ST Insight: Secularism - not from theory but bloody history (Nov 24)

Nov 24, 2007
THINKING ALOUD
Secularism - not from theory but bloody history
By Janadas Devan

MY COLLEAGUE Chua Mui Hoong wrote an invaluable piece last week, 'Rules of engagement for God and politics' (ST, Nov 16).

She argued that the only basis upon which the religious of different faiths, as much as the non-religious, can intervene in discussions of public policy is to appeal to a 'public reason' common to all.

Religion may influence one's view on an issue, Ms Chua, a person of faith herself, acknowledged. 'But when arguing your case in the political arena, you need to present arguments understandable and acceptable to those of different faiths.'

Like Assistant Professor Tan Seow Hon, who wrote a piece last month making a similar point, Ms Chua quoted the American philosopher John Rawls, who first used the term 'public reason', as authority. As authorities go, the late Professor Rawls, who died in 2002, is impeccable. That people of different faiths - Ms Chua, Prof Tan and I
- can find common cause in the centrality of 'public reason', testifies to the theoretical scope and force of his arguments.

But it is important to note, too, that secularism is not just theory. Theory is important - and some political theorists, like Prof Rawls, are especially important - but secularism did not issue from theory. Nor did it issue from the debate on Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code. Nor did it issue from Mr Lee Kuan Yew asking the late Mr S. Rajaratnam one day to pen the Pledge - 'We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion.'

There is a history, a politics - bloody experience - behind the secular state. If we forget that history, the most finely wrought theories would be worse than useless. Like the 'strongest oaths', they would be like 'straw to the fire i' the blood', as Shakespeare put it.

In Singapore's case, the founding generation's uncompromising commitment to the secular state arose from their experience of the terrifying race riots of 1964, which were not totally unconnected to religion, and the searing two years Singapore spent in Malaysia.

They also remembered the Maria Hertogh riots of 1950, sparked by a court decision to return custody of Maria, then aged 13, to her biological Catholic Dutch mother after she had been raised as a Muslim by her adoptive Malay family. Eighteen people were killed in those riots.

And that was a minor tempest compared to what happened in India in 1947-48, just three years earlier. Singapore's founding generation came to political consciousness in the 1940s. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, when the British Raj began to be dismantled and people long suppressed found utterance. Singapore's founding
generation witnessed Jawaharlal Nehru - a much admired figure in the anti-colonial movement and a forceful advocate of secularism - being stunned by the absolute ferocity of the Hindu-Muslim riots that accompanied the partition of British India. An estimated one million people died.

And behind all this searing direct experience, there is the history of the longue duree. How did secularism arise in the West? Not from theory.

It emerged out of the Peace of Westphalia (1648), the treaties which ended the Thirty Years' War (1618-48) and the Eighty Years' War (1568-1648), pitting Catholics against Protestants. The Westphalian system established the principle of cuius regio, eius religio - 'whose the region, his the religion' - which stopped the carnage; and that
principle slowly gave rise to freedom of religion being enshrined as a human right.

And what carnage it took to get to that point! Historians estimate that in 1618, at the beginning of the Thirty Years' War, the population in the territory that now constitutes Germany was roughly 21million. By 1648, it had shrunk to about 13million.

That is a casualty rate close to 40per cent, way beyond genocidal levels. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were prodigious monsters, but even they never quite came close, in proportionate terms, to inflicting on their societies the kind of destruction that warring Catholics and Protestants visited on theirs in 17th-century Europe.

The Enlightenment absorbed this history. The writers of the United States Constitution were the heirs of the Enlightenment. It was history that produced that first sentence in the US Bill of Rights: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' That was a tremendous thing that America's founding fathers did, for nobody anywhere had ever said anything like that before. Their vision came from experience. Theory was there, but it was informed by history.

To return to Singapore: People who argue - as some have in this paper, pressing for a greater role for religion in public policy - that Singapore is not as secular as the US do not understand either Singapore's history or politics.

In some respects, Singapore is more secular than the US. Singapore's Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, for instance, explicitly bars religion from politics. Its Societies Act has been used to disband certain religious sects. The US State Department routinely utters a mild tut-tut for these 'restrictions on religious freedom' in Singapore. It does not understand religion can still be a 17th-century
affair in many parts of the world.

It is not possible in Singapore for any politician to go before the electorate and say: 'I'm a Buddhist, a Muslim, whatever - vote for me.' It is not possible for temples, mosques and churches to be mobilised for political purposes.

Nothing in the US Constitution prevents either. All it says is that Congress cannot establish a state religion. But US politicians can, and do, make religious appeals; and churches have been mobilised for electoral purposes - African-American churches for Democrats and evangelical churches for Republicans.

But in some respects, Singapore is less strictly secular. The state helps to fund mosque-building and mission schools, for instance. Such compromises arose from either pragmatic political considerations - to reassure Malay/ Muslims, especially after Separation; or from pragmatic public policy considerations - mission schools, among the best in Singapore, had to be incorporated into the public school system.

But even here, there are limits. For instance, Muslim girls have been barred from wearing the headscarf or tudung in schools, so as to maintain their 'common secular space'.

And in 1992, the Ministry of Education reminded mission schools of Article 16 (3) of the Singapore Constitution, which states: 'No person shall be required to receive instruction in or take part in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his own.' Students cannot be compelled to attend religious service, mission school principals were told.

Why is it necessary to send such strong, unambiguous signals? Because religion is 'a very profound and fundamental tectonic divide', as MM Lee put it once. He did not learn that from Prof Rawls.

And because more Singaporeans are leaning towards 'strongly held exclusive beliefs' and 'this trend is part of a worldwide religious revival', as the 1989 White Paper on Religious Harmony put it. That did not come from Prof Rawls either.

To deny religion a formal role in either politics or public policy does not mean - can never mean - denying the religious of whatever faith a role as citizens. The secular state is neither atheist nor agnostic; it is simply neutral on questions of faith. And this neutrality must involve respecting the immeasurable value of each
soul, religious or otherwise, or neutrality would have no meaning.

But the secular state must also insist that every soul has to relate to other souls, within the common space shared by all, in terms, not of this or that faith, but of a public reason accessible to all.

It is absolutely crucial, though, to realise that this demand does not issue from theory. It is enforced by history, experience - and not mine or yours, but humanity's. There is an extraordinary wealth of bitter experience pointing to the ethical superiority of secular societies.

Those who forget this bitter experience will be condemned to retaste it.

janadas@sph.com.sg

ST: There are gays, and there are gays... (Nov 10)

Nov 10, 2007
IDENTITY POLITICS
There are gays, and there are gays...
By Andy Ho

PROFESSOR Thio Li-ann who spoke up in Parliament against the decriminalisation of homosexual sodomy has become the lightning rod that attracts the vilest attacks from the most militant gays here.

The Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) who teaches law at the National University of Singapore (NUS) just made her second police report in three months. The first was filed against a poet, Alfian Saat, who heaped abuse on her in an e-mail, the second after an anonymous letter-writer threatened her and her family members with bodily harm.

The fact that a fiery debate over the issue was held at all in Parliament might have been perceived by some as legitimising the identity politics of (homo)sexuality here.

Identity politics is made up of efforts to define and defend who you are, or hope to be, or hope to be seen to be. Gay identity politics means some citizens are mobilising as a group around their sexual orientation to shape or alter the exercise of power to benefit group members.

Since it is an enterprise motivated by the imagination of what is or ought to be mine or ours, some welcome it. After all, self-definition matters to everyone, they say.

Others counter that this is a bad development as it simply purveys differences rather than similarities and highlights grievances rather than bonds. As proof, they point to the gut-wrenching viciousness swirling around Prof Thio. Another NUS law professor, Yvonne Lee, has also made a police report after she was crudely flamed online, with threats made against her person after she wrote a column for these
pages that was not supportive of the gay cause.

In and of themselves, differences and grievances are fine for they drive political action among those who bear them. Contending with one's adversaries is not necessarily inconsistent with respect for one another. In a nation that is looking for its democratic legs, emotional interlocution that remains respectful can be woven into the patriotic fabric that binds us together.

