Invitation: For TOC reporters’ personal account of their experience in covering the Aware EOGM, please visit TOC Facebook Group.
By Cherian George
Pictures by Damien Chng and Kenneth Tham
The battle for control of Aware can be a learning experience for civil society activists and the wider public. There are at least three lessons to reflect on: the brand of secularism that works for Singapore; the type of representation that civil society organisations should offer; and the level of transparency and accountability that the public deserve from such groups.
Secularism
Some may view the outcome of the Aware showdown as a triumph over religious values and then – depending on their standpoint – either despair or gloat. But, this would be a wrong reading of events and only set the stage for more confrontational encounters.
The battle for Aware should be seen instead as a struggle over how – not whether – to insert faith-based values into public life. While there are some societies that interpret secularism as delegitimising the entry of religious values into the public sphere, that has never been Singapore’s way. Secularism here acknowledges that many Singaporeans are spiritually oriented; it respects their right to inject faith-based words and actions into public life.
Crucially, however, the state stays separate and equidistant from the different religions. Even more crucially, when there are disagreements over public matters, Singaporean secularism cannot recognise religious arguments as a trump card. One could allow one’s reading of God’s will to dictate how one runs one’s own household or faith-based community (and even then only within the limits of the law); but God’s word cannot be the final word on how collective decisions are made in the public sphere.
People of a particular faith must therefore be able to translate their values into secular terms to the satisfaction of fellow citizens who do not share those values, or else accept graciously that their desires are, for the moment, incompatible with what the wider society wants.
The Aware battle was not between the profane and the sacred, but between those who understand Singaporean secularism and those who apparently do not. The concerted steps they took to subvert a secular organisation and rid its leadership of its traditional diversity showed that the insurgents did not want merely to be part of a conversation; they wanted to be the only voice.
When intolerant – and considerably more violent – voices have surfaced in other religious communities, the moderate mainstream had to rise up to reclaim the microphone, to assure themselves and their fellow citizens that their faith was entirely compatible with peaceful co-existence in a multicultural and democratic society. Similarly, one of the most positive outcomes of the Aware saga is the strong assertion by Singaporeans of faith and their religious leaders: we are here, our faith makes us and our society stronger, but we will not impose our values on others.
Representation
The Aware old guard accused the insurgents of not reflecting Singapore’s cultural diversity. The insurgents retorted that, compared with the liberal old guard, their conservative values were more representative of Singapore’s majority. Who was right? Both, probably. But, neither diversity nor representativeness is a necessary or sufficient criterion when assessing a civil society group.
First, while the expectation that a civil society organisation (CSO) should represent the majority view is superficially seductive, it is in fact fundamentally flawed. CSOs are not political parties, which must appeal to the majority to win elections. One of the chief values of CSOs is precisely that they fill the gaps left by political parties (and by the private sector), by serving causes that the majority may not embrace.
For example, the majority of Singaporeans would probably not go out of their way to improve the lives of strangers with disabilities. When voluntary welfare organisations work passionately for the interests of disabled, it would be rather perverse if we criticised them for not representing the views of most Singaporeans.
Indeed, if crude democratic logic were applied to gender issues, there would have been no Aware in the first place: when it was set up, most Singaporeans – men and women – held sexist views about the proper place of women and the abuses that they should endure quietly. That many CSOs are not representative is a fact, and a healthy one.
Still, some may wonder if society should tolerate CSOs that embrace seemingly far-out views. Again, it is important not to confuse CSOs with political parties. Electoral politics is more or less a zero-sum game. The winning party controls the government, which in turn monopolises certain powers and resources – including the powers to tax and to command the armed forces.
Civil society space is quite different. CSOs can gain influence, but have no power to set national policy. Furthermore, multiple CSOs can work within the same space simultaneously. Since a CSO has no monopoly over its area of work, it has no moral obligation to be representative in its values – or, for that matter, in its racial or religious composition. If others are fundamentally opposed to its direction, they can set up their own organisation.
CSOs face an inherent tension. On the one hand, they require a certain solidarity and unity of purpose if they are to overcome challenges. On the other hand, internal diversity can be a key strength: a group’s problem-solving capacity is enhanced when it is able to look at situations from multiple angles.
While it may be unfair and unrealistic to expect each CSO to reflect all colours of the rainbow, a CSO that aims to have national impact should certainly be outward-looking. An internally homogeneous community-based CSO is not a problem in itself; it should be judged by the friends it has. It deserves to be viewed with skepticism if it is unable to work with groups representing other communities. Fortunately, several faith-based and ethnic-based groups in Singapore have excellent records of working side by side with other groups, regardless of race, language or religion.
