I would like to specifically address the last point she made on identity of the letter writer and the relevance of it.

This is to show that there are people of diverse identities and voices in the public. Many a time, we would witness individuals claiming to be fathers, mothers, professing to be of a certain faith or even giving the suggestion of it, sharing their views in the media.

I want to show that there is such a thing as a heterosexual man, who has a happy relationship with a heterosexual woman, and believes that something should be done about the discrimination and homophobia towards sexual minorities in Singapore. At the same time, there are also religious people who share this belief.

What I find risky is that writers and speakers sometimes do not reveal their background, beliefs, predispositions and religiosity, and proceed to share their views on issues that may be potentially divisive. When it comes to views, it is difficult for one to be objective or absolute.

Hence, it would not hurt to be humble and open when attempting to present 'objective' facts. This is for readers to understand from where these views and 'facts' have come.

We should not take for granted that people of a specific identity or demography will share homogeneous views and values. At the same time, such diversity need not be subject to overestimation and be seen as a threat to society because society itself is made up of many different sets of views and values.

Not everyone stands in line and some cannot help standing out of line. We may seek to punish, discipline and discriminate against them, but it will do little for the growth of a diverse society and the recognition and respect of the different identities that form it.

Identity is relevant to rational and informed debates. Without identity, there will be no recognition. Without recognition, you become invisible. No Singaporean should be left behind, should they?

Ho Chi Sam