But identity politics turns sick when grievances transmute into an all-consuming demonisation of one's opponents. For example, both law professors have been repeatedly asked online something to this effect: 'Are you stupid, a Christian, or both?' If 'conservatives' or 'Christians' are remorselessly assumed to be redneck hatemongers whom you can't respect as equals, then your politics has degenerated
into a pharisaic narcissism.

I don't know which is worse, this or those who lose in a confrontation claiming victimhood. Already, in the parliamentary debate, there were claims of 'minority' group status for homosexuals. I also have an e-mail - obviously from a legally trained mind - asserting that gays form a 'discrete, insular and disadvantaged
minority'.

By self-identifying as 'a minority', the claim is that his group will inevitably be ignored or victimised by the (demonised) majority. This would suggest that his group will never be part of a winning majority coalition.

Yet all political majorities are coalitions whose composition can change, so losers can become winners somewhere down the line - if they are willing to modulate their interests to form a winning coalition with others.

But the gay lobby finds it difficult to do so for it tends to reduce complex human beings to one trait - homoerotism. That is, it regards all individuals who have this orientation as being, in essence, the same in (all) other respects.

This 'essentialist' thinking is less than coherent. For example, people who share race or religion can differ in many other ways, including being able to hurt others of the same race or religion. For example, I may be Chinese but that does not necessarily mean I champion the need to be fluent in Mandarin.

Or: Every woman has a race, so how she experiences her womanhood is informed by her race, and what race means to her is also inflected by her gender. What about being of the same race and gender but not the same religion? What about age? Should we not accord minority status to, say, 'aged Indian lesbians'?

So group definitions are problematic. The Catholics may claim you, but do you claim them? Group identities are too narrow to encompass what we share in common as humans but too broad to capture our specificities as individuals. The simplistic gay versus straight opposition obscures the fact that each of us stands alone at our own
unique conjuncture of the different groupings like race, gender, age, profession or religion to which we belong.

Because we move from one grouping to another fluidly as the situation demands, our personal group borders are never fixed. Because we are affiliated to so many groups, we may be more 'multicultural' individuals than a multicultural nation. But this fact is that which allows for non-conflictual give-and-take since our interest might
differ on one dimension but map onto one another on a different one. However, identity politics ignores this. Instead, it balkanises, promoting an obstreperous, rancorous self-pity about the 'tyrannical majority'.

For good reason, we give the identity politics of race and religion a wide berth. Formal procedure requires that a parliamentary petition - like the public petition over homosexual sodomy that NMP Siew Kum Hong submitted - be vetted in committee first.

The House agreed to waive the requirement and an angry debate ensued.

If Prof Thio's travails are anything to go by, setting that procedure aside appears to have been a mistake that has, regrettably, fostered the identity politics of sexual orientation here.

andyho@sph.com.sg

Queery.com: Government Does Not Endorse Gay Lifestyle: Singapore Minister (Nov 5)

Government Does Not Endorse Gay Lifestyle: Singapore Minister

Singapore’s government does not want to endorse a homosexual lifestyle, a senior cabinet minister said Monday, as parliament debated a rare petition to repeal a law that criminalises gay sex.

A member of parliament filed the petition to repeal the relevant part of the Penal Code on the grounds that it is discriminatory and violates constitutional safeguards on equal rights.

It was the first time in more than two decades that parliament had heard a petition, local radio reported, and coincided with debate on the most extensive amendments to the city-state’s Penal Code in 22 years.

The MP, Siew Kum Hong, who is not gay, said the government’s proposed changes would allow anal and oral sex between two consenting heterosexual adults.

However refusing to decriminalise the same acts between homosexual and bisexual men is discrimination, said Siew, who filed the petition after an online campaign to repeal the section.

Arguing for the section to be retained, Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, Ho Peng Kee, said Singapore remains a largely conservative society.

"While homosexuals have a place in society... repealing section 377A will be contentious and may send a wrong signal that the government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life," Ho said.

Public feedback on the issue had been "emotional, divided and strongly expressed," he said, but most people wanted to retain the section.

"The majority find homosexual behaviour offensive and unacceptable," Ho added," noting that police nevertheless have been lenient in implementing the law.

However, Siew said private, consensual sexual acts between adult males would "not impact on the safety and security of society."

"Now is the time, not to do the pragmatic or easy thing, but to do the right thing," he said.

Stuart Koe, chief executive of the Asian gay portal, Fridae.com, and one of the people behind the petition, said that for gays in Singapore, Section 377A has been like "a gun pointed to their heads."

Singapore celebrities joined the campaign to repeal the anti-gay sex section by appearing in a rap video posted on the YouTube website.

ST Lifestyle: The gay debate (Nov 4)

Nov 4, 2007
The gay debate
For moderates like me, the vitriolic exchanges made me wonder: Why can't we just live and let live?
By Sumiko Tan

I DON'T think I was fully aware of what homosexuality was all about until I was in my 20s.

It wasn't a subject that ever cropped up at home. In the late 1970s when I was growing up, a cluster of houses was built in my neighbourhood and a sign on the wall outside read 'Gay Garden'. No one in the vicinity batted an eyelid.

Perhaps the contractor's surname was Gay, hence he named the development after himself. Or he just wanted a happy, alliterative name for the place.

In my all-girls secondary school, there were jokes about how boys from a certain all-boys Catholic school tended to be sissies. The word used was 'pondan', but I didn't understand what it meant. But I'd laugh if someone mimicked the boys by showing a limp wrist.

There were a lot of female crushes going around in my school, though. I had my fair share of them and was also the subject of a couple. Little presents, precious autograph book scribblings and happy sightings of the girls we hero-worshipped were all part of growing up.

In junior college, I studied next to boys for the first time. It did occur to me that there were some who were rather effeminate and not all that interested in us girls. Many were involved in drama activities.

There were also a few girls who gave off boisterous, boyish vibes and whom I found frightening, but my attention was trained elsewhere - on the football and swimming jocks.

When I was in university, I went out with a guy who had a 'gay' brother. That was when the other meaning of the word entered my vocabulary (and I started wondering how my neighbours living in Gay Garden felt).

The brother was good-looking, wore nice clothes and was a bit aloof.He didn't have girlfriends but a male friend of his would sometimes go over to the family home for dinner and they appeared close. I started piecing things together.

My friend's parents must have been in their 60s then but they seemed totally cool with that relationship. I took my cue from them.

Then I started work and learnt more about homosexuality.

The creative industries tend to attract gays and the media is no different. I've came to know many gays through work, especially over the last decade as I've been based in a section that deals with such lifestyle topics as the arts, entertainment and fashion. There is a larger proportion of gays in these areas.

Some have become good friends. At the risk of generalising or sounding patronising, gays make good company for women.

They often have discerning taste, interesting views and a zest for life. You also don't have to deal with the tiresome cross signals that can crop up in a man-woman relationship.

Some gays talk freely about their sexual orientation, others don't. Some keep it a secret but I know they are gay and they know I know, but we don't acknowledge it, and that's fine.

Some like to play up to stereotypes (adopting a campy tone for laughs,for example) while others would never dream of doing so.

The upshot is, homosexuality has become so commonplace for me, because of the environment I am in, that it has become a non-issue.

I know it exists and I accept it. I don't subscribe to it and I never ever will, but it is not a big deal for me. Certainly I don't feel I am in a position to judge the way they live their lives.

As a (straight) friend puts it and I agree, everyone is entitled to his individual space, and if that space doesn't encroach on somebody else's, especially in a harmful way, there is no reason to interfere with it.

BUT I am also acutely aware that not everyone is as relaxed as I am about homosexuality.

For the majority of Singaporeans, including my family and almost all my non-office friends, being gay is just not something on their radar screens, and they frown on it.

Statistics bear this out. A survey found that 69 per cent of Singaporeans have a negative view of homosexuality, 23 per cent are positive and 8 per cent neutral.

When confronted with the topic, the majority feel very uncomfortable, and I have learnt when to keep my mouth shut about it. Even my sister is leery of the topic.

