To Persecute is Sin
Obviously, she makes the effort to hyphenate 'privacy' to show that this is not a fundamental human right of individuals in society – does this mask a particular disdain for liberal ideas? Evoking the ever-useful conspiracy theory of an organised, militant, fundamentalist liberal establishment that has somehow managed to pull together the necessary resources, manpower and ideological heft to launch a revolution of ideas and morals - all these in a state where the civil sphere is being monitored and policed with frustrating efficiency (self-contradictory, fallacious argument, no?). “The common good” - assumption that what is good for the conservative establishment is good for society – now that is tyranny of the majority; such an argument made seemingly in the name of well-intentioned cosmopolitanism disguises the pretensions of those who would seek to justify the existing ideological hegemonic structure because it benefits the status quo of those whose ideas are privileged over the rest. And a Repeal 377A petition attracted how many signatures? Were celebrities at Mediacorp impassioned enough to use their reputation and status to come up with a counter-move against the Repeal 377A video made by fellow counterparts such as Pam Oei, Beatrice Chia, Mark Richmond and Lim Kay Siu? The national interest as defined by the interests of the ruling class, no? Is Ms Thio championing the primacy of state interests over societal interests? Why talk about national interest and sneak in notions of our 'moral sovereignty' being violated by external enemies? Even adopting the rationale of Ms Thio's baseless tirade, what seems to be a 'logical' conclusion is that the weakening of the moral institution equates to a violation of the government's sovereignty to establish its own moral code, which would eventually result in its failure to uphold territorial sovereignty. Thinly disguised, it is merely an attempt at bolstering the 'siege mentality', that we have to have 'the Other', identify and demonise it so as to galvanise our people and preserve our identity. Equating conservatism and conservation? Conservatism is an ideology, and thus possesses less persuasive potential to be accepted as a public good – fortunately, for Thio, this ideology has been synthesised within the predominant ideology of elitism in Singapore. Possibly noting the spectacular success with which – ironically – the Left (which Ms Thio seems so eager to bash and crucify) has taken up the agenda of environmentalism and forced governments worldwide to treat it as an important issue, Ms Thio hijacks the intellectual arguments of environmentalism and uses it as a vehicle to assert her claim that conservatism is as natural and logical a cause as conservation. Heck, even environmentalism can be classified as an ideology, and is vulnerable to being criticised as a tool used by First World countries to place the burden of current environmental problems onto Third World countries. Crude determinism at work here – Ms Thio seems to be arguing that there can only be one form of approaching to tackling diversity: criminalising it; one form of action that homosexuals will take: engaging in unprotected sex; if so, then does that not exclude sodomy as an act of free will – then there is no basis for morality, is there? Thio brings up public morality, but insists on determinist outcomes. This is surely evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of her argument. Conceptualising morality as absolute extremes rather than a spectrum encourages polarised debate, the type of which Thio engages in but professes to eschew. Religion does provide guidelines as to what is considered moral or not, but shouldn't Singapore – professing to be a secular state – get its hands off dabbling with religious concepts of sin and morality? Religious views are part of common morality, but not the totality of it. What underpins morality in society should not be dictated by orthodox views of any particular religious community. It is the confluence, negotiation that produces a healthy moral code that is both accepted and accepting of views – between one religious community and another, and between religious and secular communities. One does not have to condemn homosexuality if one is religious – Thio makes the mistake of attempting to speak as if the religious establishment were one monolithic bloc. Is she surreptitiously attempting to sneak in her fundamentalist Christian views as a blanketing mechanism for the justification of criminalisation of homosexual acts? Is she seeking to establish and demand ideological hegemony within her own religious establishment? If morality is so fundamental, why do people have different conceptions of it? Are these 'deviants' simply misguided, obtuse to the apparent obviousness of it? Funnily enough, while Thio speaks of moral imperialism and how to defend it, her spiel is eerily reminiscent of the stance of the evangelical Christian movement in