Transparency
Setting aside the substantive disagreements, the Aware saga offers lessons about civil society governance and process. What alarmed many neutral observers was the way the insurgents went about their plans.
Civil society groups that want influence and respect should be transparent in their dealings and be ready to account for themselves. It would be an understatement to say that the insurgents were unprepared for the intense public scrutiny they attracted.
They were secretive in their plan to take over Aware and coy about their intentions. Based on their public statements, it is still unclear how much they were motivated by a single issue: their opposition to Aware’s liberal stand on homosexuality. If this was their target all along, it does not speak well for them that they did not state it plainly and publicly at the outset.
If this was not their primary concern, then an even more troubling concern arises. Their allegations at the height of the dispute, that Aware had been promoting homosexuality to children and teens, smack of a cynical (but, sadly, historically effective) political ploy: win support from the masses by turning a marginalised minority into an object of fear.
In many societies, the tactic would have worked. Governments lacking in moral courage are known to side with intolerant forces when they whip up mass sentiment against minorities. Fortunately, it did not work here. The Ministry of Education’s measured and rational response took the wind out of the sails of the insurgents and exposed them as scaremongers.
The Government is not known to be sympathetic to the progressive agenda of Aware’s liberals. Perhaps the insurgents had hoped that dragging the school sexuality programme into the debate would prod the Government to take its side. If so, they miscalculated. If there is one thing that is stronger than its antipathy towards liberal values, it is the Government’s resistance to letting its power and prestige become tools in the hands of any lobby group, whatever its ideological complexion.
No doubt, the weekend’s events would have made the insurgents feel utterly misunderstood and underappreciated, as losing factions are wont to. They have nobody to blame but themselves. No matter how pure their intentions, their words and actions were patently out of place in Singaporean civil society.
Cherian George is an assistant professor at Nanyang Technological University’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information and a member of Maruah, the Singapore Working Committee for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism. Email: cherian@ntu.edu.sg.
—–
@eh, I agree wholeheartedly with all you’ve said, except for your very last sentence in this passage:
What is very outrageous here is the fact that a particular church of a particular denomination decides to silence a group that holds contradictory views to its own. … As a secular society, we should not, and cannot allow such a thing to happen.
I would argue that the word “secular” should be replaced with adjectives like “liberal”, “democratic or “tolerant”. The very same outrage would have been committed if an avowedly secular group tried to suppress the activities of a church or some other religious organization. In either scenario, you would have one group of citizens infringing the “civil interests” of others, in particular, their right to speak and act by the dictates of their conscience.
Also, I’d like to add that the principle of toleration is not founded simply on our desire for self-preservation within a plural, potentially fractious, society. It also has a positive aspect: we respect an individual’s dignity and capacity for self-determination when we permit her to pursue her own conception of the good life, even if we think she is mistaken. Only then do we recognize her as a morally responsible, autonomous person. It follows that a liberal society must, to a certain degree, accommodate a right to speak and do wrong.
just want to inform you all some key figures among the church leadership in Singapore supports Josie’s cause but not her actions. How shocking!
That is what you get when you put a whole bunch of women together in a psuedo position of authority. Drama more then a whole season of CSI.
Hi Eh,
I’ll try to reply to your comments in 3 parts. Hopefully TOC will allow them.
Part One…
Allow me to point out some discrepancies and align them to my perspective.
“ They are mostly based on religious texts, scriptures, oral traditions and derive their sole justification from these. ” :Eh.
I won’t say ‘sole’ but rather ‘main’. There is the Divine aspect to consider as well, that leads to eternal salvation.
“As such, between religion to religion, we have contradictory and conflicting values that range from daily life habits to moral systems. “: Eh.
Conflicting practises, not conflicting values. I cannot place value on a community that is still not yet being accepted into mainstream society. It is key to remember this.
“But the fact is that we are a plural society, made up of a largely diverse religious population.” :Eh.
It is good to keep to the focus of pluralism. This is why you do not see one religion trying to impose its ‘unfalsifiable’ interpretations on another, very unlike the imposition of the GLBT community, with its own derived-at ‘unflasifiable’ theology which you have also correctly pointed out that its framework is built not on ‘unfalsifiable texts’.
I agree that it cannot be classified a religion but I was making the point that it was advocating the acceptance of their ‘unflasifiable’ practices, in equal measure with one who espouses a mainstream religion. The conflict arises from here.
“… the only way a plural society could achieve stability is to be secular, i.e. resting its basis of governance and civil laws on common interests of the people.” : Eh.
