Excerpts from Yawning Bread.
Singapore’s Penal Code is based on India’s. We too used to have a Section 377 that criminalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”, which like India’s applied to both homosexual and heterosexual relationships, but this was repealed in 2007.
However Singapore has an additional Section of the Penal Code, known as Section 377A which specifically targets gay men, criminalising “gross indecency between two males”. The government deliberately let 377A stand in 2007, even when they repealed Section 377. Explaining why, the Singapore government said they wanted to decriminalise oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples, but keep it a criminal offence between gay men. Society was still conservative (i.e. many people didn’t know a damn thing about homosexuality and wanted their prejudices enshrined in law), the government said.
In other words, the Singapore government did exactly what the judges in Delhi said was constitutionally wrong – criminal law held captive by popular misconception.
Read the full article here.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
@Arix (#42, #44):
Again, you said: “Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them).”
Why is it that homosexuals are ‘limited’ by the fact of their homosexuality, but heterosexuals are not ‘limited’ by the fact of their heterosexuality, as the definitions imply? Unless you’re suggesting that heterosexuals are all inherently bisexual — which is logical, but clearly wanting of empirical proof.
Second, I think you misunderstood my earlier post. I’m saying that a majority of us probably will support criminalizing homosexual sex (although that’s open to disagreement), but (1) we can only legitimately enact such a law after we’ve allowed a free and open debate, where everyone’s views are heard (including the minority, and especially the minority, since they’re the ones going to be subject to penal sanctions), and (2) that law will retain legitimacy only insofar as a majority continues to support it in ongoing public discussions.
Third, I agree with you that the overall debate cannot be prematurely skewed in favour of any side. But this does not prevent any one participant from sticking to his or her guns on a given issue. As long as no participant is barred from making his or her views heard, it is irrelevant whether he or she manages to persuade other people (which is the job of the speaker). There is only a right to speak and be heard, not a right to have others listen attentively and give the speaker the benefit of the doubt.
Fourth, I’m not sure there is a real need to add a ‘disclaimer’ that Alex Au’s views are not factual or reasoned. It will be a sad day for our society when people aren’t critical enough to evaluate arguments for themselves. Although I am prepared to defend certain GLBT rights, I acknowledge that the article doesn’t really advance any sustained argument (although Au has done so previously on YB). Plenty of TOC articles are in fact relatively free of serious argument — simply because of the nature of the Web medium and its audience. I’m not sure that it’s being more polemical than usual when it comes to GLBT issues.
kf #50,
1) Since you are making the charge that the piece is little more than “A does it, and I didn’t do it, therefore I am wrong type”, can you quote the offending passage that makes such a simpleton argument? (Without, of course, taking it out of context)
2) You disapprove of the presentation and the tone of his piece? Are you for real? If you were referring to the tone and presentation when you called for a “measured” case, all I can say is, don’t be such a sissy.
If you were referring to his arguments or content, you are free to post counter-arguments/points. I look forward to reading them.
la nausea #51,
“Fourth, I’m not sure there is a real need to add a ‘disclaimer’ that Alex Au’s views are not factual or reasoned. It will be a sad day for our society when people aren’t critical enough to evaluate arguments for themselves….”
That reminds me of an old, tired and inane tactic of the Christian right. The ID lobby in the States tried to put in stickers in science textbooks stating that the theory of evolution is a theory not a fact, neglecting to point out that as far as science is concerned, they are all theories, and in common parlance a scientific “theory” is as good as “fact”.
#52,
Granted, there are various portions that require examination in the article, a major principle in language is to look for context first within the word (usually not standalone even with high degree of understanding on different applications), sentence structure, then to surrounding passages, then to surrounding paragraphs, chapters……..and so forth for interpretation. In this case, the sentence reads : ‘India decriminalises gay sex, Singapore shown to be a fool’, the immediate phrase of ‘India decriminalises gay sex’, is ‘Singapore shown to be a fool’, expresses the argument of “A does it, and I didn’t do it, therefore I am wrong type”.
Moderator, please note, expressing views is ok, but I think name calling (e.g. sissy by #52) is uncalled for.
we MUST NOT allow the gay lesbian community to set the moral standard for our society! they are very good at twisting facts and promoting their agenda. consider that they now call themselves gay which sounds better than what they were used to be called, homos, queers and ah kwas. i have stopped using the term gay and will refer to them as homos. i call upon the heterosexual community to call them as such, anything other than their preferred term. it is against the order of nature, so they are queer, isn’t that right?
while i can accept them doing what they want to do. i do not encourage hounding them but at the same time they should do what they want to do in the privacy of their rooms. what i am opposed to is their agenda to make their lifestyle acceptable and even influence the young that it is the better way to live your life! our society had better wake up to the dangerous trend being promoted.