the US. I would argue that the argument of rejecting the 'colonial mindset' is truly invalid – the British were the ones who first criminalised homosexuality. What is at work here is the 'anti-colonial mindset', which perceives cultural globalisation as a tool of the 'imperialists' to propagate decadence. If it can be argued that the British 'conditioned' us to reject homosexuality, does that not prove that we adhere to the 'colonial mindset'? She renders her argument vulnerable to the charge of ethonocentrism – symptomatic of the colonial mindset. Ironically, she is just as guilty of this intellectual hijacking - of the environmentalist agenda. Of course, she never goes on the elucidate exactly who constitutes the 'weak and poor', and lopsidedly perceives through biased lens that any campaign by homosexual activists can be safely assumed to be of malevolent, power-hungry intent, while the down-trodden are supposedly unquestionably pure. Ms Thio doesn't even bother concerning herself with the fact that the government assiduously treats the issue of poverty very seriously for fear of societal backlash, so the rights of the downtrodden are well-respected and addressed because of the potential political consequences. She talks as if the 'weak and poor' in Singapore are having a problem attempting to highlight their plight, while the selfish homosexual activists are crowding out public space for discussion. She seems to ardently believe that the only way to resolve this 'identity disorder' is simply to reject homosexuality altogether, that the only chance for redemption and acceptance is to become an 'ex-gay'. What about homosexuals who aren't dealing well with societal pressure to conform to norms of heterosexuality? Does Thio not recognise the damaging potential of stigmatisation on homosexuals? Or that they 'deserve' it anyway, and should not be designated the right to be free from discrimination? ‘Sexual minorities’ and ‘sexual orientation’ are vague terms – covering anything from homosexuality, bestiality, incest, paedophilia – do all these minority sexual practices merit protection? Third, 377A does not breach the article 12 guarantee of equality. While all human persons are of equal worth, not all human behaviour is equally worthy. We separate the actor from the act. In criminalizing acts, we consider the wrongfulness of the act, the harm caused and how it affects the good of society. Thio employs the common technique of bunching up terms in order to insidiously suggest a correlation between them – for your information, Ms Thio, there is more empirical evidence of paedophilia, bestiality and incest commited by heterosexuals available in the media – so why can't Thio resist the temptation to equate them as crimes typical of homosexuals rather than of people in general? But that is not what she is doing – she has unequivocally stated her opposition towards homosexuality as a 'disorder', not sodomy alone. Notice that she likes to use 'we' to mask her own personal opinions as socially acceptable notions. Or she could be harbouring pretensions: what is good for her is good for everyone. Interestingly enough, this is what I found from that very same report: The government should focus on preventing HIV through more active media and informational campaigns of the debilitating consequences of HIV, drugs and unprotected sex – not shift the blame on the homosexual community. The article even explores the destructive impact of stigmatisation of homosexuality by society that results in depression, substance abuse and low self-esteem that drives homosexuals to take risks. As far as we know, Ms Thio eschews neo-colonial imperialism, but most of the empirical evidence used to support her stance is drawn from Western publications. Not only is she assuming that all societies are homogenous and will react the same manner, she is also consciously attempting to recreate the same patterns of discrimination and stigmatisation here by devaluing homosexuality. Tell me this isn't blind ethnocentrism. She never questions the spurious connection between trends – legalisation of homosexual acts would have made them more open and visible to the public, and religious fundamentalists might have led the charge to demonise homosexuals (after all, they possess greater access to media outlets) and thus concentrated public attention on gays, or pushing them into depression – what about HIV rates of heterosexuals? Nobody is advocating discriminating them from society solely based on 'medical literature', and Thio certainly does not own a monopoly of 'medical literature'. Thio herself is proposing delineating a dichotomy in society between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Note her use of the word 'treatment', confirming the fact that she does perceive homosexuality as a disease. Thio finally reveals her prejudices: society should be more concerned with preserving heterosexuality as an institution, and this objective is valued above