Very true. So now we argue over the definition of ‘secular’. It does not mean the exclusion of religious considerations, or the cultural values, the traditional values, racial considerations and ethnic norms and practises. Secular cannot be allowed to tug at the foundations that supports the core values that make up the social fabric of a society.
It is perhaps good to note that a secular society in the Oriental Asian context is very different to the secular nature of the Western world where there is less emphasis on traditions and where there is a main common national identity, very much different from that of multi-mix Singapore.
Secular, in Singapore, has to be a mixture of all these considerations, to find a common ground, so to speak. And in Singapore, this common ground excludes the segment of society that believes in same-sex marriages and GLBT.
“Part 2…”
“ Aware is a liberal, secular organization, and it is established based on the belief in individual choices.” : Eh.
I have some questions based on this statement.
1. How liberal is ‘liberal’?. Are there ‘liberal’ differences between say, the Western community to the Asian community? What about liberalism in the racial context? We cannot deny that majority of Singaporeans are value and faith-driven. Equally so with racially, culturally and tradition-driven values.
2. How secular is ‘secular’ given the high-pressure force applied by the GLBT community supported by AWARE?
3. Why isn’t there a GLBT society to better represent them, instead of riding on the coat-tails of AWARE, just like the call for Josie to start a Pro-Life and Pro-Family Society of her own?
4. Why is “the belief in individual choices’ not applied to those who do not belong to the mainstream, who are faith-driven, value-driven etc? Excluding them is as good as going against the secular nature that is being preached.
“ Its role is very simple, to advocate for women’s civil rights in Singapore’s civil laws,” : Eh.
And Singapore’s civil law clearly does not cater to the GLBT community and its practises more than the mainstream segments of society. The nature by which AWARE has been advocating women’s right, cannot include the manner in which they have prepared their CSE programme. Placing the onus on parents to opt-out is a clear indication of subtle infiltration. It ought to have been an opt-in instead, if it wants to show that it is working within civil laws.
“ This is why it is important religious overtones must be absent in Aware’s functions and services.” : Eh.
This is debatable depending on which side of the interpretation of ‘Secular’ you are on. It is also debatable whether religious overtures do in fact play a part in the decision making process, depending on the religious inclinations of each member making these decisions.
“Every civil society organisation has a different agenda and different purpose” : Eh.
True, and most have remained within the realm and parameters of what they stand for. Unfortunately, AWARE’s agenda has seeped into mainstream society, and to put it bluntly, has infiltrated and corrupted young and innocent minds with its ‘falsified’ notion of right & wrong, and, normal & normal (no typo here).
“…it is not a national organisation.” : Eh.
Even so, it is behaving like one, whether intentionally or otherwise is subject to open discussion. What we cannot deny is the fact that some of its past members have sat on national institutions, no less the highest office in the land, Parliament. So the ‘national’ connection is inevitable. It is even more important for AWARE to realise this, and its undertakings must go on to reflect this important and precarious situation it has brought upon itself.
“Part 3“…
“I>The manner of taking over Aware is crucial here.” :Eh.
I have no quarrel with those who had been baying for blood regards the manner of takeover. I am on their side. However, the emphasis of the takeover, if we are to learn anything from it, is the underlying reason why the takeover had taken place.
On the one hand, we have a group of supporters painting it as an attempt by a religious group to conquer a non-religious group. On the other hand, we have another group of supporters believing the takeover is necessary to send a loud and clear signal that mainstream society is at risk of the ‘falsified’ notions that are being perpetuated by a non-religious body. Whether we think each one’s reason is valid or not to support their actions, the fact remains that something is not right. What is it that is not right?
So I agree with the statement that the takeover is crucial, only for us to understand why things played out the way it did. This is however, an incident-based episode that cannot be taken as a reflection of the general tolerance level of society at large.
I am surprise that you take your reference from the father of liberalism. Here is a man who argued that “ only churches that teach toleration are to be allowed in his society“. He further argued; “ The Roman Catholic Church can not be tolerated either, because ‘all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince’“.
This is found in the aforementioned Letter of tolerance.
Dear Eh, it may be interesting for you to note that the way I see your writings, is that, it is very much in line with what I think your idea of an idealistic society ought to be. I have said this many times before, what is ideal may not be real. In short, your argument is a case of Idealism vs Reallism.
Your ideal society is one that is all-encompassing, all-embracing, all-tolerant. It is good and it is something all societies must strive for. Unfortunately, we have to be realistic and be content to be a realist.
The real world operates, at least in Singapore, by a set of laws, civil laws to govern our day to day activities. And these activities have clearly excluded the segment of society that AWARE so wants to represent. No problem with this undertaking, but it must operate within the confines and constraints of this reality.
