I support the call of the President of AWARE ("Let women with HIV stay on" ST, May 18), and others, for HIV infected foreign spouses married to Singaporeans to be allowed to visit here and stay with their families.

Your report ("9 foreign women with HIV sent back" ST, May 14) indicates that they are classified as "prohibited immigrants" under a 1998 amendment to the Immigration Act, which means that that their social visit passes will not be renewed and they will be prevented from returning.

It is strange that as we, as a country, strive through National Education to build loyalty to the nation and through our S21 plans seek to assure citizens, that every Singaporean matters, and foreigners, that there is a place for everyone, that we should be so neglectful of compassion and of ordinary respect and concern for fellow human beings. These women with HIV, albeit foreigners, are not total strangers to our community. They are married to Singaporeans, have with our citizens ties of family, which Asian cultures are supposed to value so highly.

What kind of message are we sending to Singaporeans and foreigners alike? That one is valued only as one is strong, useful and talented, and woe to you once you become, old or weak or ill? This may be the hard headed realism that says we cannot afford to have weak hearts that fail us. Let the pragmatic realist consider the following then. Allegiance (to country and community as to anything else) can be won or bought. It is bought by appeal to material gain: housing, jobs, prospects and so on. These are not negligible. But the allegiance that is bought is weak in the following ways: it is subject to the law of diminishing marginal returns, so that the more a person already has (and the talented and strong will already have much), the more you have to pay him for any extra loyalty; and it is always subject to a better offer from elsewhere.

Better the allegiance that is won. And I believe that a community wins allegiance by the community bonding principles that it keeps: particularly, the principle of equal respect and concern among human persons, especially as regards fundamental needs. The fundamental need we are faced with here are the women's need to preserve and sustain their affiliation with their families. Consider this advice to the Duke of Chou, attributed in Mencius to Master Tseng: "Beware! Beware! Whatever you give out is given back If you governed with Humanity, the people would love your officers and die willingly to protect them" (Mencius, Book II: 12).

By excluding these HIV women, we are disregarding their, and their Singaporean spouses', claim in humanity to compassionate and fair treatment, in favour of a narrow sighted pursuit of self-interest. It is not even in the national interest because nation building is a long term sustainable development project, and - though profit is always an incentive to be reckoned - such a project built mainly on self interest is ripe for betrayal. Thus, what appears to be hard headed realism may, on further consideration, actually be a brand of soft muddle-headedness. To be a community, we must foster and practice at the national level, the concern and respect for others that all communities are built on. In the case of the HIV infected foreign spouses, this means letting them join their families in Singapore: their infirmity and distress should be stronger reasons for doing so rather than grounds for exclusion.

If appeal to compassion and our long term interest in community building is not enough persuasion, then consider our legal obligations. Excluding these foreign spouses for Singaporean citizens on the ground that they are HIV infected is discriminatory treatment which is a violation of our fundamental liberties guarantee in article 12(1) of the Constitution that: All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

This provision does not prohibit distinctions being drawn between persons, even foreign persons, but requires that any such distinction, whether in any law or the way the executive applies the law, must be based on grounds which are intelligible and rational having regard to the purpose of the law. It is by definition irrational - and hence discriminatory - to over-react.

We are over reacting when we allow our fear of the disease to overwhelm our obligation to consider these spouses' family ties fairly when considering their admittance into Singapore. AIDS, which HIV is linked with, is a terrible disease, fearsome no doubt because fatal and without a currently known cure. But these considerations must be weighed against the fact that the path of transmission is now well known and limited; that there are laws against persons knowingly doing acts that will transmit the disease to another; and that these HIV infected spouses are known victims under treatment. The threat that they represent is not proportionate with our response to them.

Our moral and legal duty to these spouses of Singaporean citizens is clear: let them come home.

I SUPPORT Aware's call for HIV-infected foreign women married to Singaporeans to be allowed to visit here and stay with their families.

It is strange that we, as a country, strive through national education to build loyalty to the nation and through our S21 plans seek to assure citizens that there is a place for everyone -- and yet be so neglectful of compassion and of ordinary respect and concern for our fellow human beings.

What kind of message are we sending to Singaporeans and foreigners alike? That one is valued only when one is strong, useful and talented, and woe to him once he becomes old, weak or ill? I believe that a community wins allegiance through the community-bonding principles that it keeps: particularly, the principle of equal respect and concern among human persons.

The fundamental issue we are faced with here is the women's need to preserve and sustain their affiliation with their families.

By excluding these HIV women, we are disregarding their needs, and their Singaporean spouses' right to compassion and fair treatment, in favour of a narrow-sighted pursuit of self-interest. It is not even in the national interest because nation-building is a long-term sustainable development project. Profit is always a motivation but such a project built mainly on self-interest is ripe for betrayal.

Thus, what appears to be hard-headed realism may, on further consideration, actually be a brand of soft muddle-headedness.

To be a community, we must foster and practise at the national level, the concern and respect for others. In the case of the HIV-infected foreign spouses, this means letting them join their families in Singapore. If appeal to compassion and our long-term interest in community-building is not enough persuasion, then let us consider our legal obligations.

Excluding these foreign spouses on the ground that they are HIV-infected is discriminatory treatment which is a violation of our fundamental liberties guarantee in article 12(1) of the Constitution that: All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

We are over-reacting when we allow our fear of the disease to overwhelm our obligation to consider these women's family ties fairly.

Aids is a terrible disease. But this consideration must be weighed against the fact that the path of transmission is now well-known and limited. There are laws against persons knowingly doing acts that will transmit the disease to another. Furthermore, these women are under treatment.

Our moral and legal duty to these spouses of Singaporean citizens is clear: Let them come home.