the 'less important' issues of deterring people from 'paedophilia, bestiality and incest'. Homosexuality as a crime is more serious than any crime that a heterosexual may commit in his or her bedroom. Empirical evidence, please? The only reason why this may even sound remotely acceptable to the public is that generations of people have been born into societies whereby heterosexuality is the predominant way of life. But a dominant way of life does not imply that it is the best way of life. Yes, excuse her while she conveniently dismisses the constant proliferation of confessions from porn-stars and prostitutes serving heterosexuals. Why, I expected her to blame the popularisation of the 'culture of lust' on decadent 'Western values'! Where did the anti-colonial mantra go? The sheer pretension to moral superiority is simply disgusting: she actually believes that homosexuals should be content with living 'quiet lives', not to raise trouble or make noise like everyone else can, but to simply rejoice in the right to exist and live on earth, then fade away into the next world. Furthermore, her pompous tone seems to indicate that the 'generosity' and 'tolerance' of the state should be appreciated. Since the laws are there, we might as well use them! What good is the law if we don't enforce it, right? My fear is that when she talks about using laws 'judiciously', she is referring to the distinguishment between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy, and not according to the especial circumstances of the particular case. More conspiracy theories and panic-mongering! The spectre of homosexual revolution is hanging like a Sword of Damocles over the heads of Singaporeans, it seems. Conservatives never ask: what happens if the existing system has kinks? Conservatism as an ideology respects wisdom, longevity, time-honoured traditions and the tried-and-tested way of doing things. As such, they are more rigid and less likely to respond effectively to changes in circumstances and public opinion. Always useful to resort to worst-case-scenarios and then portray the argument as a valiant struggle against the inevitable apocalypse should 377A be repealed. Just to note, Ms Thio, freedom of speech on issues like religion is not tolerated in Singapore – the government has made it explicitly clear that such divisive issues are not to be discussed openly. Politicisation of race and religion in Singapore by the state has rendered any commentary, public or private, equally liable to scrutiny. Most citizens have recognised these markers and have not sought to challenge them. The probability that individuals and homosexual activists would openly and defiantly call for criminalisation of 'hate speech' is low, because the government will see to it that it is the final adjudicator on such issues, and anyone who dares to cross the markers will be severely punished. This applies to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. That Ms Thio has failed to consider domestic political realities and instead chosen to indiscriminately apply foreign experiences to the local circumstances bespeaks of her narrow-mindedness and ignorance. Ms Thio is oblivious enough not to recognise the subtle heterosexual 'propaganda' in MOE textbooks and curricula. This admission is laughable, mainly due to the complete obtuseness of Ms Thio – where has she been living all her life? One does not have to venture into ancient Chinese or Greek history to witness the 'Bad Old Days' whereby women were viewed as merely existing to serve reproductive functions, to stay at home and bear babies because that is their 'preordained' role in society – they should accept their submissive position and let the men deal with the 'important matters' of life. The Great Marriage debate is merely one of several signifiers that the patriarchal order demands and expects that women should perform their 'highest national duty as reproducers of the nation' (Kenneth Paul Tan). Furthermore, sexual objectification of women in the modern age has been a phenomenon triggered and catalysed by the profusion of promiscuity and expansion of the media. Thio equates homosexuality with female discrimination, when patriarchal systems of governance and law are the likelier perpetrators. In fact, heterosexuality is conducive for the reproduction of successive systems of patriarchy, while homosexuality challenges the conventional public/private division of labour between couples. However, this is an issue that can be discussed at another point in time. If this isn't a snarky attempt to seek scapegoats to absolve patriarchy of its complicity in the prejudice against women, I don't know what is. Vilification of homosexual activists is also an unoriginal tactic copied from practices of fundamentalist Christian groups and associations in the US. Ms Thio should not take us as fools - her vernacular is replete with subtle and overt references to her disdain and prejudical attitude towards homosexuality.