To “interested” – #55. With due respect, I think you are part of the problem. These black/white lines that you draw, bringing in the youth, and “society” is precisely the sort of the anecdotal and gut-drawn evidence that makes the issue so divisive and incendiary.
Rather than lose your top, perhaps you may want to go through some of Arix’s measured responses (I do disagree with some of them, but he/she has been very mature about things). Arix’s very relevant point in calling for some elements of the pink lobby to moderate their over-zealous lobbying is something you should mull over. You are just the other side of the coin. Two trains going at each other at speed are bound to collide with disastrous consequences at some point unless some effort is taken to measure and consider the wider ramifications of your actions.
Anyway, your argument runs into problems when you look at countries/states where anti-gay laws have been repealed. I dont think Satan has purchased beach-front properties in these places. Singapore has got other bigger problems that ought to engender repetitive migraine attacks. The gay issue is hardly one of them – the tone people of your ilk (and your gay counterparts) employ is the problem.
To my friend James Tan – #46, maybe you shouldnt worry about what people do with their anus’ too much. See? Problem solved.
kf #54,
“In this case, the sentence reads : ‘India decriminalises gay sex, Singapore shown to be a fool’, the immediate phrase of ‘India decriminalises gay sex’, is ‘Singapore shown to be a fool’, expresses the argument of “A does it, and I didn’t do it, therefore I am wrong type’.”
1) It’s a title, not an argument in and of itself.
2) I hate to break this to you, it’s common practice for writers to choose a provocative title and proceed to account for it with their article, essay, books….
3) Heard of “polemics”?
The “sissy” remark was a joke. Let me explain: AA writes forcefully and is gay whereas you have a problem with the “gay agenda” and is the shrinking violet.
interested #55,
“They are very good at twisting facts and promoting their agenda.”
Yup, they are so good at twisting facts and promoting their “agenda” that I haven’t heard a single decent argument against their “agenda” yet (whatever that “agenda” might be). Do you have decent argument? It’s not apparent that your comment has one.
to #55, interested:
The English language reflects sociological prejudices. It is true that certain ‘queer’ identity tags have become rather derogatory, but that is not because being gay is wrong, rather that people think that being gay is wrong.
ie. the term queer to mean a deviation from the norm. It is humans who decide what ‘norm’ is in the first place. and I doubt this singular word has a history of derogation more than a hundred years.
supporting #58′s response to #55,
the way you are twisting facts to promote your own pro-discrimination agenda is rather ironic
to everyone who says they should go back into the closet:
How does one define the ‘public’ and ‘private’ space? And then, bearing in mind tolerance towards multiple religions and their conflicting natures, justify why homosexuals should keep into the confines of their homes. Last I remember, I can hold hands, kiss and touch my brothers AND sisters in a manner mutually affectionate because we love each other.
Also potentially headbumming – which part of the internet is ‘public’ and which is ‘private’?
Personally, I’m against the manipulation of information, whether by the pro-gay or pro-straight. It’s downright irresponsible, and both parties are guilty. So how do we draw the public vs private line in a manner which does not marginalise?
yw #61,
I can envisage what manipulation of information by the anti-gay (I think that’s more accurate than “pro-straight”) lobby is like, but not the pro-gay lobby.
Can you provide an example?
No one is Perfect.
Who has not Sinned?
Sexual preference is merely a small part of life.
Why discriminate and ignore the contributions of Alex?
In my view, as a hetero, Alex’s contributions to society, the system and the people out-weigh his perceived flaws. Perception is in the eyes of the beholder.
You pronounce potay-toes, i pronounce potah-toes.
You choose and believe in religion A, Others religion B.
So, who is right?
So, who is wrong?
Is anyone great enough to Dictate how one lives one’s lives?
Gays should just rot away and die
plopp (#47),
1) “broad” includes recognition of same-sex union on par with heterosexual marriage. “narrow” excludes that.
2) Apologies. For me, the word “profession” has a slightly clinical and mercenary tinge. But yes, we should raise the value of Motherhood, and to be fair, Fatherhood too.
I was being politically-correct in my last statement. It simply means that employers shouldn’t purposely not hire someone because that person is LGBT, though at the same time an LGBT person should not raise an alarm every time he or she gets a rejection slip.