John Locke’s philosophy of an inclusive society took centuries to come into effect. Singapore’s ‘alternative’ society will just have to move just as slowly. This is the reality.
#260. What’s so shocking? That is nothing surprising at all. Besides, most Muslim leaders would also support her cause and not her actions. Both the Bible & Quran prohibit homosexual behaviour.
@gemami, if I may (not too presumptuously, I hope) reply to your last point… the goal of a liberal, tolerant society is a profoundly pragmatic one in the context of Singapore, precisely because we’re so culturally plural.
The only way that we, as a community, can legitimately claim the authority to impose a uniform set of civil laws on every citizen, even if they disagree, is if these laws (1) are arrived at after a full democratic debate in which all views are heard; (2) represent a consensus of reasonably acceptable views from a broad cross-section of society; (3) continue, over time, to be supported by such a moral consensus.
This means that, even if we legislatively exclude the activities of a certain segment of the population (e.g., through 377A), they still have a prima facie right of moral protest, subject to general public order considerations. The debate must go on.
I’d also add that a government which seeks to legislate ‘public morality’ without limits is cutting away the ground from under its feet. A law which is justified on the basis of the moral good of society presupposes that that society is composed of morally responsible, autonomous agents, capable of choosing good or evil, right or wrong. We recognize this moral responsibility only by acknowledging a private domain of conscience which is insulated from the State’s views about what is good or right, e.g. on abortion. This is once again an argument for a robust principle of toleration.
Hi #266) la nausée
I am glad you talk about being liberal and pragmatic in the same breath. This is what I am suggesting. That the conditions surrounding our drive toward liberalism is clouded and restrained by our values. Values that stemmed from our multi-mix of races, religions, cultures, traditions and ethnicity.
Unlike the established and well-defined foundations of the Western form of liberalism, where a ‘new-comer’ could just walk in to embrace it, we cannot say the same for Singapore. We are getting there, but not quite yet. We need to understand this when championing the cause of liberalism.
Interesting also that you mentioned penal code 377A. 377A is the remnant of penal code 377, which was repealed in 2007. Why did a pragmatic government found it necessary to retain this portion of the penal code? Now if one is governed by pragmatism, then one ought to abide by the pragmatic law and accept that going against it is illegal and a crime.
Tell me then, in this context, is the CSE programme of educating our young boys and girls that same sex copulation is perfectly normal. How does one describe such behaviour? You can protest, you can assemble, you can state your case, but what you cannot do is to take it upon yourself, self-interpret that a secular and liberal society ought to be all-embracing, all-tolerant and therefore all-accepting even to the extend of listening to a strange and queer doctrine.
This is one of the points I have been trying to bring across. This is the ‘infiltration’ I have spoken of. Pound for pound, the infiltration of Josie and her members are no different. Can we not see this? A blatant lie or a subtle lie – what is the difference?
So then, when pragmatism is not able to address those segments of society, the grey areas, then what do we do? We take our cue from the government of the day, who have deliberated in their professional capacities and we adhere to those ‘pragmatic’ solutions or boundaries. So we are back at square one. And this is what it is.
The Singapore LGBT community is an evolving one and until such time when all these underlying values that are embellished in every individual is thrown away, society will never see the segment of society as its equal. This is the cold hard fact. And this is what the LGBT community is up against. The sooner they understand this, the better.
Germami,
“This is why you do not see one religion trying to impose its ‘unfalsifiable’ interpretations on another, very unlike the imposition of the GLBT community, with its own derived-at ‘unflasifiable’ theology which you have also correctly pointed out that its framework is built not on ‘unfalsifiable texts’.”
Let’s take a closer look at what you said-
Your premise has extended beyond the Christian fundamentalist view to now include all of the ‘silent conservatives’. However, once again, unless we take a straw poll of everyone on the street, there is no way to safely conclude that the majority’s views on homosexuality conforms to yours. What we’ve been hearing so far are views from the vocal ‘conservatives’, claiming to speak for most people.
Next – you seem to have turned the tables to say that it is now the GLBT community who are imposing their ‘theology’ on the rest of society. The other religions do not try to impose their ‘falsifiable’ intepretations on others.
Wrong.
We have to first understand in these context what it means by impose. Impose as an action requires the dominance of one view at the EXCLUSION of another. In this context, we can say that the actions of the extreme right wing has always been about imposition. The view that homosexuality is wrong has to dominate, and no contrary view allowed to exist.