Bacchus would have been crucified in this age of ours.
Via adri's blog, I chanced upon NMP Thio Li-Ann's speech on homosexuality, speaking in favour of preserving S377A, which is the statute criminalising sex between homosexuals. Taking the easy way out, she reverts to the standard, tried-and-tested line of arguments concerning 'decadent Western values' as opposed to 'conservative' ones ingrained in our society (somehow entirely negating the fact that Singaporean society was once fundamentally a migrant one - there is nothing fundamental about the values that the government now champions to be 'natural' of our culture. Furthermore, she rampages on with her tirade against homosexuality, miserably failing to construct a persuasive, objective argument as her religious prejudices as a Christian seep through the facade.
The ‘liberal’ camp wants 377A repealed. They offer an ‘argument from consent’ –government should not police the private sexual behaviour of consenting adults. They opine this violates their liberty or ‘privacy’. They ask, ‘Why criminalize something which does not “harm” anyone; if homosexuals are “born that way”, isn’t it unkind to ‘discriminate’ against their sexual practices?
These flawed arguments are marinated with distracting fallacies which obscure what is at stake – repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties.
The ‘communitarian’ camp argues from ‘community values’ – these social conservatives want 377A retained, to protect public health, morality, decency and order. A Keep 377A online petition attracted over 15,000 signatures after a few days.
Like many, I applaud the government’s wisdom in keeping 377A which conserves what upholds the national interest. ‘Conservative’ here is not a dirty word connoting backwardness; environmental conservation protects our habitat; the moral ecology must be conserved to protect what is precious and sustains a dynamic, free and good society.
The real question is not “if” but “should” we ever repeal 377A. It is not inevitable; it is not desirable to repeal it in any event. Not only is retaining s377A sound public policy, it is legally and constitutionally beyond reproach.
As law has a moral basis, we need to consider which morality to legislate. Neither the majority or minority is always right – but there are fundamental values beyond fashion and politics which serve the common good. Religious views are part of our common morality.
Incidentally, one does not have to be religious to consider homosexuality contrary to biological design and immoral; secular philosopher Immanuel Kant considered homosexuality “immoral acts against our animal nature” which did not preserve the species and dishonoured humanity.
Singapore is an independent state and we can decide the 377A issue ourselves; we have no need of foreign or neo-colonial moral imperialism in matters of fundamental morality.
Homosexual activists often try to infiltrate and hijack human rights initiatives to serve their political agenda, discrediting an otherwise noble cause to protect the weak and poor.
Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder; there are numerous examples of former homosexuals successfully dealing with this.
Opposite-sex sodomy is harmful, but medical studies indicate that same-sex sodomy carries a higher price tag for society because of higher promiscuity and frequency levels. The New York Times reported that even informed homosexuals return to unsafe practices like bare-backing and bug-chasing after a health crisis wanes. A British Study showed that the legalization of homosexual sodomy correlated with an upsurge of STDs among gays. Common sense tells us that with more acceptance, any form of consensual sexual behaviour increases. Sodomy laws have some deterrent effect.
"Just because folks are well informed doesn't mean they'll necessarily make the wisest choices in terms of their health," said Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, who oversees AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "This is true of all humanity, not just gay men."
Medical literature indicates that gays have disproportionately higher STDs rates, which puts them in a different category from the general public, warranting different treatment.
Heterosexual sodomy unlike homosexual sodomy does not undermine the understanding of heterosexuality as the preferred social norm.
Public sexual morality must buttress strong families based on faithful union between man and wife, the best model for raising children.
The argument from consent ultimately celebrates sexual libertine values, the fruit of which is sexual licentiousness, a culture of lust, which takes, rather than love, which gives. This social decline will provoke more headlines like a 2004 Her World article called: “Gay guy confesses: I slept with 100 men…one of them could be your hubby.” What about the broken-hearts involved?