3) It’s fine to talk about Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, UK, France, Egypt, Israel and similar countries. But it is more complex to deal with China, Russia, India and the USA.
The USA is complex because each of its States thinks slightly differently.
The RIC countries are complex because they were formerly feudal empires. China was a Feudal Empire until 1949. (The Warlords Era can be considered somewhat feudal) It is made up of several different nationalities; even the Han Chinese are not really a uniform bloc (just look at how many dialect groups there are). Russia likewise, though a little less.
India is the best: before the British came, the Mughal Empire had already crumbled into a number of mini-sultanates and Hindu or Buddhist Kinglets.
Although India is officially a united country today, it is likely that these mini-cultures haven’t been assimilated into a uniform culture yet. Each of these cultures would think slightly differently: some more conservative and some more liberal. It is hard to say if India is more or less conservative than Singapore.
Even the article that Alex Au cites mentions a BJP (opposition) member who voiced dissent about striking down India’s Section 377.
That aside, the “conservative majority” policy by the PAP does not have populism as its only possible reason for existence, as Alex seems to imply. Despite our tourism advertisements, the government actually views the multiple races and religions in Singapore as liabilities, not assets. (I learnt that in NUS.) Therefore, the government wants to prevent open hostilities from breaking out between the Conservatives and the Liberals; that point was made crystal clear by Home Affairs Minister in the recent AWARE saga.
Alex Au forgot one thing: Our Government eschews populism for pragmatics.
plopp (#47),
4) Well, different countries’ Constitutions have different intents. What is unconstitutional in India is not necessarily unconstitutional in Singapore.
This should help people to navigate the issues before Arix floods this thread with more of his misinformed religious motivation.
What is the Homosexual Agenda?
It is a term coined by the Christian Right. According to the notorious Feminist Mentor Thio Su Mien in a Christian Post Editorial (23 Sep 2008), the homosexual agenda is described as:
1. The homosexual activists seek to mainstream homosexualism as an alternative lifestyle.
2. They demand societal approval because of their identity need. They are not content with the space given them to live their liv es in Singapore, but require society to endorse their lifestyle.
3. To this end, they follow their counterparts in the West and seek foreign
intervention to advance their cause. We do not need foreign interference in a domestic political matter concerning the morality of our nation.
4. The Homosexual Agenda is an aggressive neo-colonist political movement
from the West which seeks to radicalise the institution of marriage and the family unit..
What is the Homosexual Civil Rights Movement?
The Christian Right sought to demonise the Homosexual Civil Rights Movement by labelling it as “The Homosexual Agenda”. Civil rights activists are mainly calling for equality among homosexual and heterosexual people. This is demonstrated by their 5-point action plan:
1. Decriminalisation of sodomy
2. Equalization of Age of Consent for hetero- and homo- sexual sex
3. Anti-discrimination law & public policy
4. same-sex marriage or civil union
5. homosexual parenthood and adoption rights.
la nausee (#51),
1) Here is the dumbed-down version:
A heterosexual man (woman) has 2 choices: a) have sex with a woman (man), b) have sex with a man (woman). Choice (b) exists as a “leisure” option.
A gay (lesbian) only has choice (b). A gay (lesbian) claims publicly that choice (a) is not possible because he (she) is a homosexual, and hence is prohibited from having sexual intercourse with a person of opposite sex.
A bisexual has both choices too.
As an aside, I think that the “B” complicates the debate. “B” has the choice of choosing to exercise (a) or (b), so it is legitimate to debate whether “B” should choose (a) or (b). Whereas, based on the current “Gay Gene” debate by the “LGT”, the “LGT” cannot exercise (a) properly.
2) Oh sorry. I thought you meant the exact opposite.
3) Err … “being heard” is worthless if nobody “listens attentively”. The essence of a fair debate is that each side listens attentively to the other, and makes properly-engaging responses.
4) Now it is your turn to misunderstand me. The disclaimer is simply meant to say:
“The writer of this article is the leader of the local Gay Lobby. This article is provided for readers’ information only. The comments and opinions expressed herein do not reflect any particular bias on the part of the Editors of TOC. Its publication does not imply the endorsement or rejection or any of its contents by TOC.”
Nothing about “factual” or “reason” (or lack thereof) here. It is just professionalism, that is all.
This article is more polemic than Alex Au’s other articles (not necessarily on GLBT). I know, I read most of his blog frequently.