In editing the Life! section of The Straits Times, too, I am aware that the majority of our readers disapprove of homosexuality, which is why we don't ever play it up.

As the recent parliamentary debate on Section 377A of the Penal Code showed, some people will use every moral and intellectual argument they can muster to put forward their case against homosexuality.

The result has been much mudslinging between them and the pro-gay camp, much of it played out on the Internet. It was fascinating to see how the debate raged and how arguments were posited with renewed vigour every day.

But it was also disturbing and sad for me because so much of what was said - from both sides - seemed grounded in anger and hate.

Still, one has to remember that these are views from very articulate polarised camps. What of the middle ground? Do they feel so strongly? Do they even care?

My guess is that while the majority of Singaporeans are anti-gay, they aren't into gay-bashing either, and were probably bewildered by the extremes of emotions displayed.

My mother, for example, disapproves of homosexuality but her view is that 'it's none of my business what others do'.

For folks like her, what she doesn't see, she doesn't know and doesn't care about, and she adopts a 'live and let live' attitude.

That is also a view I subscribe to, although I must also say I had no problems with Parliament choosing not to repeal Section 377A, which makes sex between men a crime.

If Singapore isn't ready to accept homosexuality, perhaps no change is required - at least not yet.

SOME good has come out of the vitriolic debate. Views have been aired and even if you don't agree with the other person, at least you now know where he is coming from.

A gay colleague said he was comforted to learn that not all Christians are into gay bashing, and that it would be wrong for him to tar all of
them with the same brush.

For me as a journalist, the biggest gain has been how some of Singapore's 'OB markers' have been redefined.

One year ago, I would not have dared write a column about homosexuality. But now that the issue has been aired so thoroughly, and in no less a forum than Parliament, the subject is no longer inside the closet, so to speak.

And it can't be bad for the country that we are freer to talk about once taboo topics.

You can never persuade those of extreme views to agree and as we go forward, it is perhaps up to the middle ground - which includes newspapers and, yes, people like me whom I like to think are the moderates - to ensure civility is maintained even while the gay debate continues.

P.S: Some years ago, the Gay Garden name was changed to one reflecting the road the houses sit on - a sign, too, of the changing times.

sumiko@sph.com.sg.

ST: Greater openness here now, says WP chief (Nov 1)

WORKERS’ Party (WP) leader Low Thia Khiang sees the Government’s handling of the recent debate on the law against male homosexuality as a sign of greater openness here.

He cited the Section 377A debate as an example of a more relaxed political atmosphere, as he gave the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) a “passing grade” for its governance.

“You don’t see very strong reactions from the Government towards criticisms and citizen initiatives,” he told The Straits Times last night.

“The environment has changed compared to when I just joined politics in the early 80s…People are more vocal and people are more comfortable to air their views in public. So I think it is an improvement.”

The highly charged debate over Section 377A took place both in and outside Parliament.

It was sparked by a citizens’ petition to the House to repeal it from the Penal Code and over two days last week, 16 MPs spoke on the controversial issue.

The WP is holding its 50th anniversary celebrations on Saturday.

In an interview with Chinese-language daily Lianhe Zaobao ahead of the celebrations, Mr Low was asked how he would grade the PAP government. He said it was “definitely a pass”.

But at the same time, he criticised some of the Government’s policies, arguing that the recent Central Provident Fund (CPF) changes are unfair to the elderly.

He said that by delaying the draw-down age of the CPF Minimum Sum, the Government is essentially leaving older Singaporeans with no choice but to continue working.

While supporting the Government’s anti-terrorism moves, he expressed concern that they may increase the authorities’ power.

Still, the WP secretary-general - who said he hoped that he will not be the party leader when it celebrates its 60th anniversary - insists it is not right for a political party to oppose for the sake of opposing.

“The term opposition is a legacy of the Western parliamentary system, and I have never believed that an opposition party should oppose for the sake of opposing or to shoot one’s mouth off.

“Politics should be about responsible politics. The opposition should be a watchdog, not a mad dog. That should be the path for a political party.”

It is also not the job of the opposition here to offer alternatives to all government policies, he argued.

While the ruling party has specialists to study and research various issues, the opposition lacks the resources to come up with alternatives.

He pointed out that the WP is unlike the opposition parties in the West, which come up with alternative policies for everything.

The WP’s role is to revise and improve on government policies. Moreover, the opposition should not shoot its mouth off, and offer alternative policies on a whim.

“A political party needs to reach a certain stage before it can offer alternative policies, that is, at a stage where it is capable of replacing that government. And WP still has a very long way to go before reaching this stage.”

In fact, he did not think his party is ready to challenge the PAP for government in the “near future”.

Said the 51-year-old: “To become ready to take over the government is a very long-term goal. Every political party wishes to be ready to form the government and eventually become the ruling party. But to me, this is still very far, we need to take one step at a time.”

ST Forum: Writer's article unfair and undermines civil debate (Nov 1)

Nov 1, 2007
Writer's article unfair and undermines civil debate

I REFER to Mr Janadas Devan's article, '377A debate and the rewriting of pluralism' (ST, Oct 27).

It is unfortunate that Mr Janadas Devan was 'exceedingly' depressed by the parliamentary debate on S377A of the Penal Code. However, one's personal feelings and sentiments such as 'was left looking stupid, speechless, confused, sour-faced and uncivil' is neither a rational nor relevant argument.

The use of expressions such as 'she tore to shreds so many of our cherished beliefs' obfuscates real concerns of what such beliefs may be and whether they ought to be so cherished in the first place. This emotional appeal insidiously draws attention away from the validity of opposing arguments.

Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann validly used the phrase 'chronological snobbery' in her parliamentary speech to counter the argument that S377A was 'archaic' and therefore should be repealed. Mr Devan's observation that 'chronological snobbery' was first coined by Owen Barfield and C.S. Lewis, is irrelevant. First, his observation fails to justify the 'labelling' of S377A as 'archaic'. Second, parliamentarians do not assert originality in their speeches, but
instead seek to express views relevant to law and policy making.

Mr Devan alluded to Professor Thio's use of uncivil and unkind phrases such as 'shoving a straw up your nose to drink' and 'Mundur Singapura' ('backward' in Malay).

He observed that the first phrase has been used in 'American anti-gay pamphlets'. A cursory sweep of gay activists' propaganda will reveal the convenient labelling of all contrary viewpoints including reasoned arguments, as 'anti-gay'. Such labelling avoids a substantive debate of the real concerns. S377A prohibits acts of gross indecency between two male adults. Any argument for or against its retention must
necessarily consider the repugnancy of anal sex or sodomy justifying its classification as 'gross indecency'.

He further observed that 'Mundur means 'backward' in Malay, and 'backward' here alludes to that 'straw' and another orifice'. If Mr Devan had read Professor Thio's speech carefully, he would have noticed that the phrase 'Mundur Singapura' was spoken in the context of not allowing our society to 'regress' to early civilisations where
indiscriminate sex was prevalent and there was no laws governing sexual behaviour. This is hardly uncivil or unkind. It is inappropriate and unconscionable for anyone to suggest otherwise.

Parliamentarians speak to the population at large. To use colloquial language at times to illustrate a point is perfectly permissible.

For Mr Devan to declare and wax lyrical about his depression, is at best highly self-indulgent.

Yvonne Lee Ching Ling (Ms)

ST Online Forum: Polarisation beginning to surface after S377A debate (Nov 1)

Nov 1, 2007
Polarisation beginning to surface after S377A debate

BOTH sides of the recent Section 377A debate have claimed victory and selectively focused on relevant portions of PM Lee's speech in Parliament to back up their stands.

Rather than victory, I suggest that both camps have 'lost' in their recent effort to bring the moderate majority to their stated cause.

For those who supported the retention of Section 377A, and especially the deeply religious, this effort has alienated the moderate majority in their lop-sided emphasis on 'hating the sin' and neglecting the equal call to 'love the sinner'.