Sir, government policy is not to pro-actively enforce 377A. Some argue that just keeping this law on the books will erode the rule of law. I disagree. It is not turning a blind eye on the existence of homosexuals here; it is refusing to celebrate homosexuality while allowing gays to live quiet lives. This is prudent, as it is difficult to enforce ‘bedroom’ offences; such intrusive powers should be judiciously used anyway.
Conversely, homosexual activists lobby hard for a radical sexual revolution, waging a liberal fundamentalist crusade against traditional morality. They adopt a ‘step by step’ approach to hide how radical the agenda is. Liberals never ask: what happens next if you repeal 377A.
Sir, to protect homosexuals, some countries have criminalized not sodomy but opposition to sodomy, making it a ‘hate crime’ to criticize homosexuality. This violates freedom of speech and religion; will sacred texts that declare homosexuality morally deviant, like the Bible and Koran, be criminalized? Social unrest beckons. Such assaults on constitutional liberties cannot be tolerated.
Steps 4 and 5 relate to legalizing same-sex marriage or partnerships, child adoption rights. This subverts both marriage and family, which are institutions homosexuals seek to redefine beyond recognition. Will MOE then commission a book copying the US “Heather has 2 mummies” called “Ah Beng has 2 daddies?” What if parents disagree with their kids studying homosexual propaganda?
To slouch back to Sodom is to return to the Bad Old Days in ancient Greece or even China where sex was utterly wild and unrestrained, and homosexuality was considered superior to man-women relations. Women’s groups should note that where homosexuality was celebrated, women were relegated to low social roles; when homosexuality was idealized in Greece, women were objects not partners, who ran homes and bore babies. Back then, whether a man had sex with another man, woman or child was a matter of indifference, like one’s eating preferences. The only relevant category was penetrator and penetrated; sex was not seen as interactive intimacy, but a doing of something to someone. How degrading.
However, I have noted a disturbing phenomenon over the 377A debate– the argument by insult. Instead of reasoning, some have resorted to name-calling to intimidate and silence their opponents. People with principled moral objections to the homosexual agenda are tarred and feathered ‘homophobes’, ‘bigots’, to shut them up. This strategy is unoriginally imported from foreign gay activists, which stifles creative thinking and intellectual enquiry.
Labels:
Homosexuality,
Human Rights,
Singapore
4 spoke up:
I think you are being very, very harsh on the woman. I also think you are very wrong on this issue. I do not think you can suddenly overturn mankind's norms established over the last 2000 years without major societal upheavals.
"Fundamentalist Christian groups" have not been nearly so "vilifying" as you suggest. Also, to blame Christian colonizers for Eastern attitudes (biases) toward homosexuality sounds dodgy. Mankind has developed a universal understanding (across all cultures and religions) that homosexuality is not the norm. I agree that there is an aggressive homosexual agenda at work that ultimately is destructive to society. If that makes me a fundamentalist Christian bigot then so be it.
After reading NMP Thio Li-Ann's speech on homosexuality, I have to say,She is "spot-on" when she describes the points of the homosexual agenda. That is exactly what is happening here in the United States. The people of Singapore should not let it also happen there.
But whit, you must surely also sense that different cultures and circumstances that shape societies everywhere will result in varying results regarding how homosexuality is perceived, accepted or rejected. I do not believe that there are homosexuals in Singapore who are organised and galvanised enough, with the commensurate resources and reliable support from the citizenry to replicate or even dream of launching an all-out crusade of destruction of social mores.
I, for one, also recognise that social maturity is an important factor in engineering social change - a prerequisite that can only be nurtured and gradually attained. And yet the Singaporean government allows Nominated Members of Parliament to speak as if homosexuals are inherently activist, out to destroy values and morality. Perhaps in the US, the homosexual activist bloc has been radicalised as a natural response to the strong, Christian-influenced societal attitude adopted by the majority. I do not hope to witness a parallel radicalisation of the homosexual agenda here, in the face of such bigoted views being aired in Parliament and applauded at.