Smallvice (#66),
3) Points 1 to 3 of the agenda of the Homosexual Civil Rights Movements – yes, all movements have their agendas – call for equality. Points 4 and 5 are a little more dubious. 4 and 5 have an additional ethical dimension that 1 to 3 do not have.
Same-Sex Marriage is not really identical to opposite sex marriage. The family dynamics are different, even if one partner takes on the “husband” role, and one takes on the “wife” role.
Adopted children can grow very close to their foster parents, but adoption is complicated. It is complicated because of what the birth mother or birth parents might want. Madonna is in a heterosexual marriage, and yet she had so much problem with adoption, what more a homosexual couple?
2) Please, I totally dissociate my stand from that of Doctor Thio. Comparing me to her (implicitly) is comparing apples to oranges.
1) Please do not slander me.
Pritam (#56),
1) I agree with you on this. Other than that it is unenforceable, I also support the repeal of Section 377A because I believe that it is the only way to force people like Interested to come to the discussion table. Using Section 377A as a meat shield does kind of retard our nation’s political growth.
2) I really wish there were more people like you on this thread. But lol, instead of just censuring interested, you should censure sliim and Smallvice as well. One can be both articulate and polemical.
In sum-total, both need to moderate their zeal, and sit down at the metaphorical table to flip through the facts of the situation.
Simply put, to keep calling people bigots is not a way to engage them. And neither is calling them “neo-colonist”.
4) It is kind of a medical fact that more diseases hover round the anus than anywhere else in the body. And that is quite obvious, considering the purpose of the anus.
yw (#61),
1,2,4) As far as I understand it, “private space” means “within your house”, and “public space” means anywhere outside.
Honestly though, what is your first thought when you hear of a Man-Boy Love Association? (And Smallvice, this is a real organization)
3) That still needs to be defined.
Hi Arix,
Are you slandering me in post #68 by suggesting that I had slandered you in this thread? Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg once said, “it takes religion for a good man to do evil.” I sincerely appreciate the well-meaning intention behind your misinformed religious motivation. I hope there remains goodness in you.
Traditional wisdom dictates the key in victory lies in knowing oneself and one’s enemy (知己知敌，百战百胜). That’s why it is hardly surprising you not only mentioned in #67 that you read Alex Au’s blog frequently, but also proposed a disclaimer that creates a psychological barrier to favour the Christian Right.
To better sell the case, why not pretend to be an anti-377A person? The AWARE Incident has demonstrated that entryism is an established practise among Christians. TOC has expressed on several times that only editorial pieces reflect TOC opinion, endorsement and rejection, not other articles/links posted here. You merely want to tip the balance towards the Christian Right.
Only you know better whether there is any association between Thio Su Mien and you. In no way that post #66 suggests there is any association, unless you make it so. You are hardly qualified to define the Homosexual Agenda. Why should anybody refer to you and not the notorious Feminist Mentor Thio Su Mien on the Homosexual Agenda?
You wrote in Post #67: The essence of a fair debate is that each side listens attentively to the other, and makes properly-engaging responses. Are you really that naive? There is no such thing as fairness and that’s why people who advocates for equality has to constantly fight for it. No civil rights movement ever really die. The war against racial discrimination is far from over. The war against homosexual discrimination isn’t too.
Since religious scriptures have cemented homosexual discrimination, eternal vigilance is the way to go whether gay sex is decriminalised or not. Calling the Pink Lobby to moderate its action has to be complemented with revision of holy scriptures. In war, what is important is not who and what are right, but who and what are left. If bigotry religious scriptures still remain as so, the Pink Lobby has to remain too. This is called solving the root of the problem (对症下药).
Hi Pitram Singh #56,
Don’t fall prey to victim card strategy. The Holy Bible is full of victim card strategies – from Daniel’s Ordeal in the Lion’s Den to Paul’s Prison Ministry under Roman Custody. We need to overcome the false goodwill that is projected by misguided individuals and bigoted religious scriptures.
For example, Interested (#55) wrote: while i can accept them doing what they want to do. I do not encourage hounding them but at the same time they should do what they want to do in the privacy of their rooms.
Arix (#70) later supplemented this writing by defining private space as “within your house”, which suggests that Arix frowns on open assembly of homosexuals outside their own house – this means Arix objects homosexuals:
1) to book an entire disco club for an overnight party
2) to book a hall to discuss and share opinion on gay rights
3) to organise an informal picnic with homosexual friends at the Botanic Gardens
4) to form a study group among themselves at the NUS Central Library
5) to dine among themselves at Newton Circus Hawker Centre
So much for equality. Such oppression far exceeds the penal code and miscellanous offence act. Who is the one really anal towards the homosexuals? There is no over-zealous lobbying by the Pink Lobby. There is only oppression endorsed by Religious Lobby, particularly the Christian Right.