While they need not renounce their opposition to homosexual behaviour to welcome the gay and lesbian community, it is a reality that the religious have yet to adopt an openly consistent and compassionate approach with people with homosexual tendencies.

For those who supported the repeal of Section 377A, their insistence on labelling all those who oppose the repeal as bigots and right-wing religious fanatics did little to draw the moderate majority to them either.

The polarisation effects are beginning to surface. Mr Janadas Devan fired the first salvo in his satire piece tearing into Thio Li-Ann's logic and Andy Ho focused his spotlight on PM Lee's assertion that homosexuality is substantially inborn in one single edition of The Straits Times (Oct 27). Alex Au, the well-known gay activist whom the media always turn to for views on homosexual issues, has also taken
off the gloves in his Yawning Bread website by portraying the 'religious right' as Ku Klux Klan and writing that there is no need to be civil to those who take an opposing stand from them. While I have my own reservations regarding Thio Li-Ann's fiery speech in Parliament, a local playwright and aspiring teacher's threat to desecrate her grave was not a civil way to debate the issue. More of these vitriol exchanges will cement the current battle line drawn in the sand and PM Lee's warning of a divided and polarised society will become a reality.

Let's maintain the pragmatism, cherish the space, respect the limits, live and let live.

Alex Tan Tuan Loy

ST Review: The Gay Debate, Present by denied (Nov 1)

Nov 1, 2007
THE GAY DEBATE
Present but denied
By John Gee

AFTER the parliamentary debate over Section 377A ended in the retention of the clause, one pro-change activist was quoted as saying: 'What makes this so divisive is that so many of those who are against gays do not have gay friends and do not understand them.'

The sad reality is that many probably do have gay friends, but they just don't know it.

As a teenager in Britain, I remember hearing programmes on the radio in which gay characters featured, and knowing about certain gay people in public life and history books, but I didn't know any fellow students or teachers who were definitely gay.

Among people of my acquaintance, I was aware of no gay men and knew just one woman who was fairly certainly a lesbian, although the word was never used. She was a great-aunt of mine, who would come to family occasions with a woman who was always known as her 'friend', and whom she lived with for half of her life until she died at a ripe old age, loved and respected by all who knew her.

It was only when I went to university that I met men and women who were very open about being gay or lesbian, but that was something of a special environment, more tolerant of differences than most, even though male homosexuality had been decriminalised in 1967 (lesbianism was never recognised in British law).

Even there, I realised that there were gay men who quite deliberately kept their distance from those who were 'out'. They made a decision not to draw attention to their sexuality. I don't think it could have been as easy as it would at first seem; it meant forgoing the casual intimate exchanges in which heterosexuals often engage without a second thought - a touch, an embrace, an intense, close-up conversation.

As chance would have it, I came to know more lesbians than gay men, and two became close friends. Things they said gave me new insights into why it is that many homosexuals are wary of revealing their sexual identity.

One woman came from a Muslim family and had lived quite happily until her father decided that it was time she got married. Arranged marriages were the rule in her community, but she decided that she could not marry someone she could never love, and left home. Her mother and brothers were quite sympathetic, but the rift between
father and daughter was lasting.

When I first met her, I thought that she was very puritanical as whenever any reference to sexual matters arose, she seemed uncomfortable and would steer the conversation to another topic. It was only after a couple of years that a mutual friend told me, in a very matter-of-fact way, that she was a lesbian. Eventually, after a big upheaval in her life, she suddenly became very willing to pour out
her woes to me, and it was then that I heard the whole story.

Another woman I knew had several boyfriends, but the relationships never lasted long. It was only after a few years that she told me one day that she had a girlfriend.

She said she would have mentioned this to me before, but I had told a story about a gay man I knew that she saw as derogatory of him, and that frightened her into keeping quiet about her own sexuality. I knew her parents, whom she loved very much. Both were devout Catholics.

Her father died without her being able to tell him honestly about her sexual identity, but she did eventually manage to talk about it with her mother. There are old school friends she still sees occasionally, but she does not dare to risk them turning away from her if she reveals her sexuality.

Odd incidents served to remind me what gay people could face, simply because they were gay. A man I knew was beaten up one night just outside his own home after a group of particularly unpleasant and hefty young bigots living in the neighbourhood discovered that he was gay.

This was a far from isolated incident, but it hadn't happened to anyone I knew before.

A writer I knew and respected shared a home with his male partner for most of his life. They were very happy together and, had they been man and woman, most people would have seen theirs as a model relationship.

The writer died, and his lifelong partner was status-less. Arrangements for the funeral fell to the deceased's nearest blood-relatives and the grieving partner had to request their permission for him to attend, which, to their credit, they gave
willingly. I attended the memorial service and could not help thinking that this relationship had never been more explicitly acknowledged by the author's friends and family than at that moment.

I knew a trade union official who took on the case of a woman who claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed from her workplace. He soon found that his union superiors were reluctant to support her. One eventually spoke to him 'off the record' and said: 'You know she's a lesbian, don't you?' - an issue that had not figured explicitly in her dismissal. The official, an Irishman of distinctly nationalist
outlook, stood his ground: 'Lesbian? I'd defend her even if she was a Protestant!'

Homosexuals belong to many different communities and backgrounds, which is why talk of a 'gay community' can be misleading; sexuality is not the be-all and end-all of anyone's existence.

One consequence of this is that some gay people share most of the values of people who display strong hostility towards them. They may be strongly Christian or Muslim, or socially conservative; it must be wounding when they hear words of condemnation or mockery, but they persist in these antagonistic surroundings because they feel they have so many shared ideals.

And so I look back on my schooldays with a mind informed by experience and I realise that I almost certainly did know gay people then. I also remember the jokes told about homosexuals and how they were so often figures of fun, malice and fear.

I felt uncomfortable about the hostility this expressed, and soon stopped laughing at the jokes, but I didn't speak up to object, and I don't remember anyone else doing so: After all, people might have said that you were one of them, and who wanted that? How would young gay people have dared to reveal their true sexual feelings in those
circumstances? So they lived out a pretence, unable to be true to themselves.

It still happens, all around the world. If, in most societies, homosexuals largely seem to belong to a middle class or intellectual environment, it is because that is where they tend to be most readily accepted as the individuals that they are. Homosexuals who are poor and live in more socially conservative environments just become used to adopting a heterosexual facade, even entering into loveless
marriages that must often leave both partners unsatisfied and children disturbed at the sense of something missing in their parents' relationship.

I have no view one way or the other about homosexuality being right or wrong: It exists and it doesn't matter to me what consenting adults do in their private lives, providing it causes no harm to others. That is what reason says, regardless of religiously based prohibitions. I do have a definite view on lives being blighted and human happiness denied by the enforcement of codes of behaviour and values that force
many of those they target into living a lie: That is wrong - morally wrong, I believe.

I can only be sceptical of perspectives that, at no cost to those who embrace them, force upon others lives of self-denial and often loneliness, as well as varying degrees of estrangement from family, co-religionists and segments of their communities. While that happens, many people will go on knowing gay men and lesbian women, but not knowing that they do.

John Gee is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

ST: NUS don warns of 377A fallout (Oct 30)

Oct 30, 2007
NUS don warns of 377A fallout‏
By K. C. Vijayan

IF THE police, on a tip-off, raid a flat for suspected drug offenders and discover no drugs but gay sex instead, would they prosecute?

NUS law don Michael Hor says this scenario could arise from the government's stand that it would not be proactive in enforcing S377A.

'Does the non-enforcement policy cover this, for it might be argued that the police were not 'pro-active'?' he wrote in a new book of essays launched on Tuesday.

He cites a similar example in Texas, the United States, where the US Supreme Court had struck down a sodomy statute.

The book, titled ' Lives in the Law ', honours three luminaries in Singapore's legal academia - Mr Peter Ellinger, Ms Koh Kheng Lian and Mrs Tan Sook Yee -who recently retired from full-time appointments at the National University of Singapore's Law Faculty.

Jointly published by Academy Publishing and the NUS, the trio are described as 'Singapore's foremost experts in their specialised fields of study and teaching,'' by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong in his foreword to the book.

