COMMENT Social norms and laws are all human made. The latter are formalised, legislated norms that are enforced by a group designated to regulate the behaviour of members of society. They are not flawless or perfect, nor free from human prejudice or bias.

Thus, laws need to be reviewed from time to time to make sure they are fair and just.

I am not surprised that someone might be appalled by the fact that it is illegal in Malaysia to engage in oral or anal sex with a partner or a spouse, regardless of whether they are gay or straight.

Neither would I be surprised to know that many Malaysians are not aware of these laws. Obviously, these kinds of prohibitions are outdated and unjust.

Unfortunately, in Malaysia, the reality is that we still retain the infamous sections 377(A) and 377(B) of the Penal Code, inherited from our coloniser.

Section 377(A) states, "Sexual connection with another person by the introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person is said to commit carnal intercourse against the order of nature. Penetration is to be sufficient to constitute the sexual connection necessary to the offence described in this section."

Section 377(B) asserts, "Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be subjected to punishment." The maximum penalty for this is 20 years' imprisonment, and the person found guilty is also liable to a fine and whipping.

Citizens not treated as equals

Needless to say, these laws need to be repealed, for they do not respect the citizens' privacy, or represent the public's interest, nor do they treat citizens as equals.

Sections 377(A) and (B) of the Penal Code are the so-called "sodomy laws" of Malaysia that criminalise sexual behaviour that is deemed "against the order of nature".

As I have demonstrated in my previous article " Why is it against ‘Nature ?'," the word "nature" is highly ambiguous and thus problematic. The argument "against nature" - the "unnatural" - no longer works effectively to regulate people's behaviours in their bedrooms in this modern world.

Unfortunately, it still seems to makes sense to religious fundamentalists and many heterosexuals. This is especially true in Singapore, that modified its laws recently so that heterosexual couples can legally have sex that is deemed "against nature", but not homosexual couples. Singapore is the perfect example of heterosexism in this case.

mca 140910 chua soi lek Sections 377(A) and (B) are outdated and unreasonable. Even the Malaysian government does not really believe in them, otherwise MCA president Chua Soi Lek ( right ) would have been arrested and put on trial for engaging in oral sex with his girlfriend, having admitted that he is the man captured in the infamous sex video.

The government did not arrest him, and the public did not urge the government to do so - not even his political enemies. Obviously, many realise that these laws are outdated.

They must be repealed, for two reasons at least.

First, these laws are based on the Christian belief of our former colonial rulers and were introduced to British colonies including India, Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore and Burma, in the 19th century.

Malaysia is a secular nation and no religious laws, Christian or Islamic, should be imposed on its citizens. This is why we do not criminalise premarital sex, even though both the Islamic and Christian religions oppose it.

Second, these laws are sexist. They discriminate against women. Sections 377(A) and (B) are laws against the penetrator, not the one penetrated. They also say nothing about lesbian sex or the women.

Lesbian sex not 'against nature'

It is not because these laws respect women or lesbians more than men, but in the minds of those who drafted the laws in the British-imposed Indian Penal Code in 1862, lesbians as well as women were not capable of having sexual intercourse.

The underlying logic is simple, and no less ridiculous: without a penis, there is no penetration, and thus their sexual behaviour cannot be counted as sexual intercourse. Therefore, according to our laws, lesbian sexual behaviour is not a crime "against nature."

Laws are supposed to be fair and just. Moreover, they should not be enforced selectively. Sections 377(A) and (B) have been used to go after opposition party leader Anwar Ibrahim, but not after Chua Soi Lek, who is a ruling party leader.

Many suspect that this law has been applied against Anwar Ibrahim simply because the person allegedly penetrated is a man. Accusing Anwar Ibrahim of having penetrated a man is to stigmatise him as a homosexual, and thus perpetuate heterosexism.

Sections 377(A) and (B) do nothing good for the nation. With such outdated and nonsensical laws in the books, we Malaysians, regardless of being heterosexuals or homosexuals, cannot even find safe haven in our own homes.

Sections 377(A) and (B) must go!

REV O YOUNG is an ordained Christian minister at MCC New York. He holds two masters degrees in both sociology and theology. Currently he lives in New York city and teaches sociology at St Peter’s College. He has published 20 books on sociology, theology and sexuality. He is also a columnist for Sin Chew Daily . He is currently finishing his doctoral degrees in sociology and theology.