Hi yw #61,
How could you put the Homosexual Civil Rights Movement in the same dark shade as the Religious Lobby? The Religious Lobby spells oppression. They even go to the extent of killing people who disagree with them.
Dr George Tiller was murdured by a Christian Right activist on 31 May 2009. Dr Tiller is the medical director of Woma’s Healthcare Services, one of only three nationwide clinics which would provide abortion after the 21st week of pregnancy in the USA.
You might have heard of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda. It is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the “spokesperson” of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the Holy Spirit, which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations. The LRA is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the United States.
The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), a rebel group operating in Tripura, North-East India classified by the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism as one of the ten most active terrorist groups in the world, has been forcefully converting people to Christianity. The Noapara Baptist Church finances the NLFT.
@Arix,
This is how I feel about censuring people.
First, I dont know what censuring people with pseudonyms online would achieve. And secondly, none of us should for one minute think we have some right to censor those who have more (or less) strident views that us. This is an online forum – there is “real-er” equality here – so smallvice and are perfectly entitled to speak their minds. Hence, my disagreement with your earlier remark that Alex’s pieces should not be hosted here, for reasons which I have stated already.
As for anus and diseases, well my point to James was that its not his anus that was getting ruptured, so best to mind one’s own business than to initiate a one-man public education program.
@smallvice -56
I hear you. With every post Arix makes, his composite profile becomes clearer and anyone with half a head will draw their own conclusions. So this is not something we ought to be overly concerned about. Lets have a debate point for point, and worry less about behind the screen agendas, since it will lead nowhere.
“We need to overcome the false goodwill that is projected by misguided individuals and bigoted religious scriptures.”
This line intrigued me for a number of reasons. Not so much, the false goodwill bit, but it seems to identify all religious scriptures as an issue. This is problematic on so many levels. To highlight one, in passing a statement like this, you could have abrogated all the positive (and I believe there are more than enough in the overwhelming majority of all religious texts) images of God in the minds of so many believers of all faiths. If you are not careful about this, your very legitimate fight for gay equality may meet with even more resistance. Keep working at it from the point of equality, and don’t get bogged down by the Christian right, even though some elements may routinely come in to speak for the majority of Singapore on some funny, sometimes government-reinforced conclusion that Singaporeans are conservative – I would believe it if there was some empirical data to accompany.
“There is no over-zealous lobbying by the Pink Lobby.”
I will say that I feel most of it the over-zealous lobbying comes from the Christian right. But perhaps its because of sheer numbers and heat the issue generates from these quarters. But lobbying can be a rather multi-sensory thing too. An in your face, “accept me” complete with a pink dogs, peacock feathers, tight shorts (not all gays are like this i understand and even among gays, there are nuances – my apologies if I painted all of you with one broad brush) does make some uncomfortable – even though it shouldnt be their business – hence my usage of the word multi-sensory. And this I hazard is where the “conservative” labeling of Singaporeans originate from as alluded above. So, the more zealous members of the pink lobby need to accept that some actions have consequences.
Hence, I feel that the battle is not about a straightforward equality issue either (even though I think it should be). If human beings were all rational and ethical creatures, your battle would be less onerous. But because we host a visceral side too, there are other elements to consider as well.
Now as I think about the points I have rambled on about, I seem to have neatly compartmentalised things, as if the real world is as neat. Santayana advises me that history does not provide examples where battles over equality and rights were fought so cleanly. Blood (for our purposes, I hope it remains metaphorical) was almost invariably spilled. Thats why I thought repealing 377a earlier would have lessened this prospect significantly – for a self-proclaimed pragmatic government, it was a highly curious decision.
#Arix (#67), I’m surprised you don’t see the fallacy in your definitions of ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’. If you define homosexuals as those who are exclusively attracted to the same sex (because they “publicly claim” to be so), then you must accept that heterosexuals are those who are exclusively attracted to the opposite sex, because they too “publicly claim” to be so. If we can rely on what people self-declare to be their sexual orientation in one case, why not in the other? Otherwise, you’re just shifting the goalposts to suit your argument.
