I refer to the letter “Controlling HIV infections: Not much to do with Section 377A” (Sept 24).

I am a Singaporean — born a woman and am heterosexual — working as a teacher with the special-needs community. Having joined the non-governmental group Action for Aids as a volunteer since 2009, I have been involved in HIV counselling and testing through the Anonymous Testing and Counselling Service (ATS), and facilitating support for persons living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (Aids).

Like the writer, I share the view that HIV prevention is an area of concern. However, I do not agree with his opinion that Section 377A has not much impact on Singapore’s efforts to control HIV infections and that they are separate matters.

As someone who has first-hand experience on this, I would like to illustrate how Section 377A of the Penal Code has been an obstacle to early HIV testing and infection control.

Under the ATS programme, counselling and HIV-testing services are anonymous for clients.

But yet, I see many clients — most of whom are men who have sex with men (MSM) — who are fearful of their sexual history being shared with the Government. One client even believed that if he was spotted walking into the clinic by colleagues, he would be fired from his civil service job.

Saddled by the fear of the law, there are MSM who forgo HIV testing entirely. The Government has often stated its position that it does not actively enforce the law and that no one has been prosecuted under it so far.

However, the impact of Section 377A extends beyond concerns of enforcement and it shows up in the apprehension that people have about early HIV-testing, which ultimately deters them from seeking early diagnosis and treatment. Read more via Today