I do not seek to persuade any person who believes that homosexuality is a sin based on religion, because who am I to tell him to go against religious doctrines that are so central to how he lives his life? That would surely be insensitive and highly volatile, which explains why the Singaporean government has always maintained that religion, race and ethnicity are games that if played, will result in extremely serious punishment for those who play with fire.
Yet I will certainly take on those who seek to foist their religious views onto the secular foundations of the state. Singapore does not have a particularly religious culture - we are, after all, a migrant community consisting of peoples from various lands. The history of the US is strongly rooted in the religious roots of Christianity - no doubt a secular state, but nevertheless inspired by religion. What may seem inherently natural in the US, such as an undeniable aversion towards homosexuality, may not be such in Singapore. I think NMP Thio is wrong in asserting that homosexuality is a sin because it is so obviously rejected by society.
whit, I thank you for your concern regarding the possibility that a radical, subversive homosexual agenda might take root, or is already inspiring activists here in Singapore. And I respect your right to believe that homosexuality is a sin. But I do not see how it is justifiable to foist religious precepts onto secular law and morality - and to exploit jurisdictional power to discriminate against people who see themselves as Singaporeans, first and foremost.
We must sometimes question the social processes that create such radicalised movements in the first place - do we want to continue risking radicalising a small, albeit important, part of society by refusing to recognise their rights of choosing their sexual orientation? The more you push them away, the more adversarial they will become. Repealing S377A might seem to some as "appeasement" - I'm highly confident such an assertion will come up.
Homosexual activism as a trend is not simply a social movement that can be abstracted from the processes that produced it, and responsibility for radicalisation of the agenda in the US must be shared between those who seek to condemn homosexuality and those who fervently defend it as part of their individual liberty to choose their sexual orientation. This interplay of adversarial, polemical forces over the years has resulted in the state of affairs as we know today.
If we view social morality as a zero-sum game, we are not allowing society to mature here. There are conservatives in Singapore, and there are the rest. Singapore might be a First World country in terms of economic development, but in terms of maturity of society it is lagging way behind. Why? The government chooses to erect and defend the constructed bastion of "Asian values" against decadent "Western values".
The culture of backlash against censorship is extremely strong here. As my professor remarked the other day, if you want something to be popular in Singapore, all you have to do is to ban it. Continue discriminating against homosexuals and hiding behind this moral defence and risk driving the movement underground where activism will be much harder to monitor and moderate. Censor debate about homosexuality by asserting that it is 'unimaginable' that anybody would even consider homosexuality acceptable and risk an intellectual backlash from the post-'65 generation, whose concerns include post-materialist ones such as respect for individual liberties and rights - the very same rights that Americans, regardless of conservative or liberal, strongly assert as fundamentally untouchable.
"But I do not see how it is justifiable to foist religious precepts onto secular law and morality - and to exploit jurisdictional power to discriminate against people who see themselves as Singaporeans, first and foremost."
I do not believe any law is totally secular, nor is morality. Some societies are more secular than others.
"We must sometimes question the social processes that create such radicalised movements in the first place - do we want to continue risking radicalising a small, albeit important, part of society by refusing to recognise their rights of choosing their sexual orientation?"
In my country, even though there were anti-sodomy laws locally here and there, homosexuals were tolerated. But most societies long ago determined that it was in their best interests to promote heterosexual relationships and marriage between a man and a woman.
The issue is not recognizing their rights to choose their sexual orientation (which I thought was not a choice). People have long been able to do that. The issue has become their right to marry, their right to adopt, their campaign to indoctrinate children in public schools. Society is being asked to "bless" a lifestyle which for thousands of years has been viewed as aberrant.
I do not believe homosexual people should be persecuted nor do I believe they are entitled to homosexual rights. Human rights yes, additional rights, no.
Post a Comment