In his essay on the recent changes to the Penal Code, Professor Hor further argues there is also no indication that the policy of not prosecuting under the 377A will not change overnight and without prior notice.

After heated debate in and out of Parliament over changes to the Penal Code last week, Parliament retained 377A which outlaws homosexuality.

The government also indicated then it will not proactively enforce the section.

But Professor Hor notes that it is 'impossible to tell' if the courts are willing to hold the government from prosecuting against this declared policy.

Separately, another NUS law don has called for the courts to review aspects of entrapment in an essay on the issue of consent as interpreted under the Penal Code.

Professor Stanley Yeo plumbed for a practical approach to the issue of consent in cases involving entrapment, citing Professor Koh Kheng Lian, one of the three honorees of the book.

Prof Koh had said the law should be guided by 'what is fair or unfair conduct on the part of the entrapper in his efforts to entrap the defendant.'

Prof Yeo said it would be unfair to prosecute a homosexual, for example, if he was enticed by a police officer posing as a gay, since it was the latter who freely gave his consent to the former's advances.

'Instead of imposing a blanket rule that consent is irrelevant whenever it is secured by entrapment, fairness to the accused requires the courts' to study the facts of a particular case to see if consent had been freely given, he said.

Today: Gay Debate Crying out for the Majority Voice (Oct 30)

GAY DEBATE CRYING OUT FOR THE MAJORITY VOICE
Moderate views of most S’poreans needed to temper the vocal minority

DERRICK A PAULO
ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR
derrick@mediacorp.com.sg

NOW the Penal Code has been updated — with Section 377A left untouched — where does Singapore go from here on this issue of the law on sex between gay men? Certainly, it will remain an issue for years to come, and the situation here will evolve, if not in tandem with the rest of the world, then one step behind the frontline of change, as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last week in Parliament.

But how to evolve when two sides hold intractable positions? Those who have supported or opposed Section 377A have done so with great zeal and belief, which is unlikely to dim over time. Here is where and why this issue should not be debated, dominated and decided solely by a vocal minority on either side.

As Mr Lee pointed out, for the majority of Singaporeans, the issue is not at the top of their consciousness. For them, the attitude is live and let live. When the time comes for another opportunity to relook Section 377A, chances are this moderate attitude of the majority, as majority attitudes tend to be, will remain the prevalent view.

So, why not take ownership of an issue so that the debate and any decision better reflects the kind of society we are or want to be?

Of course, society will not be defined by one single issue, although that is precisely the scenario that lobby groups in the United States try to paint, as pointed out last week by Senior Minister of State Dr Balaji Sadasivan.

In Singapore, whether society disintegrates because of the change in a single law or whether a wave of all things immoral becomes an inexorable tide is surely in the hands of the majority. Likewise, whether Singapore is seen as an unjust place will be determined by the entire spectrum of laws and not by one law, as well as how those laws are enforced.

For the gay community, naturally, Section 377A is the law that probably counts more than others, even though the Government has said it will not proactively enforce this law.

The reason is simple enough, and it has to do with the politics of identity.

Gays may not be considered a minority by the State in the way non-Chinese ethnic groups are considered minorities in Singapore but gays are equally citizens, and as Mr Lee said, they are kith and kin. But gays feel they are citizens who are, by definition, immediate criminals. It is true the law does not criminalise gays, but gay sex. However, if we accept that it is only human to seek a loving relationship, which includes intimacy and sex, then clearly Section 377A impacts the identity of a gay person as a Singapore citizen.

But while this is the reality of Section 377A, the reality is also that abolishing it is not enough for the gays. Identity also comes with full acceptance by other Singaporeans, which is what the gay community wants. On the other side of the fence, those who fervently support Section 377A, most of whom are from religious groups, are also looking for affirmation. Through public policy, they are looking for affirmation of their views, which by extension would be an affirmation of the relevance of their respective religions in the direction the country takes. To them, keeping or abolishing Section 377A would reflect this relevance.

These issues are at the crux of the debate, but have been given short shrift so far. The majority has to decide what sort of affirmation gays ought to get as Singapore citizens and what weight religion should have in Singapore’s governance and the policies it should bear upon. Most importantly, the majority should decide the tenor of the debate on Section 377A. Whether the majority agrees or disagrees on the repealing of the law, as the debate continues, the majority should take ownership of how it is conducted and, at the very least, take a stand against remarks deriding groups on either side.

Singapore has prided itself on its social harmony and the cohesion it has built. Heated though this issue has been, it has not descended to the level seen in the US, where lives have been ruined and lost because of differences on this issue.

However, we are beginning to see in Singapore instances of parties from both sides having their employment questioned, as TODAY reported last week. This ought to be nipped in the bud. When inflammatory remarks creep into the debate, whether in the highest platform such as Parliament or the coffeeshop, the majority must begin to drown them out. This should be how Singapore differentiates itself from the rest of the world, even if we remain one step behind the frontline of change.

Siew Kum Hong: The great tragedy of Section 377A (Oct 30)

The great tragedy of Section 377A

That is the title I wish ST had used, for my piece last Friday 26 October. They had asked me to write something for them, on "take-aways" from the entire debate. I agreed to do so, on a few conditions:

- that there be only grammatical/formatting edits to what I submit
- that I have final approval
- that it not become a "me vs her" thing between myself and Thio Li-Ann, and that they convey this to her

ST agreed to the above, and suggested a couple of topics:

"What united nation? In the light of the 377A debate, is consensus possible, and if not what do we do about it"

and

"The lessons on engagement I've learnt from this debate"

I wasn't really interested in spending 800 words to explore either topic, mainly because I did not want it to be a "me vs her" thing. I felt that the media had tried to play up that angle a bit too much. While we disagree (and I guess we disagree very strongly), I have no wish to let it become a personal thing -- the only people to benefit from that would be the media.

So I deliberately chose not to proceed along those lines, as it would invariably have involved criticising or rebutting Thio's speech. I did not want to do that, because to me, our speeches speak, and have to speak, for themselves. There was no need for me to extend it further outside Parliament. As it turns out, many others, such as Janadas Devan and innumerous bloggers, have taken it upon themselves to do so anyway.

In any case, my "take-aways" from the entire experience were not really about all this stuff about "consensus" and "engagement". We (i.e. those who supported repeal) engaged with society and with Parliament, and we did so according to the rules, in a manner that I felt was highly principled and civil.

That was enough for me. That was the mark of democracy at work. We took the high road, and we came through with our heads held high. We didn't succeed in repealing Section 377A, but I think we succeeded in many other aspects. As Alex Au so astutely explains, there is a lot for repeal supporters to celebrate.

So I did not want to play ST's game. Instead, my real "take-aways" were about understanding gay people better, about what Section 377A really meant to so many of them and their families, and about the humbling effect of so many people -- all strangers -- showing so much support for such a difficult cause. How ironic, that my stand purely on principle, without really having been exposed to these aspects directly, had led to this as well.

That's why I wrote this piece the way I did. It was easy to write, because I wrote from the heart. And just like my speech, it speaks for itself. The truth always does.

ABC Radio Australia: Singapore's parliament has decided against a proposal to decriminalise sex between consenting gay men (Oct 29)

Singapore's parliament has decided against a proposal to decriminalise sex between consenting gay men.

The proposal was pitched as part of a wider reform of sections of the penal code deemed outdated, some of which dating back to British colonial rule.

Alex Au, Singapore businessman and gay rights activist spoke to Radio Australia's Connect Asia, he says the vote means Singapore's anti-gay legislation, 377A will remain in force.

"They have promised that it will not be enforced 'pro-actively', and I'm quoting those words from them," he said.

Rights activists had compiled a petition in support of decriminalisation.

"We had something like 2,500 physical signatures on paper collected just over a weekend. And it was a petition presented to parliament through a gay-friendly member of parliament, and it forced parliament to debate the issue, when it could so easily have skirted it," he said.