Secondly, you said “The essence of a fair debate is that each side listens attentively to the other, and makes properly-engaging responses.” That’s an ideal case. It does not feature in the ground rules of public debate, i.e. no person can be made to “listen attentively” to the other if he or she wishes not to. The onus is on the speaker to persuade others, not on the listener to suspend judgment just so that he or she can be persuaded.
In any case, as smallvice585 pointed out, the debate isn’t ‘fair’ to begin with, because the minority is often not given the right to equal participation, subject as they are to systematic patterns of violence, threats and abuse by the majority. In such a case, the minority needs to put its case in more strident terms in order just to be heard. Asking them to “listen attentively” is simply giving the majority one more opportunity to silence them.
Lastly, the disclaimer is pointless. Of course the publication of the article “reflects a particular bias” on the part of TOC; of course it shows the endorsement of GLBT rights. You may disagree with that stance, and that’s where your right to disagree comes in.
The acid test, I think, is to look at other instances where TOC has ‘excerpted’ articles from elsewhere, and ask whether we feel a need for a disclaimer in those instances. See, for instance, the article on the ‘Burger King ad’ (here). If there’s no need to add a disclaimer that the blog featured there (Taragana) is not Singapore-based and thus may not reflect the views of a Singapore audience, why the need for a disclaimer here?
Do Singaporeans have rights?
Most regular TOC posters would say “No”.
So why shld Alex Au and friends have rights?
Waz so special abt them? Other than they more articulate than most Singaporeans? And do anal sex more regularly than straights (here I’m guessing).
))))
to #64, #65 Arix:
1) So the only difference would be recognition of civil union on par with marriage? It seems rather unnecessary to grant equality in every aspect OTHER than marriage, why stop there? Will homosexuals not getting married necessarily mean that they will marry people of the opposite sex, and for that matter, will it actually stop them from cohabiting / staying in lifelong relationships? The recognition of a piece of paper is only then a legal acknowledgment of what is already the case (in Singapore, at least). I don’t really understand the need for this ‘division’ between broadness and narrowness if the only indicator is homosexual civil union….
2) Agreed.
Regarding your point about employers hiring and sacking LGBT people – agreed that LGBT people shouldn’t be falsely alarmist if they get sacked for normal, fair reasons e.g. ineptitude, etc, etc but employers may well find other reasons to sack them;
(to contrast: If a woman is sacked because she’s pregnant, her employer could just say that it was because her efficiency dropped, or that they’re downsizing for the economic crisis, or any number of reasons, but she can still accuse him of sacking her due to her pregnancy, and have it investigated…? Theoretically speaking, at least.)
3) Oddly, I thought Australia and France would be more similar to America than RIC and Egypt/Israel.
Nonetheless, what major difference would a feudal and non-feudal history make? China today is certainly not feudal, what with the psychological rewiring done to the national psyche by the Communist government. Before the Communist victory, China and Singapore would have more similarities since most Singaporeans are, after all, at least somewhat culturally Chinese.
India, on the other hand, shares an undeniable British colonial history and it has had the longest history of colonialism of all the Commonwealth countries. The fact that much of both our Constitutions derive from the British one, proves this. Even if the fractured former sultanates and areas in India still have their own regional slants, they would all have been deeply affected by the dominating presence of the British for close to 200 years. It doesn’t take much of a stretch of thinking to assume that the effects of British rule would be more impactful than that of the Mughals. With regard to 377A, treatment of sexuality in India was actually less conservative before the British came and disseminated Victorian morality.
On the other hand, perhaps if India -isn’t- more conservative than Singapore, you’d be hard-pressed to declare it -more- liberal than Singapore, since, as you say, it is very diverse. If the liberalness or conservativeness of India is difficult to ascertain, then why not just ignore it when assessing their constitutional law – and do similarly for Singapore?
Also, any issue would have its dissenters and supporters in any normal functioning democracy. If the BJP member could garner enough votes to keep 377 in, that’d be their choice? Personally I would think that that’s a reflection of democracy not feudalism, though I do agree that that reflects heterogenous opinions.
By the way, since Malaysia and Singapore can be discussed on par (both by your standards, and by our British colonial past which is also shared with India), if Malaysia decides to strike down their own version of 377 one day (in usual law, not syariah), would you agree that Singapore should too?
Erm, would also like to clarify why the government seems to think that our multiracial/religious makeup is a liability. Furthermore, political conservatism and liberalism is not necessarily divided along racial lines – many ultraconservatives and ultraliberals in Singapore are Chinese. Much as religion can affect political slants, it isn’t the be-all and end-all of everyone’s paradigms.
