolerance, is the one thing which our society most needs at this stage in its development.

The missed opportunities:

• when the old leaders simply could not accept the change of leadership at the Annual General Meeting on 28 March. It was clearly a Machiavellian plot, but since it was done constitutionally and democratically, the old leaders could have responded with a dignified and gracious exit, instead of going on a rampage of shock, anger and accusations.

• When the new exco behaved with appalling arrogance during their brief period of control. They openly showed disrespect for the old Aware stalwarts, peremptorily dismissed staff, changed the locks in the Aware premises, etc., when graciousness called instead for a reaching out to the opponents to forget past issues and work together.

• When the new exco ignored calls from the government and the heads of religious bodies, to keep religious and secular matters separate. A gracious bowing out, especially after the pastor of their church had publicly apologized for having encouraged them in their anti-homosexuality stand, would have earned public respect even at this late stage in the saga.

• When at the EGM on Saturday, both sides gave full vent to their emotions in acrimonious exchanges, heckling, barracking, etc, ending with noisy triumphalism on the part of the victor and sullen shock on the part of the defeated. By the time the meeting ended, it was clear that the gap between the two sides had widened to make reconciliation in the near future improbable, and the rainbow coalition that a minister had suggested, virtually impossible.

In our multiracial, multireligious society with its many potentialities for division, polarization and rancour, the mechanisms and processes of democracy are not enough for the achievement of harmony, and need the softening, ameliorative power of this best of human attributes, graciousness. Unfortunately, it took a severe beating in the Aware debacle.

I had given my views, mainly as a non-partisan, liberal Singaporean during the recent Aware controversy. Some parents had written or called to voice their concern about one issue that had stood out – the use in schools of an Aware program on sexuality, which allegedly promoted homosexuality. The following letter tries to address this concern.

There must be many of you out there, less interested in the polemics and theatrics of the recent Aware debacle than in the one issue that suddenly surfaced and grabbed your attention as parents: the issue of homosexuality.

You are clearly not against homosexuals (many of you in fact claim to have homosexuals among your friends) but you are, understandably, against any program in the schools that encourages your sons and daughters to become gays and lesbians. This was exactly the charge brought against the Aware Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) program by the Christian group that had seized control of the organization precisely to fight what they perceived as a great evil. They quoted from the program materials to prove their charge, condemning the insidious call to young people to regard homosexuality and its associated practices (including anal sex—ugh!) as ‘neutral’. As parents of young impressionable teens, you must have been aghast.

I would like to begin by commending this concern of yours which is not only natural and understandable but highly laudable at a time when so many parents are just too busy or too indifferent to play an active role in guiding their children’s behaviour, and simply leave everything to the schools. And I would like to add that if there is a good outcome in the Aware fiasco, it must be your new awareness and readiness to seek corrective action.

With reference to the CSE program (which I have not seen), I can say this with confidence: it is probably a well-researched, useful course of instruction providing young people with information on a whole range of sex-related issues (with the homosexuality bits cited by the Christian group actually forming only a small percentage of the total course). Its usefulness is reflected in its adoption by school principals and teachers who, by the standards of their profession, can be trusted to have good judgment and a strong moral sense. Moreover, during the considerable time that it was run, there had been no public complaints, including from the Christian activists, which the Ministry of Education would surely have immediately investigated. Lastly, the Aware leadership, although steadfastly maintaining the position it has taken in the program, has at the same time promised to look into parents’ complaints, reservations and suggestions for improvement. So on the issue of the suitability of the CSE materials for your children, I would say you can rest assured.

Beyond the specific issue of the program, I would like to address your overall concern about influences in general, such as the all powerful entertainment media and the Internet, which may affect your children’s sexual orientation, since, more than any sex-related issue in Singapore, that of homosexuality is currently in the forefront of public consciousness.

Any address of such a complex and sensitive subject must surely begin with proper, factual knowledge of it. For only through knowledge, can we understand the truths about our human nature, and only through understanding, can we take into account the needs, instincts, capabilities, etc of this human nature, in the formulation of values that will fit in with those of our society as a whole. This fact-derived, value-based framework will allow us to make decisions that are informed, reasoned and principled, leaving no place for prejudices, emotional outbursts and a rush to judgment that are only too common whenever controversial subjects crop up.