"In fact parliament devoted two days for debate on the amendments to the penal code and that's various things on the penal code from marital rape, to murder, to theft and so on and so forth. But in fact, most of the members of parliament who rose to speak touched on the subject of 377A. So basically, the subject dominated procedures in parliament for two whole days," he said.

Parliament has however now made it legal for heterosexuals to engage in a variety of sexual practices that were previously banned.

"That was what really was the cause of much dissatisfaction in the gay community that the parliament has now decided that sodomy, oral and anal sex shall be legal from this point on in Singapore, so long as one partner is male and the other partner is female. But the same kind of acts between two male persons will still be punishable by jail terms," he said.


You can hear the full story at the Connect Asia website: http://radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia

Today Weekend: Gaynomics The H question Hu's headache (Oct 27)

Gaynomics The H question Hu's headache

Weekend • October 27, 2007

P N Balji
Christie Loh
Rosnah Ahmad

ONE thing is for sure. The Parliamentary debate on Section 377A, which makes sex between homosexuals a crime, is not the end of the story. The issue will come up for public airing again when morality is confronted with money.

The PM's speech, which tried to strike a nice balance between allowing gays space and appeasing the religious and conservative groups that this space will be managed, told something else about policy making.

When it comes to moral issues, the Government will prefer to be below the curve but for others, like the economy and education, it will lead the curve.

What if the morality and economic lines become blurred, like it happened in the casino debate? Well, the answer is there for all to see in Sentosa and Marina Bay.

So, like with many things in Singapore, the Minister Mentor might be proven right after all. Get ready for gaynomics.

TO HEDGE or not to hedge? Poor Mr Wee Sing Guan. The former finance director of SembCorp Marine has just discovered the heavy price of using derivatives to act as buffers against sudden price fluctuations.

His bigger gamble was to do it without permission. And so SembMarine joins Barings Bank, China Aviation Oil and Mitsui to come under the public glare because their executives predicted wrongly what the price could be over a certain period.

Had a right call been made, those companies — like SIA — would have booked huge profits or savings.

But the beauty of hedging often doesn't come easy. The risk can be high, especially when multi-million dollars are involved.

Until SembMarine offers more information, bystanders will be wondering why the US$248 million ($361 million) losses, exceeding the publicly-listed, Temasek-linked company's profits last year, went unnoticed. And for how long?

Yet another bitter lesson for Corporate Singapore to learn that blind trust, especially in a single person, can spell disaster. No hedging on this anymore, please.

DIG a little deeper into the background of the line-up that has been handpicked to run tomorrow's China, and a little detail sticks out. Eighteen of the 25 members of the ruling elite, the Politburo, had worked in the provinces, suggesting that President Hu Jintao's focus will be now on tightening central control.

Mr Hu has been uneasy with the rise of these little provincial chieftains, who had shown signs of being power-hungry and reluctant to follow central government rules. They pushed enterprise at any price — even if it meant polluted factories and a lack of healthcare programmes. After all, their promotions were tied to their provinces' growth.

The Wall Street Journal says that by packing the new Politburo with former provincial leaders, Mr Hu is signalling that he is likely to take back even more powers from local governments in the next five years. And he must be hoping that his new Politburo members will provide the balm to ease the headache.

ST Forum: Discrimination enshrined in law (Oct 27)

Oct 27, 2007
Discrimination enshrined in law

PARLIAMENT'S decision not to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, a law criminalising gay sex, is a sad day for Singapore.

Prior to the Penal Code review, it was a criminal offence for anyone, including heterosexuals, to engage in anal and oral sex. But now we have seen it fit to modify that particular law that once applied to everyone equally to make it apply only to homosexual men.

This is not staying one step behind other countries on this issue. This is taking one step back. It is a black day for Singapore. It makes a mockery of the Pledge we learnt from young, pledging ourselves as 'one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality...'.

We have, instead, given in to pressure from vocal religious groups.

Singapore would have stronger moral grounds to stand on if it had simply left the section in question intact. At least, then, the so-called 'conservative values' would be protected for all of society.

Now, discrimination against a minority group is enshrined in law.

One thing good that has come out of this debate is that it exposed the hypocrisy of those who urged the retention of Section 377A.

If oral and anal sex between two men, which Nominated MP Thio Li-Ann so graphically painted in Parliament with much disgust and mockery, is immoral, an abomination and carries grave social costs, then the right thing to do is to leave the Penal Code alone. Why change it to make this 'disgusting' act perfectly fine for heterosexuals but still a crime for homosexuals?

Love the sinner, hate the sin, so they say. But down the road, one day, a kind and caring homosexual could become the victim of a hate crime because, in the eyes of his attacker, he is a criminal under the Penal Code and a threat to the moral fabric of our society.

Wong Suan Yin

DOUBLE STANDARDS

Why change the law to make oral and anal sex perfectly fine for heterosexuals but still a crime for homosexuals?

ST: Your Insights (Oct 27)

Oct 27, 2007
Your Insights

Last week, we asked for your take on the debate over Section 377A of the Penal Code. We received 119 responses - 80 arguing to keep the law, 32 wanting it repealed and seven who did not pick a side. Here are some of the responses:

'AFTER a good and level-headed debate, I would say: To each his own conscience. The solution: status quo ante.' MR WINSTON CHIN, in an SMS

'SINGAPORE is largely made up of conservative people. The law and policies of this country are made to serve the needs of such people. Conservative people are against homosexual relationships, and therefore it is only right that Section 377A is upheld in Singapore.' MR ALOYSIUS LAI, in an e-mail

'THE challenge facing gay men here is not the law, but society's standards of what constitutes decent activity. Repealing the law would open the door to other forms of indecent behaviour beyond gay sex. Instead of repealing a law to the detriment of everyone, the gay community should concentrate their efforts on convincing the rest of society that gay sex is not an act of gross indecency.'
MR BENJAMIN KONG, in an e-mail

'WHY should two people who want to spend their lives together in a responsible and monogamous relationship be even thought of as criminals?' MADAM JOAN WONG, in an e-mail

'I STILL think that we should not force or impose a set of moral ideology and values on homosexuals, as it will hurt their feelings and deepen any existent distrust between them and the mainstream society. Instead, we should give more space for gay activist groups to express their views freely and gradually monitor their social activities, in order to get a better and deeper understanding of the economic contributions of their activities to society.' MR TEO KUEH LIANG, in an e-mail

ST: Thinking Aloud: 377A debate and the rewriting of pluralism (Oct 27)

Oct 27, 2007
THINKING ALOUD
377A debate and the rewriting of pluralism
By Janadas Devan

I CONFESS: I found the parliamentary debate on Section 377A of the Penal Code exceedingly depressing. It is no fun at all finding oneself holding a view - I believe the provision is odious and should be scrapped - with so little support.

Of the 82 PAP MPs, only 3-1/2 expressed views that resembled mine – Mr Charles Chong, Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Baey Yam Keng. The half was Ms Indranee Rajah, who suggested 377A might be scrapped at some point, only not in this century. Her citation of how long it took to end slavery suggested we might have to wait roughly 2,500 years.

Of the nine NMPs, only one, Mr Siew Kum Hong, who presented the citizens' petition calling for the repeal of 377A, stood up for homosexuals. And among the three opposition MPs, none did.

My depression was infinitely deepened when I read NMP Thio Li-Ann's parliamentary phillipic - entitled Two Tribes Go To (Culture) War – as well as her Insight article yesterday. She was brilliant, incisive, learned, witty and civil. The 'moral conservative majority' has found a formidable warrior - notice that 'War'; and my side - the immoral liberal minority? - was left looking stupid, speechless, confused, sour-faced and uncivil.

Consider how she tore to shreds so many of our cherished beliefs. The idiots that we are, we had believed 'pluralism' meant, among other things, 'autonomy and retention of identity for individual bodies', a 'society in which the members of minority groups maintain their independent cultural traditions', 'a system that recognises more than one ultimate principle or kind of being', as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it.

But we were wrong. 'Democratic pluralism,' Prof Thio wrote incisively yesterday, 'welcomes every view in public discussion, but does not commit the intellectual fallacy of saying every view is right. The goal is to ascertain the right view for the circumstances.