What the GLBT is asking for is the CO-EXISTENCE of their views amidst the marketplace of ideas. They are saying “you may not agree with it, fine. But please let me be heard too.” That is hardly imposition. But your ‘silent majority’ are saying, “yes, you can be heard, but only where I can’t hear you.”
And lastly, I’m still awaiting your reply on my question in #225.
The point of contention is not whether homosexuality is right or wrong, or whether it is an “alternative lifestyle” approved by convention.
We live in a society that is a melting pot of diverse cultures and religions – Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism to name the main ones. Each religion treats homosexuality differently, and even within Judaism for ex., the opinions of conservative, orthodox, reform etc jews, differ on subtle points; acceptance but not neccesarily approval of homosexuality, and therefore the accordance of equal rights as congregational members. Buddhism does not explicitly target homosexuality as prohibitive behaviour. Christianity and Islam on the other hand explicitly forbid such acts.
Point is, the CSE program caters to ALL school children across ALL cultures, ALL religions, ALL sexual orientations, ALL income groups, ALL social stratas. It therefore has to appear neutral. Why? So that we do not risk tugging at the delicate threads that hold our diversity together.
4 people in a typically “healthy social unit” as an example: mother, father, children can find themselves relegated to the dysfunctional zone because neither parties seek to understand the other, holding firmly ONLY to the teachings and experiences afforded by the institutions they were brought up in. Just 4 people – 1 social unit. What more 4 billion people?
So IMHO, I feel that our foci should converge on improving the CSE program, keeping one eye on the fact that it has to remain as neutral as possible, in terms of religion and cultural beliefs. Let’s educate the young to not just be sexually aware, but socially aware as well, perhaps?
270) Curious
Correction “In Nazi Germany they used to round them up and shoot them dead !!
Dear #268) Zefly,
Yours is an attempt to narrow the scope to suit what you want to bring across.
Yes, we have been hearing views from all quarters arguing for or against the subject of interest. Yet, your side refuses to acknowledge that LGBT is a grey area of our society. We do not need a straw poll to decide this. We have entrusted the government of the day to discern this for us. It was debated in Parliament, both sides were given ample space to argue their cases and the pragmatic result was one of non-acceptance. Don’t fault me for this.
You read wrongly by suggesting that I was implying that the LGBT community was ‘imposing’ while the larger community is not. I do not know how to convince you if you still do not see the reality of the situation here. It is not for you or me to argue it. The reality is the emphasis on the interests of the larger community – a community which is deemed to be ‘normal’ – to cut a long story short.
To press for the larger community to embrace, accept and adopt same-sex copulation as a norm, as the LGBT community had fought for in 377A, is going against the grain of the mores and values of the larger community – secular or liberal or tolerance notwithstanding.
As for your question, it transcends the realm of spirituality and what you understood from the narration could very well be different what I derive from it.
“As for your question, it transcends the realm of spirituality and what you understood from the narration could very well be different what I derive from it.”
Thank you germami for the none reply.
By your refusal to commit to an easy answer, you have already answered the question.
It’s not an issue of spirituality. It’s back to the issue of ‘tolerance’. What exactly does tolerance mean. Tolerance is an easy word to throw around when there isn’t really contentious or even offensive. In case of the book, the author has the right to his views, that any one who doesn’t share his faith is doomed to hell. And there are some of you (eg Curious) whom would be apt to agree as well. Now, however his views are deeply offensive to some, especially the faiths which he is quite obviously implying with the talk of ‘reincarnation being a lie’.
Again, I repeat, the offended parties could petition for the removal of such books from the public space because it portrays buddhists in a bad light, and may even encourage hate. Suppose that happens. Then what? Christians can then ask for muslim books to be banned from the same reputable bookstore as well because the books say Jesus is not the Son of God… and this can go on, until we only have a narrow ‘safe’ unoffensive selection of books.
You cannot answer that question because, assuming your views are the same as the author’s, they are now the offending ones. And you see the injustice if your views are silenced by a petition of 7000 people asking for the book to be removed from circulation.
Let’s not make your case sound holier than what it really is about. The needs of a very vocal bunch of people who do not know how to live alongside views and values that offend them.
Zefly,
It is not about tolerance. It is about intepretation. How else have we been co-existing all these years, of mankind’s existence. It is not tolerance. If it is a question of tolerance, the minority will not have a ghost of a chance.
You know very well, and I have made it quite clear, that where religion or the sipritual aspects of religion is concern, I will not want to enter there. This is because religion cannot be explained in a discourse such as this. It takes years upon years of study and reflection to spiritually divine what is of the spiritual and religious realm.