Within such a framework then, are some observations in response to your concern regarding homosexuality:

• Homosexuality is NOT an abnormality, an illness, an aberration, an evil, an abomination in the eyes of God, etc. This is probably the single most important fact to keep in mind. The research work of scientists such as behavioral psychologists, evolutionary biologists, genetics biologists and neuroscientists has shown that there is probably a genetic component for sexual orientation, but how nature interplays with nurture to affect the individual’s development is not fully understood. Indeed, as parents, you are first-hand witnesses of the mysterious workings of both forces. Your children, despite a common family background, often behave differently from each other, and turn out differently, pointing to the power of nature; at the same time, their personality and behaviour can be guided and shaped by you, pointing to the power of nurture. Hence this knowledge and understanding should make you cast off whatever strong feelings, (including the ugh reaction), which you may have against homosexuality, since it is no more than the natural product of a combination of complex forces, as are personality, character, intelligence, musical talent, etc.

• You say: Even if we accept this fact about homosexuality are we not justified, as parents, in fearing that it will tend towards promiscuity, with all that implies of dangers such as sexually transmitted diseases, including Aids?

It is worth reminding ourselves that sexual promiscuity among liberated young people today is not confined to any one group; consider, for instance, the alarming incidence of teen pregnancies and abortions. Hence if sexual licentiousness is to be treated as a social or moral problem, it cannot be dealt with as one exclusive to homosexuals. Any study that concludes that homosexuals are more immoral than others must be a very questionable one indeed. So here’s one more misconception to throw away.

• You say again: What about the social stigma that is attached to homosexual behaviour, and shouldn’t we as parents protect our children from it?

It is indeed a fact that even in western countries noted for their liberalism, such as the United States, there remains strong social antagonism against homosexuals; gay men and women continue to fight noisily for their rights. In the more conservative Asian societies, there are any number of anecdotes about gays having to remain in the closet, hiding the truth from their parents, employers and friends, even contemplating suicide. Hence you are right about the stigma and the attendant social injustices which naturally you don’t want your children to suffer.

But the truth is that things are changing—and fast. In a rapidly evolving world environment, driven by technological advancement dominated by youthful energy and the unabashed pursuit of the good life, every society has to adapt to the realities of the times. In Singapore, a traditionally conservative government is now prepared to employ gays even in the top positions in the administration, thereby acknowledging their valuable contribution to a society that because of its lack of natural resources, has no choice but to develop all its human resources.

In the foreseeable future, as more homosexuals come out into the open, the last vestiges of the old stigma against homosexuality will disappear altogether. We have witnessed how, one by one, the other moral stigmas of divorce, cohabitation, the loss of virginity, and going back even further, marriage outside one’s race, have all become a thing of the past. These changes seem to be part of a universal, spontaneous process of social evolution seen in all societies. They are neither good nor bad. They are simply part of the real world we are in.

Since as parents you are helpless to prevent the trend, you might as well accept it, and see how best to cope with it. If you suddenly find out, overtly or covertly, that your son or daughter is gay, you might as well, in order to avoid the no-win situation of confrontation and rejection, adopt a sensible approach.

• What is the sensible way to deal with the issue of homosexuality as parents? I believe we all already know the answer, having graduated from that school of hard knocks known as parenting. Chief among the lessons learnt is that our children, as they grow up, have minds and wills of their own, especially in the matter of sexual orientation which defines their very identity. Whatever our reservations, we should respect this independence; indeed, we have no choice.

The worst possible parental reaction is obviously the ‘I-forbid-you-because-it’s-against-God’s-will’ or the ‘We-are-conservative-Asians-and-don’t-do-this-sort-of-thing’ stance. It will only confirm our children’s belief that we don’t understand them and don’t have their interest at heart. The best possible response is a two-stage one: first, letting our children know exactly how we feel and what our anxieties, wishes, hopes, etc for them are (it is amazing how people in general value honesty and decry insincerity and hypocrisy) and second, letting them know that regardless of what they become or do in their lives, they can always be assured of our love and support (it is amazing how such parental reassurances remain as comforting memories throughout life).

