on

Church of Our Saviour Banner

Aired on 13 Feb 2001

Newsradio ("NR"): A banner hanging outside the Church of Our Saviour on Margaret Drive has caused some controversy of late. The banner, which reads, "Homosexuals Can Change", was put up to promote a program called Choices, which aims to help people uncomfortable with their homosexual orientation.

Community outrage led to a petition letter to the Church, signed by nearly eighty people, calling for the banner to be taken down. The presence of the banner has sparked a level of debate and discussion unusual in Singapore. It also raised the issue of whether or not Singaporeans are mature enough to discuss issues of sexuality. AM Newstalk's Elisia Yeo has this report:

Kai En ("KE") was a member of the Church of Our Saviour and attended the Choices program for a number of years. He finally left when it became clear to him that his sexual orientation wasn't going to change. He was one of the signatories to the petition letter.

KE: Firstly it singles out gay people, unfairly I would say. The church from which the banner originates believes that abortion is sinful and they said as much in their response to the signatories. They believe that people of other religious go to hell. But yet it is only gay people who are targeted and the question is "Why? Why target gay people when there are a lot of other people like heterosexuals who commit adultery for instance who probably need your help more?"

Secondly the veracity of the banner is questionable. Can homosexuals really change? Statistics indicate that only a very few number of homosexuals can change. Why don't you say, "Some homosexuals can change?"

The banner doesn't distinguish between orientation and behaviour. Why don't you say, "Some homosexuals can change behaviour?" When you put something so publicly and so broad sweeping and then you say you are just trying to target some homosexuals, I question the integrity of the banner.

(Thirdly) the banner polarizes people. Do we really need something that polarizing? Choices has been in operation for close to ten years and they have had like 30-40 people per year in their half yearly programme. Why do something so public and so polarizing?

Finally. One of the newspapers has a (internet) forum going on (the banner). One of the things the signatories said was that the banner fuels homophobic attitudes. When you look at some of the postings that have been happening the homophobia is just scary. Why are we doing this? It is just not socially responsible.

NR: But aren't we really seeing what's in the community anyway? The homophobia does (already) exist.

KE: Sure the homophobia does exist but why do we have to fuel a minority of people into becoming so vitriolic. It is just counter productive in my opinion.

NR: The Church of Our Saviour has responded to the petition refusing to take down the banner. It says that many people have responded to the banner asking for counselling and likens homosexuality to alcoholism; a condition that the church says many people can recover from.

But the Chair of the Student Feedback Group at the National University of Singapore, Christopher Liew ("CL"), has another view about what is going on.

CL: It is just another example of a certain segment of Singapore society not being able to accept certain lifestyles and behaviours of other Singaporeans. We felt that; I thought that this was a little too harsh because instead of living together and accepting each other as human beings, as individuals, we are actually casting judgment on each other and we are trying to impose our own moral beliefs on others like "My views are superior than yours (and) your lifestyle is wrong. You should adhere to mine".

NR: The NUS Feedback Group has spent some time debating whether or not Singaporeans are mature enough to discuss lesbianism and homosexuality. Christopher Liew feels that it is a matter of education and of differences in attitudes in generations.

CL: I can only speak for my age group. The younger Singaporeans — the 20s, 30s and below are probably mature enough to speak about these issues. I think if you watch television and movies you are exposed to these (issues and are) aware of homosexuals. And our friends and the people we know, we see them and accept them.

There are a lot of misconceptions about homosexuals. I think many people still think that the sole cause of HIV is probably due to homosexual behaviour and things like that. And these things can only change through education. I think that Singapore is moving toward sex education in schools—actually allowing discussion of these issues will definitely create an awareness and understanding of the lifestyles and choices of people.

NR: According to (an) associate professor from the Department of Sociology at the NUS, Dr. Nirmala Purushotam ("DNP"), what's important is the discussion it has sparked about homosexuality — a topic that is rarely discussed in Singapore.

DNP: My position is that the church has a right to put forth its stand on homosexuality. For me to tell the church to take the banner away is similar to what we have been telling organizations like "People Like Us" that they shouldn't have a space in Singapore. I think both views should be aired.

I can understand them (i.e. gay people) saying that this is an imbalanced way because they (the church) have space but (gay people) do not. I would rather focus upon the fact that homosexuals don't have sufficient space to speak up for their rights and speak up about their perspective sufficiently in Singapore.

NR: Do you think Singaporeans are sophisticated enough already to have this sort of open debate?

DNP: Yes, I think so. Sophistication. You can't wait until sophistication comes to you. Sophistication comes when you start debating, when you start listening to each other. You can't wait until it comes. You grasp the bull by its horns. You talk about issues, you start listening to people and then you get sophisticated about issues. So if you are not sophisticated enough then that is all the more reason for space to discourse about these things.

NR: So as far as this issue is concerned, the presence of the banner in your opinion is actually helping to educate people to some extent or to bring forward a debate.

DNP: I think it brings the debate out into the open. I think it's about time. Clearly the church believes — the banner from the church says, "I know my perspective is right and this is my perspective." For me the problem is not that the church is able to say that. For me the problem is that (there is no space for) those who say, "Look, we disagree with you. We are homosexuals. This is how we feel. Could you hear us out?" Okay? That is what is missing in the debate, the space for them. That's what is missing in Singapore.

(Music)

American voice: I heard recently about an experiment in which twelve bees were placed in a jar in a darkened room. A light was beamed onto the bottom of the glass and then the top lid was removed. Instinctively the bees flew toward the light and they couldn't get out. All twelve of the bees died trying to buzz their way through the bottom of the jar.

Next the researchers took twelve common houseflies and repeated the experiment. Within seconds the flies had found their way out of the top of the jar. Now it's known that bees are more intelligent than flies and their survival instincts are usually better defined. Yet it was those very instincts that doomed the bees.

I wonder how often our own preconceived notions get in the way of common sense. My father for example hated automatic transmissions on automobiles because the cars on which he learned to drive were stick shifts. Now I have fallen into similar patterns. Until recently I wrote books with pencils writing on yellow pads. I did that for years long after word processors were available. The 20th century was almost over before I decided to join it.

Rigidity and force of habit can cause you to do things that make no sense as well. What out of date and illogical ideas are you holding on to these days? Do some of them involve the way you raise your children? It is a question worth pondering. With Focus on the Family, this is Dr James Dobson.