' That means that under certain circumstances - to be determined by whatever passes
for the majority at any moment, I suppose - pluralism can insist on a singular 'ultimate principle or kind of being'.

We silly fellows had also misunderstood the nature of secularism. We had thought it meant separation of religion from the state, politics and public policy. We were wrong. As Prof Thio explained trenchantly in her 'culture war' speech: 'Religious views are part of our common morality. We separate 'religion' from 'politics' but not 'religion' from 'public policy' (emphasis mine).

I never knew that! I had always assumed that it was necessary to separate religion from politics as well as public policy, for it was impossible to separate public policy from politics, and both from the state. But it turns out my assumption was baseless.

Jawaharlal Nehru, a Brahmin who insisted on untouchability being banned in the Indian Constitution despite the opposition of many caste Hindus, simply did not understand a thing about secularism. Bishop Desmond Tutu, a Methodist who insisted that discrimination against homosexuals be prohibited in the South African Constitution, was similarly clueless. And all those Enlightenment chaps in powdered wigs who insisted on the separation of church and state in the United States - in part, because there was no 'common morality' among religions - well, silly fellows, they knew nothing.

Yes, I must admit, Prof Thio demolished my side with astonishing ease. First, her big guns - pluralism is not plural; secularism can be religiously informed - left us limbless. Then, equally impressively, the cultural warrior sliced and diced us with her rapier wit and uncommon civility. We were finally left with our torsos tossed into ideological ditches and our heads stuck on cultural pikes.

'To say a law is archaic is merely chronological snobbery,' she thundered, referring to 377A. That sent me reeling. So original! So conclusive! So brilliant!

'Chronological snobbery' was first coined by Owen Barfield and C.S. Lewis, two eminent British popular theologians. It first appeared inprint, I think, in Lewis' moving spiritual autobiography, Surprised By Joy. Lewis and Barfield coined it to stigmatise modern 'intellectual fashions' that they thought consigned unfairly religious faith to a seemingly unregenerate past.

Prof Thio, a most learned person, must have known of the origin of this phrase in theological controversy, and she brilliantly extended it to the law. And if one linked this extension to the profound truths she uncovered about public policy in a secular state, one would see how her stigmatisation of 'chronological snobbery' can be extended further still. All those in favour of teaching 'intelligent design' alongside Darwin's theory of evolution in schools, raise your hands. Done! Education Ministry, please take note.

Then there was her wit, deployed so civilly. Anal sex is like 'shoving a straw up your nose to drink', she said. A colleague of mine googled that and discovered it was an often cited image in American anti-gay pamphlets. To top that, she said 377A must be kept on the books so we can say 'Majullah Singapura', not 'Mundur Singapura'. If you did not get the joke, here is a clue: Mundur means 'backward' in Malay, and 'backward' here alludes to that 'straw' and another orifice. See? Now, isn't that funny?

Oh, I cried when I read that. Imagine that: The moral conservative majority makes better vulgar jokes than the immoral liberal minority - and in Parliament too. If the immoral minority cannot beat the moral majority even in this department, we are really and truly kaput.

What sent me into shock was the discovery that Singapore is actually the US. I am referring to Prof Thio's sources of inspiration. Google 'culture war' and you will discover them.

The term was made famous by Mr Patrick Buchanan, a right-wing conservative (many would say zealot) who challenged former president George H.W. Bush, a moderate, for the Republican presidential nomination in 1992. At the Republican convention that year, Mr Buchanan alarmed many Americans by declaring: 'There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.'

Once one understands the milieu from which this statement issues, one would understand the origins of Prof Thio's profound understanding of pluralism and secularism. It does not derive from the Enlightenment or from contemporary Europe or Asia. It derives from the American religious right. It is they who insist pluralism cannot ultimately be plural; it is they who demand public policy be informed by religious beliefs.

And all but a few thumped their seats when Prof Thio finished her speech? They must have missed the radical - yes, radical and extreme - nature of her claims. One person who did not, I think, was Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. My colleague Chua Mui Hoong reported he did not thump his seat.

That lifted my depression somewhat. I did not like one bit the upshot of the Prime Minister's speech - that 377A will stay because the majority, especially Christians and Muslims, are opposed to its scrubbing. But I was proud of what he had to say, and how he said it.

There are 'limits', he said, for homosexuals in Singapore. But there would be limits too, in how religious beliefs are applied in the policing of homosexuals. Section 377A will not be applied 'proactively' , he said - meaning, it will be inoperative.

Mr Stuart Koe, chief executive of gay Asian portal Fridae.com, was wrong to liken 377A to a gun being put to the heads of homosexuals and not pulling the trigger. There is a gun, it remains symbolically loaded, but it has been laid down.

For that - a small victory - we have to thank old-fashioned pluralism, not Prof Thio's radical rewriting of it. Some of us - our children, our friends, our siblings - have different sexual orientations, so let's give them space.

For the rest - well, we will have to wait, but hopefully, not for 2,500 years.

janadas@sph.com.sg

ST Review: Debate an example of democracy at work by Siew Kum Hong (Oct 26)

Oct 26, 2007
Debate an example of democracy at work

They were the two Nominated MPs who stood out in Parliament this week. Lawyer Siew Kum Hong was instrumental in putting forward a citizens' petition to repeal Section 377A, a law that deems sex between men a crime. Law professor Thio Li-Ann spoke passionately against it. The two NMPs penned their thoughts after the debate, exclusively for Insight.

By Siew Kum Hong

MY SPEECH on Monday will probably be the speech of my career. I put my all into it, because I believe passionately in what I said.

That night, my overwhelming emotion was relief that it was over. But the relief was accompanied with sorrow, because it continues for so many others. That is the great tragedy of Section 377A.

I sat in Parliament on Tuesday, listening to the Prime Minister explain why Section 377A will be retained. Even though I continue to believe Section 377A should be repealed, I am heartened by his speech.

The Prime Minister took pains to acknowledge the contributions of the gay community, their need for private space, and the importance of not making things unnecessarily difficult for them. It was probably as much as anyone could have asked, short of a repeal.

His speech was fair, balanced and realistic. It will go a long way towards ensuring the debate - which will inevitably continue – remains on an even keel, and will hopefully temper the more extreme elements on each side.

The Prime Minister was probably right when he said most people were not seized by the issue. Certainly, as Mr Baey Yam Keng pointed out, many people did not really understand what it was about.

That is why it was important to have this debate. The parliamentary petition enabled the pro-repeal perspective to be put forward for people to consider. The undecided majority can hear both sides and make up their minds. Indeed, a friend who had previously opposed repeal told me that after reading the speeches, he had changed his mind and would actually sign the petition now.

And the petition allowed the voice of a politically disenfranchised group to be heard. In a democracy, surely that is important.

While homosexuality may not be in the mainstream (and I'm not so sure about that), it is indisputable that the pro-repeal argument is a firmly mainstream, albeit minority, view, not just one held by gays. The broad-based support for the petition demonstrated that.

For engagement to be civil, participants need to respect the common ground rules and the integrity of the process, while agreeing to disagree on the substantive issues. It is a critical part of a secular, democratic society.

Some repeal opponents have told me they appreciated the distinction between the substance and the process. All this shows that the vast majority of Singaporeans do believe in civil engagement, even on issues of morality where consensus is difficult.

That was in stark contrast to those suggesting that the issue has polarised society. I think the fault lines, if any, have always existed. It was more a question of their becoming apparent.

But such statements risk being self-fulfilling prophecies. The more people harp on polarisation, the more likely it becomes. Some journalists have been particularly guilty of such attempts to sensationalise the debate.

As we got closer to the parliamentary sitting, I began to decline media requests in that vein. While the media is and should be free to report stories as it deems appropriate, I was nevertheless disappointed at the apparent agenda of certain journalists.

Activists on both sides will continue to advocate their position. And that is proper, because that is also what democracy is about.

I have been immensely humbled in the past two weeks, both by the tremendous support shown by so many, and by my increased understanding of what gays go through.