Also, in view of the higher proportion of non-Chinese opposition members that do not need GRC systems to prop them in – if the PAP worries about multiracial-religious composition then it’d be fearing that they unite against them instead of breaking up to fight in factions?
Lastly, is pragmatism always excluding of populism? How can a government be pragmatic if the pragmatic policies do not benefit the population which validate the government’s existence?
Pritnam Singh #74,
Since I am being invoked (“you should censure sliim”), I would like to wade in tangentially so you get the right impression.
Some gems from Arix:
“It’s like ‘We love the thief, but hate his theft’ or ‘We love the cancer patient, but detest the cancer’. You are not against either of these, right? [in reference to hate the sin, not the sinner]”
“Oh, and for people who still wish to think that there is some invisible Gay Gene, well … there is such a thing called a genetic disease too, and genetic diseases are not diseases because they are infectious.”
Source: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/05/change-you-can-believe-in-part-one/
In any case, I agree that smallvice can come on a little strong with his arguments. Having said that, he did qualify the religious scriptures he/she was referring to: “bigoted”.
First, Arix has not really used Religion to argue his/her point. In fact, I don’t think anyone is the thread so far has used Religion to ‘substantiate’ a point. Even if they are religiously motivated, please stick to the points brought up and not question the ‘motivation’. So far, I think it’s wondering that nobody has yet resort to quoting Bible or any holy text to make a point.
——————————
To Arix on this statement:
“Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them).”
I agree with la nausée that it is a ludicrous statement… and lol-ed when he said that simply reproducing the statement is enough… I agreed totally!
Why? Because you applied the ‘limit’ of homosexuals to have homosex, and for some strange reason, do NOT apply the ‘limit’ of heterosexuals to do heterosex. Somehow you applied two different standards but appeared to be unaware of it. (As a heterosex person, I can tell you I AM limited and cannot do homosex. It’s disgusts me… I don’t think I can ‘perform’ at all.)
ONLY bisexuals do both, and have a ‘choice’ as you have put it.
My stand is along the lines of what Voltaire (or his friends) have said: I disapprove of (homosex), but I will defend to the death (maybe less extreme) your right to do ‘it’.
* wonderFUL
I do not see the need to censure Yawning bread. Most of us who logs in to TOC kns abt Yawning bread and their POV. TOC is different from national newspaper say The Strait Times where readers can be less discerning and young. Most TOC readers are well-knowledged and understand the socio-political view of contributors well. As such, censuring is just a counter-productive activities.
I applaud TOC to link such controversial contributor such as Yawning bread in the mix. If it serves to be an interesting and thought provoking online articles as it shld be, it has to include writers with a unique pov. And Yawning bread serves that. And by linking it, I do not see how it can be perceived to be advocating, bearing in mind that ppl that actually log in to TOC or bother to read TOC shld be of a certain maturity as the subject it deals with are most of the time serious and heavy.
There is hardly any entertainment news that will draw young kids in. So why the need to censure. If all we do is to censure, even online, there is really nothing much to read.
Smallvice #31,
“You have a wonderful trick there…”
Come on, give Arix more credit than that.
He/she is the closest thing to a sophist I’ve seen on TOC. I think the most common is mis-framing the issue and padding it with extraneous information to give an argument a semblance of legitimacy. Implicit premises no more than bald assertions, shifting of goalposts, obscurantism…
@Sllim- 77
Ah, thank you for the “gems”. Looks like an even clearer picture on Arix has emerged. I understand better where smallvice was coming from now.
I take the point about the use of the word bigoted. It served to qualify things somewhat, but when looked at it within the context of the point, a different picture could emerge.
@plopp (#78),
I think a distinction can actually be drawn between marriages and civil unions, such that they are not put on an equal footing.
The (secular) bases for the institution of marriage are:
(1) The government wishes to promote a society composed of stable, lifelong, monogamous relationships.
(2) The government wishes to encourage the birth of children within a stable, lifelong, monogamous relationship.
(3) The government wishes to encourage the bringing up of children within a stable, lifelong, monogamous, opposite-sex relationship.
If (1) were the only relevant factor, there’d be no basis for distinguishing (opposite-sex) marriages and (same-sex) civil unions. But (2) and (3) may be valid bases for distinction.