No brother, we cannot discuss religion. This is why I gave you my answer. The answer is in the non-answer. See?, you cannot understand nor can you grasp this – because it requires a belief in faith.
So then, I say it is a question of interpretation and the interpretation of the society at large, is that this little community of people, whose behaviours and practises are not of the normal descriptive types, as defined by the law of the land, must take its proper place in society. Sad but true, the only course of action they can then take is to slowly win over the trust of the larger community, and they can do this by not threatening the social fabric of that society.
Oh yes, one more thing.
I know you guys have been gloating over your victory over Josie and Co. But I suggest the LGBT community take some time to think over what they have done for themselves to help in the assimilation process.
I think these people, and the Aware old guards in particular, must be gracious enough to thank Josie and Co for what they did to bring attention to this LGBT community. They have done, in 5 weeks, what the old Aware was not able to do in 24 years.
Today, more Singaporeans are more aware of the plight of this group of people than at any time of our 40+ year history. Ironic isn’t it?
“No brother, we cannot discuss religion. ”
Woah. Hold it right there. Weren’t you the one who used the example of the GLBT views as a religion to make your point in the first place?
I’m using what your belief and faith which you hold so dear to illustrate a point my friend. They are allowed to exist in the public space in spite of the fact that they will, and they do, offend some members of society. You can see it easily on a lot of comments here. And yet you not only ask for the right to hold those views, but for us to be tolerant and understanding of them, and also seek for them to exist in the public sphere, on the bookshelves etc etc… AND YET, when it comes to other views which have an equally valid right to exist – eg GLBT’s views that they are normal, you seek to limit them to only a few channels in the public/social dormain?
Sad but true many times the majority decides, and that’s the end of it, but do not try to justify it.
273) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on May 8th, 2009 3.07 pm
“In case of the book, the author has the right to his views, that any one who doesn’t share his faith is doomed to hell. And there are some of you (eg Curious) whom would be apt to agree as well.”
But I am not of the same faith as your mysterious author so how dare you accuse me of agreeing with him !! Where is your credibility?
Maybe the nuance escaped you. Maybe the author was relating a joke, even if it is inappropriate. What is the title of the book?
2″Now, however his views are deeply offensive to some, especially the faiths which he is quite obviously implying with the talk of ‘reincarnation being a lie’.”
I hope you are referring to your mysterious author and not to me saying that “reincarnation is a lie” because I don’t have any such proof yet.
But if you believe in Buddhism then could it be that your previous life your karma was weak , so now you are born and chastened with gender identity crisis?
3″Again, I repeat, the offended parties could petition for the removal of such books from the public space because it portrays buddhists in a bad light, and may even encourage hate. Suppose that happens. Then what?”
That is a non argument. It did not happen and this shows that Singapore is a tolerant society.
In Nazi Germany, they used to round up the gays and shoot them dead!
That is not even remotely contemplated in Singapore, where, though the mainstream civil society quietly don’t approve of homosexuality, it tolerates its chicanery! What more do you want?
Zefly,
I like your style – sometimes – and you seem to have a certain dexterity to narrow things down to suit your argument. I do not think we can align our argument here and I think it is best we call for a truce. Agree to disagree. I’m tired and need to go for a meeting now.
Curious,
“What more do you want?”
Do not presume that the rights of anybody is for you -who thinks he is the majority- to give. It is God given.
“It did not happen and this shows that Singapore is a tolerant society. ”
You exist. It’s not as tolerant as you think it is. Nuff said.
Gemami,
We all do what we can. That’s why it’s called a debate. Besides, as long as it is intelligently argued, we all benefit from differing views. Cheers mate.:)
dear all,
glad to see my short essay got some intelligent discussion. however, this shall be my last post – my mum has decided to regulate my internet usage to 2 hours a day after this aware thing and i think i rather play neopets, facebook and wow than to talk heatedly on a forum.
my parting shots:
1. even if it’s a secular group shutting down a religious group, i will stand up against it. i may not agree with what you are saying but i will defend your right to say it. (beatrice hall)
2. i strongly believe that as long as civil rights of others are not compromised by the actions of one, he should enjoy equal rights under our law. which is why homosexuality cannot be criminalised.
3. yes, singapore is made up of very conservative people and organisations, but let’s keep the conservatism in our own space and give the rest the space to live their lives as they define. that is what a secular, liberal country is about. that is what tolerance is. and that is what i want in my country.
those who seek to impose their readings of morality as a universal absolute, u have to agree to a state where one day we need to abide by the values of every group – no char siew, head scarves for all, fri, sat and sun cannot work (GOOD), and cannot have onions and blah.
k la. dun want to play le.
bye bye!!!!
279) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on May 8th, 2009 5.26 pm
1“What more do you want?”..Curious
“Do not presume that the rights of anybody is for you -who thinks he is the majority- to give. It is God given.”…Zefly.
But are you in heaven yet? If not then you have to obey Singapore’s laws.
Here you only have a right when society owes you a liability. There is a racial minority but there is no such thing as a “sexual minority” in law and therefore society does not owe the fringe lunatics any liability. Yet civil society is tolerant.
As I said in Nazi Germany they rounded them up and shot them dead.
Not in Singapore because we are a civilized society, even when your ilks mired it with mob rule, death threats, hooliganism and despicable behavior on May 2nd.
2“It did not happen and this shows that Singapore is a tolerant society. ”..Curious
“You exist. It’s not as tolerant as you think it is. Nuff said.”…Zefly.
I exist not because I chose to exist and I exist to live a quiet life in the suburb, knowing that there are lunatics all around me and I live and let live. What more do you want?
281) eh on May 8th, 2009 5.48 pm
“glad to see my short essay got some intelligent discussion. ”
If it was lifted from the works of John Locke, CHRISTIAN philosopher, 1689 then how it be eh’s essay? In polite circles it is called boarding on plagiarism.
@gemami, I think I’m probably coming in when the party’s already over, but let me just reply briefly to two extracts from your previous postings.
Tell me then, in this context, is the CSE programme of educating our young boys and girls that same sex copulation is perfectly normal. How does one describe such behaviour? You can protest, you can assemble, you can state your case, but what you cannot do is to take it upon yourself, self-interpret that a secular and liberal society ought to be all-embracing, all-tolerant and therefore all-accepting even to the extend of listening to a strange and queer doctrine.
I think we’ve to distinguish here between three different contexts: government law and policy, the public sphere, and the school environment. The principle of toleration does not mean that our laws must be “all-embracing” and “all-tolerant”; government can legitimately prefer one moral conception over all others, as long as that conception is supported by a reasoned agreement among citizens, arrived at after full debate. This in turn means that our public sphere should be as ‘all-embracing’ as possible. The only way a State can justify its use of coercive force on a person is if it has given him or her ample chances to voice his or her disagreement, before and after legislation. You say this:
To press for the larger community to embrace, accept and adopt same-sex copulation as a norm, as the LGBT community had fought for in 377A, is going against the grain of the mores and values of the larger community – secular or liberal or tolerance notwithstanding.
I disagree. I do not think the mere fact that a group of persons makes certain claims about how they ought to be treated violates community values and mores. 377A means only that a gay man cannot lawfully engage in MSM; it does not mean that he may not lawfully criticize, and mobilize public opinion against, 377A itself.
However, the school environment may well involve different concerns from those prevailing in the public sphere. Our main objective in schools is not to ensure robust political debate, but to build intellect and moral character. We can insist that education (at least for younger students) does not, and ought not, to include the development of political consciousness or independent moral thinking among students, or that this should rank far behind other priorities. So we tell them the mainstream view, “Homosexuality is wrong”, without telling them the counter-arguments defended by an important minority in society, because we don’t think young students can comprehend or assess them.
As you see, I’m highly skeptical of this argument, which I think is putting the conservative position in its best light. Why shouldn’t political and moral self-consciousness be nurtured from a young age? If society divides over the issue of 377A, shouldn’t we let our young ones know a little about both sides of this controversy? (I concede, though, that the phrase “perfectly normal” may swing too far towards a gay-tolerant stance.)
Mr George
This piece deserves a follow up.
Yr take on the reversal of MoE stand on the CSE.
Not often government back-tracks?
Hi #283) la nausée \,
I have no reason to disagree with you and you are right “that a group of persons making certain claims about how they ought to be treated (does not)violate community values and mores“.
No one from the mainstream made a big hoo-haa over penal code 377 when it was repealed and couples can how happily go on and have the type of sex they wanted. Unfortunately for them, there are limitations in the form of article 377A where sex between men is still illegal. There was a parliamentary debate over this and the mainstream community was rather cool to the debate.
However, with the recent developments over the Aware saga, mainstream community are beginning to discover that this small community have been ‘infiltrating’ our education system, in a trojan manner, to advance its cause. The explanation from Dana thus far, is far from convincing.
Yes, some children with gay leanings were taught to deal with their sexual orientations, but mind you, these lessons are taught right in front of a classroom full of otherwise heterosexual kids. In the process of attempting to help these sexually disoriented kids find their identities, do you not think it might just confuse the heterosexual ones?