I have gay acquaintances, but I do not have gay family members or close friends. I agreed to present the petition out of principle. But as the online open letter drew more and more signatures, as hateful comments started flying around, I understood so much better the human cost exacted by Section 377A.

I believe that, as society as a whole gains greater understanding of and familiarity with gays, its views will shift. And I am glad the Government's nuanced position allows for this possibility.

Many surveys have consistently shown young people to be more accepting of homosexuals, and the acceptance level has increased over time. Last month, The Straits Times reported that only 30 per cent of youth surveyed felt homosexuality is wrong.

And Straits Times journalist Tessa Wong wrote about how she was brought up in a conservative background, but realised that homosexuality was not intrinsically wrong after knowing a gay friend better. Such stories give me hope.

It is now time to move on. I have presented the petition, and Parliament has debated and passed the Bill. While I disagree with the result, we live in a democracy, and that is how the democratic process works. There are other issues to raise, other goals to advance. The
Government has a country to run.

Section 377A will surely resurface at some point. My hope is that all participants will remain civil, and focus on the issue at hand as a secular democracy. That will ensure that even as people disagree on their moral positions, society remains a cohesive whole. And it will demonstrate, again, that there is democracy in Singapore, and it works.

Today: Voices: Disgusting, the way MPs are being threatened and humiliated (Oct 26)

Disgusting, the way MPs are being threatened and humiliated

Friday • October 26, 2007

Letter from TAN YAN CHONG

I refer to the article "Gay debate takes ugly turn" (Oct 25) which reported that some parliamentarians and members of the public have received hate mail following the debate on repealing Section 377A of the Penal Code.

The Section 377A debate is a sensitive issue and is by no means an easy topic to discuss.

I applaud the Members of Parliament (MPs) for fulfilling their mandate and speaking out on behalf the public — those for and against the issue. However, it now seems that our parliamentarians have become victims of the debate.

I am disgusted that some members of the public have threatened and humiliated the MPs who have spoken up about the issue, and even gone as far as to question the MPs' sexuality.

I hope that our MPs will not be deterred by this incident and will continue to speak out for ordinary citizens. It is clear from this unfortunate episode that there are no winners or losers, only victims.

The China Post: Taiwan gays blast Singapore over anti-gay law (Oct 25)

Thursday, October 25, 2007

TAIPEI, Taiwan -- Gay rights activists in Taiwan condemned Tuesday Singapore's retention of a law discriminating against homosexuals Tuesday.

"This shows how conservative Singapore or at least Prime Minister Lee Hsieng Loong is because he defines family only as made up by a heterosexual couple," Wang Ping, Secretary-General of the Taiwan Gender Sexuality Rights Association, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.

"Singapore's act is open discrimination against homosexuals because it says a sexual act is legal for certain people, but illegal for others. Taiwan homosexuals, as a member of the world gay community, expresses our strongest condemnation," she said.

Taiwan's gay rights activists Chi Chia-wei also blasted Singapore's retention of the penal code's Section 377A as a step backward.

"Singapore had the chance to keep up with the times, but it chose not to. It is a great pity," he said.

Chi refuted Singaporean Lee Hsien Loong's claim that Singapore cannot abolish Section 377A because it does not want homosexuals to set the tone of mainstream society.

"If one is a homosexual, one is. If one isn't, one isn't. Amending the law cannot turn heterosexuals into homosexuals," he said.

Wang and Chi were responding to Singapore's legalization of oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples on Tuesday while retaining a law criminalizing intercourse between gay men.

In its first major penal code amendment in 22 years, Singapore's parliament kept penal code's Section 377A which makes sex between men a criminal offense, despite calls from gay rights activists and supporters to abolish the law.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong supported the retention of Section 377A, saying Singapore remains a conservative society - with the traditional family as its main building bloc -- and homosexuals cannot set the tone for mainstream society.

Abolishing the law could "send the wrong signal" and encourage gay activists to seek more concessions, such as same-sex marriage and parenting, he said.

TODAY: Gay debate takes ugly turn (Oct 25)

Gay debate takes ugly turn

But a few black sheep in cyberspace do not mean S'poreans can't hold a mature dialogue: Analysts

Thursday • October 25, 2007

Ansley Ng
ansley@mediacorp.com.sg

THE Parliamentary debate on the law against gay sex will be remembered for its fiery, heart-felt spirit. But outside the House, passions — among both supporters and opponents of Section 377A — have, at times, degenerated into spite.

There were threatening, expletive-laced emails. One parliamentarian had his sexuality questioned. Another academic was flamed in blogs and had her phone number circulated.

And the employer of one gay professional was questioned about their hiring him.

The ugly turn of events, some may say, is only to be expected given the emotional nature of the subject matter — one that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had warned on Tuesday could polarise society.

But a bigger question being asked is: What do such instances say of Singaporeans' ability to debate issues maturely, and without hostility?

In Parliament on Monday, Nominated MP Thio Li-ann recounted how a colleague received threatening emails following the publication of an article in The Straits Times in May, after reforms to the Penal Code were mooted.

Assistant Professor Yvonne Lee had commented that it was wrong to decriminalise homosexual acts. For a month after, people, including young lawyers and students, wrote to the dean criticising her.

Her photo was posted on blogs and her phone number circulated. She received emails — "80 per cent of them abusive" — asking if she was a "fundamentalist" who would discriminate against homosexual students.

"It was a professional attack, intimidation and harassment," Asst Prof Lee told Today.

Professor Thio herself was "shell-shocked" and made a police report after receiving an abusive email in August from an unnamed stranger who threatened to defile her grave on the day Section 377A was repealed.

"If it was just a rude letter, I'd let it slip. But this really overstepped things," the law lecturer told Today.

In the opposing camp, fellow NMP Siew Kum Hong, who presented a public petition to scrap the law against gay sex, had his sexuality questioned.

"When you are a public figure taking a position on a public issue, you have to accept that some people will not be mature enough to refrain from such things," said Mr Siew, a lawyer.

"It bothers me but I just got past it and carried on. I don't want to dignify their comments."

The organisers of the Repeal377A.com campaign — who, in a statement yesterday, said they were "deeply disappointed" by the decision to keep the law — told Today that hate messages were posted on their website. "That's what the gay community experiences as part of their lives — derogatory slurs," a spokesman said.

Indeed, one employee at a large government-linked company learnt, a few months ago, that an anonymous letter had been sent to senior management, asking why they employed a gay person.

"I was really shocked. I'm not a closet gay but I don't show off my sexuality at work. I'm there to work, not advocate gay rights; I'm a professional. Honestly, I felt very violated," he said.

To him, the incident suggests there is "a lot of fear" that legalising consensual gay sex would cause societal disintegration. "When there is fear, it can lead to viciousness."

MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC Baey Yam Keng, however, said that while some were not pleased at his speaking up for homosexuals, no one had been outright abusive so far.

One email sender vowed not to vote for him in the next election. Another asked if he was "naive or blind".

Said Mr Baey: "For these kind of emotional issues, there will be skewed positions taken. But it's healthy to have these two opposing views — albeit some being extreme about it — rather than not talk about the issue."

He feels such debates raise awareness among the uninformed, which feeds into an even more robust discussion.

But Prof Thio asked: "Can we promise ourselves that we will not resort to deception or shouting at each other, but focus on facts and issue? Even if we disagreed, can we disagree in a civil fashion?"

On Sunday, Dr Balaji Sadasivan, Senior Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Information, Communications and the Arts), had called for tolerance of differences on Section 377A. The challenge, he had warned, was in preventing diversity from descending into "divisive antagonism", as it has in the United States.

Such polarisation was unlikely to happen in Singapore, said Dr Terence Chong, a fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Citizens by and large have shown that they are capable of civil and passionate debate – both in and outside of parliament – despite the actions of a few anonymous "black sheep" in cyberspace, he noted.

"The overall tone of the debate has been civil. It would be naïve for anyone to want passionate debate without any name-calling at all. And it would be very unfair to point to a small group of people who send hate mail and say we are not capable of a mature debate," said Dr Chong.