I REFER to the article, ""Fostering the Renaissance spirit'' (ST, May 31), in particular to the statement by Mr Lim Swee Say, the Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology, and Trade and Industry:

""I do not believe that a single group of people in Singapore has the right to publicise its lifestyle and impose it on others. I am an avid golfer, but I do not hold a forum on golfing to say how much I love golf and convince others it is good.''

He did not explain how the holding of a forum could have the effect of ""imposing'' the gay lifestyle on others.

I am heterosexual. I would have attended the forum because I feel the homosexual population in Singapore has been treated unfairly over the years.

But I would not have felt compelled to become gay as a result of my attendance. After all, my years of contact with gay friends have not had that effect on me.

By Mr Lim's reasoning, the Christian assemblies and Buddhist talks often advertised in The Straits Times should also be banned.

After all, they would say that they love their respective religions and would try to convince others that their religion is ""good''.

But, even though I am an atheist, I am not offended by them.

It isn't trite to say that in a democratic country that purports to have freedom of speech, such talks must be permissible.

So why is it that homosexuality comes in for such discrimination?

The official response will be that homosexual acts are against the law.

Indeed, that was the reason the police gave for denying the permit to hold the gay forum on May 28.

But in a democratic society, should the police be the arbiters of what can or cannot be said or discussed, where public safety is not immediately threatened?

Further, the mere state of mind and body of being homosexual is not a crime.

The forum did not appear to advocate a gay lifestyle at all, but only to examine the role of gays in Singapore 21.

Based on the police statement, it seems that even talking about gays, in any context, is taboo.

The Senior Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, had -- in a CNN live interview -- acknowledged the existence of gays in Singapore.

But to deny them a chance to talk about it, is to deny their existence. Can that be consistent with the high ideals of Singapore 21?

More importantly, the reasoning used by the police would appear to prohibit any public forum on the abolition of a law.

If I were to apply for a permit for a forum on the repeal of the Internal Security Act, it is only a short extension to say that the ISA is critical to Singapore's survival; the forum threatens that, and so the application must be denied.

The denial of a permit to hold the forum is in contrast to the Singapore 21 ideals.

It would seem that the ideal that ""Every Singaporean matters'' should be modified to ""Every heterosexual person who conforms to the conventional conception of the ideal Singaporean matters''.

SIEW KUM HONG