ST Forum: MPs should be able to speak their minds freely (Nov 10)

ST Forum: MPs should be able to speak their minds freely

I WAS shocked and saddened to read of another threat being made against Nominated MP Thio Li-ann. A mark of real progress for our nation is when Members of Parliament, whether elected or nominated, can speak their minds on issues without being abused or threatened. Speaking for retaining Section 377A might have put Prof Thio in the
spotlight but she is not a one-issue person. She has, in fact, ably articulated views on other subjects, both in Parliament and in articles published by The Straits Times and academic journals. In many ways, she is a fine example of a person with a good mind and a clear voice whom we should encourage and support to enrich public discourse and help to define the content of our common good.

Any MP - and any thoughtful Singaporean - should be free to share his views without fear or favour, and none of them should be subject to any threat. Threats and bullying tactics are usually associated with gangsters, desperate people and tyrants in their attempt to silence good people and dismiss sound arguments.

Daniel Koh Kah Soon

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

ST Forum: NMP Thio must also address abortion and death sentence in order not to be branded a hypocrite (Nov 10)

Nov 10, 2007
NMP Thio must also address abortion and death sentence in order not to be branded a hypocrite

THANK you for presenting Dr Thio Li-ann's case on the repeal of Section 377A to the public, 'A fiery NMP gets her baptism of fire' by Ms Li Xueying (ST, Nov 2).

I think Dr Thio is right to express her moral position on this issue. However, I think a lot of the negative reaction she is getting may stem from the fact that she is perceived to be solely targeting the homosexual community with her views on sexual licentiousness and gross indecency. As sexual licentiousness is a problem afflicting all genders and sexualities, Dr Thio must be equally outraged about
unnatural and immoral acts among heterosexuals as well, all of which are not criminal acts in Singapore, such as:

1. Oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples (after all, this is
also akin to 'drinking with a straw through the nose' and must be
equally repugnant to her).

2. Adultery between heterosexual couples.

3. Premarital sex.

4. Prostitution.

5. Masturbation.

7. Sex between lesbian couples.

When your journalist, Ms Li, asked her about her views on other moral issues, she gave a rather vague reply. As Dr Thio believes policy making in Singapore should be guided by some form of morality, and has made a stand on sex between homosexuals, suggesting that what is morally unacceptable to her should be considered a criminal act, she must make equally strong stands on the abovementioned issues. These are sins of equal magnitude in Christianity, all of which are as detrimental to family values as homosexuality. Unless she makes fervent calls for the criminalisation of these directly related issues, she may well seem to the public to have double standards, and a hypocritical viewpoint, and to be a homophobic 'hate-mongerer', bullying only a particular segment of the community.

In order not to be perceived as a hypocrite, Dr Thio must also address abortion and the death sentence, as Christianity does not condone killing another human being. These are far more important moral issues than homosexuality, and I hope that as our NMP, she will not be, in her own words, a 'lousy friend', or in this case, a 'lousy
citizen' or 'lousy NMP' by keeping silent on these issues, and make known her views with even greater fervour and directness. Remaining silent and/or equivocal on these issues will only affirm her detractors' worst criticisms.

Peter Lee Peng Eng

ST Online Forum: Sympathy for NMP threatened with harm (Nov 9)

Sympathy for NMP threatened with harm

I REFER to the article, 'NMP Thio files 2nd police report after getting threat' (ST, Nov 8). I am sorry that Prof Thio Li-ann has to endure harassment from threats issued under the cloak of anonymity. I was impressed by Prof Thio's speech in Parliament against repealing Section 377A of the Penal Code, a law criminalising gay sex.

I admire her courage in speaking up for the many (especially those with young children) who are petrified at the prospect of an uncertain, unfamiliar social setting without S377A. I thank her for speaking up for my family, my friends and others who wished we could fight our case as eloquently and passionately.

Like Mr Stuart Koe, co-organiser of the unsuccessful petition to repeal S377A, I hope that the culprits will be brought to justice.

Lim Su-Fern (Ms)

Women's Nite - November 2007

SEX.

'nuff said.

So come. Whether you are single or attached, join us this Women's Nite as we discuss everyone's most talked-about topic.

***

Women's Nite November 2007
Saturday 24th Nov, 7pm
Venue (in Singapore) will be disclosed upon registration.

Limited to 30 invites, so please register with your full name, contact number, the full name/s of your guests, if any, and the type of halal food or drink you would be contributing to the potluck.

Although Women's Nite is open to women of all orientations, please let us know if you are straight, or are bringing along straight guests, so that we can be sensitive to the needs of all women present.

Please send your details to women.snite@gmail.com [women dot snite at gmail dot com]

Registration closes at midnight 23rd Nov 2007.

***

About Women's Nite

Women's Nite provides a safe, neutral and alcohol-free space for lesbians and bisexual women in Singapore to discuss the issues relevant to their lives.

The event, held on the last Saturday of every month, was started in December 2003. Over a potluck dinner, we hold discussions on wide-ranging topics like self-acceptance, homophobia, relationships and identity. We also invite special guests to field questions on legal issues and sexual health, and conduct art and dance therapy nights.

To check out the past months' events, or find out more, please go to http://women_snite.livejournal.com

To get email updates on each month's event, please visit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/women_snite/ to join our mailing list.

TODAY: Protect Open Discussion (Nov 8)

PROTECT OPEN DISCUSSION

Phobia of openness
Letter from HO KONG LOON

I REFER to the report, “NMP Thio gets threatening note” (Nov 7).

The threats against Professor Thio Li-ann, following her speech in Parliament on keeping the Section 377A law on homosexual sex, is simply uncivilised behaviour.

It appears that someone out there has a phobia of discussing a contentious issue rationally, calmly and openly.

A vigorous exchange of views would lead to better and more rounded perceptions of the issues discussed.

...

Avoid law changes to prevent violence
Letter from RACHAEL NG LAY BEE

IT IS unacceptable that NMP Thio, or anyone who voices his or her opinion, should be threatened in such a manner.

I urge the police to look into the issue.

If Singapore is not ready for open and responsible debate, then a wise decision would be to keep the status quo for all current laws to prevent the polarisation of society and any outburst of violence.

...

How well are public figures protected?
Letter from AMY ANG

I WOULD like to know what safety precautions are in place for public figures under such circumstances.

And what is the Government’s take on the threats against Prof Thio?