I know of a mother who couldn’t bring herself to talk to her son who was showing all the signs of homosexuality, so she wrote down all her thoughts and feelings, covering the entire human gamut of fear, anger, frustration, despair, hope and love in a 20-page letter which she left in his room. The young man later told me that as he read the letter his initial embarrassment gave way to great relief. Today she is open about his sexuality, and proud of his success in the corporate sector.

Communication, listening, understanding, unconditional love—these have become the clichés of all inspirational and exhortatory literature on human relationships. But they also happen to be the most reliable tools in the parenting kit, to be continually refined to adapt to the ever challenging issues facing all parents today.

I would like to end with a true anecdote that has moved me deeply. It concerns a gay friend of mine. For years, out of love for his very traditional and conservative widowed mother, he hid his homosexuality, even letting her try to matchmake him with eligible young women. The pretence and outward show of cheerful spirits was most stressful. When she died, he left the country, utterly miserable, still needing psychiatric help. Years later, in middle age, he met and fell in love with someone who became his partner. For the first time in his life, he was happy. Sometimes, talking to me about his life, he would indulge in pensive ‘what if’ reflections: What if he had not assumed all along that his mother would object to his homosexuality? What if he had actually broached the subject to her? What if she had actually given him her blessing?

For she had said once, touching his hand lovingly while he was attending to her on the sick-bed, that all she wanted was to see him happy.

With regard to the ongoing—and very sensational!—controversy between the old and the new leaderships of Aware, Singapore’s best known women’s organisation, the Sunday Times asked for my views to be included in their feature, which appeared in their 26 April 2009 issue

Dr Catherine Lim, 67
Author and political commentator

‘On the personal level, I am a liberal, and hence emotionally take my stand with those who will support gays, lesbians, pro-lifers, etc. if I believe they – and indeed fellow human beings in general – are being unfairly treated.

But on the level of public opinion and judgment, I believe that personal emotions should be assiduously got out of the way, to leave room for only facts and considerations based on democratic processes and the due operations of law.

In this particular case of the Aware debacle, it is clear that the change of leadership was legitimate and democratic, although unusual, unexpected and even shocking.

My stand therefore is to let the new leadership prove itself. They have already stated that they are committed to the principles upon which Aware was founded. Give them time to prove this commitment.

If it turns out to be otherwise, that’s an issue that can be dealt with in its own time and place. But to judge the new leadership on suspicions and speculations is, to me, not quite right.

Singapore as a nation prides itself on being a pluralistic, inclusive and open society that readily adapts to changing conditions, which is why, for instance, a traditionally conservative government has recently taken a more relaxed stance towards homosexuals, since they contribute well to the economic and artistic life of society.

But it is still an ambivalent stand: The laws against homosexual behaviour, paradoxically, remain. This sending out of mixed signals has encouraged two opposing groups, the liberals and the conservatives, to see this period as the best and most opportune time to push their own agenda.

Currently, we are seeing the moral issue of homosexuality as the centre of the conflict between the old and the new leaderships of Aware.

In the future, other related moral issues such as abortion, stem cell therapy, euthanasia and so on are likely to emerge.

Again and again, I would like to reiterate the importance, when adjudicating on sensitive moral issues at the public level, to take into account all views (no matter how repellent) and, ultimately, to consider the good of the society as a whole.

This is never easy, and compromises will have to be made, but it is the whole nature of the democratic processes that as a society we have embraced.

I expect that after all the emotional venting, the old and new guard of Aware will simply calm down, take sensible stock of the situation and see what they should do next.

I certainly hope that the saga will not reach a stage when the Government will have to intervene. Oh dear no, that will be about the worst that can happen in a state where the people already depend too much on the Government to make decisions for them.

The worst possible scenario: Organisations cry help whenever they can’t resolve their problems, the Government comes in, solves the problem quickly in accordance with its policies, there follows a steady politicisation of all social, moral and cultural issues, and eventually civic society is permanently enfeebled.’

Reports by Jamie Ee Wen Wei, Nur Dianah Suhaimi and Debbie Yong