Taking this example, do you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what the reaction will be from mainstream society? It cannot be otherwise. It is the same reaction one would get from a trojan-infiltration.
la nausée, with utmost respect, I would like to point out that it does not matter what the concepts are, whether it is government law or policy, whether it is a public domain or a school domain, whether we are all-embracing and all-tolerant or not, the picture is clear – that majority rules. Period.
In every society, there are many areas of concern, econonic concerns, political concerns, family concerns, employment concerns and the list is a never-ending one. In an Asian society, we have additional concerns over those of our non-Asian nationals. We have traditional concerns, cultural concerns, racial concerns etc. At the end of this long list will you then find GLBT concerns, if there is one at all.
So you see, just like Eh, you have painted an ideal scenario where everyone can live in harmony regardless of race, language, religion, sexual preferences and whatever else you may want to add to it. My advise to the GLBT community is to get real, know your situation, know where you stand, approach your agenda with this understanding, be patient, lots of patience because your journey to freedom is a long hard one. Until the walls of the unaccepting society are stripped apart, your struggle continues.
“Until the walls of the unaccepting society are stripped apart, your struggle continues.”
You are right about that Gemami. So knowing all that you know, and me getting this feeling from you that you also want them to achieve their ‘freedom’ one day, why do you then choose to be on the side of the ‘majority’?
The journey for any groups with less than equal rights isn’t one that they can make alone. Without the support of the people on the mainstream, they will fail. Your point about realism is a good one. No one expects it will happen overnight. Not when there is still so much opposition to the idea. If it happens now, there may even be some level of backlash against the GLBTs. But it can happen just that tad bit sooner when one more person decides not to be part of the discrimination.
So what’s more important to you? To be their obstacle, or to choose what your conscience tells you?
Zefly,
You do have a knack for misreading (distorting) what you read.
First thing first, we are agreed that reality supercedes the ideal.
Second, the GLBT is a struggling community and a small one.
Third, the majoritywill always stand in their way, as pointed out in my earlier arguments, which is mainly, the influence of its diverse mix of values and practises among which of those are that which are influenced by religious faiths, traditional, racial and cultural values.
Fourth, because of this opposing tide, the GLBT community will find it hard to break the tide unless it has the resolve of a salmon, and the support of the majority.
What is incorrect is that I am on the side of the majority. I am on neither side but on the side of reason. I have stated clearly, when replying to EH’s essay, that what he had written was based on Idealism, and it is good to work toward that ideal.
On my part, based on what I have written above, I am offering my take on:
1. What the GLBT is up against.
2. That their approach to gaining the confidence of the majority is thus far wrong and unacceptable.
3. That they begin to put into perspective, the fight that is before them (reality vs Ideal).
4. That their struggle is going to be a long, cold, hard and lonely one.
If you read all these as and take them to mean that I am in opposition to the GLBT community, then I can only say that you have read wrongly. Perhaps it is partly due to my fault that there were times when I had posted blunt and provocative comments, but these were made to get the point into the hearts and minds of the GLBT community and to show them the reality of the situation.
I have had my gay friends sitting next to me on numerous occassions when I wrote what I wrote and these friends understand exactly what I am trying to bring across.
If I am not supportive of them, I won’t even bother to spend my time writing all these comments.
#287 gemami
I for one tot you were in opposition “to the GLBT community”. In point of fact I tot you were from COOS.
Anyway pls realise that words may have a meaning different from the intention of the author.
Hi Gemami,
No worries, mate. I do know what you meant about the realities of the situation. Contrary to how I may sound on some occasions, I do believe in a rational gradual approach. Enough hearts and minds have to be won first before legislature can be made fairer, if not, we’ll still have a large number of people baying for overturning the said legislatures. (eg, Roe vs Wade in the US)
My arguments are mainly centred on challenging the usual paradigms that people have. ALL arguments, no matter how well-argued, have loopholes in them, including mine. In this way, it’s not so much about winning, but to trigger critical thinking, and to persuade others to think deeper about these issues – if they want to make a stand, at least know why you are making that stand.
I am not born without discriminations. Many of the arguments I read here were the same ones I would have made a few years ago. How I arrived at the conclusion that my past thinking was flawed was also through this process of challenging my own beliefs all the time, playing my own devil’s advocate.
More openly, it also shows that such issues can be discussed intelligently by two people from different standpoints without descending into immature taunts and name-calling.
At any rate, I believe we should shelf this discussion till another opportunity arises. But believe me, it had been fun, and I will admit to concuring with some of the points you made – just that for the sake of being a devil’s advocate, it would be improper to agree openly. lol!
Cheers.