First, as regards (3), we may argue that it’s in the child’s best interests to be brought up by opposite-sex parents (although this is hotly debated), or alternatively, that the child’s best interests demand that the State should formally promote same-sex parenthood only if there is compelling evidence that the child would not be disadvantaged compared to another child brought up by opposite-sex parents. (This is also an argument against adoption by GLBT couples.) Otherwise, the State should promote only opposite-sex marriage/parenthood, through the appropriate subsidies and facilities associated with the institution of marriage.
Second, (2) and (3) may be linked. We may say that the State should encourage children to be brought up by their biological parents. A side-effect of such a policy would be the exclusion of gays and lesbians, since they cannot reproduce.
So there may be a basis for retaining a distinction between marriages and all other relationships.
But the interesting flipside is this. What about opposite-sex couples who wish to marry but declare that they will never have kids, or who are unable to do so? (2) and (3) cease to be relevant factors. I would argue that in such a case, to be consistent and non-discriminatory, we must allow these couples to enter only into civil unions. A radical proposal would be to allow marriage for all opposite-sex couples, but for any such marriage to be automatically ‘downgraded’ into a civil union if the couple fails to have kids within X number of years.
Ref to posts #6, #42, #68 [Arix], #25, #51, #76 [la nausee] and #80 lobo76
I have been following the arguments relating to this assertion made by Arix in #6:
“Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them).”
This is a ludicrous statement as la nausee and lobo76 have both pointed out, with their convincing arguments. Yet Arix has been adamant there is nothing wrong with it.
I agree of course that Arix was talking nonsense without realizing it. But the irrationality in his statement has been pointed out to him and yet he cannot see the light.
To Arix: please analyze, once again if necessary, your statement/arguments and the arguments from la nausee and lobo76. Please use the dictionary if necessary for the meaning of the terms that appear in your statement. And, finally, please admit you made a ludicrous statement.
smallvice (#72),
1) I would ask Mr Weinberg if he meant organized religion or religious spirituality. But let’s not get into that debate here.
2) Err … I didn’t treat Alex Au as my enemy. I read his blog because I find most of his posts well-informed. This, unfortunately, wasn’t one of those. I find most of his insights refreshing, so I read them.
Apologies, but I am not as mercenary as you are.
3) What the hell is “entryism”? Go back and look at the disclaimer again. I am amazed that you can ever find anything in that which is pro Christian-Right.
Because, let me remind you, I am not a member of the Christian Right; I am not with FM Thio and Thio Jr; I am not with City Harvest.
4) Wow, thanks for helping me clarify that point.
5) I am sorry; I am not as pessimistic as you are. Hmm, maybe your pessimism is because you are an atheist. That was Nietzsche’s conclusion: that all atheists would eventually become nihilists, because they have no more purpose left in life.
6) Holy Scriptures are historic texts; changing them is akin to tampering with archaeological findings. What can be changed, though, is the interpretation of these texts. And I do agree, some interpretations need to be changed, but one needs to find the correct over-arching framework before suggesting any changes.
And no, that over-arching framework must necessarily be of a higher-level than secular humanism.
Smallvice (#73),
1) Why don’t you go read some books on proper theology first before making faux pas statements on “victim-card” strategies?
3) Here you are, again, jumping to conclusions. I said “As far as I understand” which means “as far as I perceive others to think”. I agree, in fact, with yw over his/her comment that the “public” and “private” spaces are ill-defined.
In fact, what about you provide your definition? I am really interested to know what your definition of “public” and “private” are.
4) Haven’t you heard: it takes two hands to clap.
to #85 la nausée:
From what I understand, a civil union would just be a recognised (ideally) monogamous relationship between two people?
With regard to (2) and (3) I am of the opinion that the sex of the parents matter less than their ability to take care of the kid. Also, the subsidies and benefits that you mention (with regard to marriages) would only apply to their children and child leave, etc? Or do you include things like spousal tax relief?
In that case if the former (all subsidies are child-related only) is true, then there’ll be no point distinguishing marriages and civil unions, what if the heterosexual couple in a civil union one day decide to have a child? In the case of the latter, discriminating against childless couples (and/or homosexuals) in civil unions for spousal tax relief and suchlike would seem rather unjustified by itself.
As a random thought, LGBT would-be parents could always resort to sperm banks and homosexual friends of the opposite sex to have kids =)
Pritham (#75),
1) “censuring” is different from “Censoring”. Anyway, I only post in response to other people’s posts; you were censuring Interested in your post, so I made the remark that some pro-gay people need to be censured as well.
2) haha:D.
3) Yes, let’s have a debate point-for-point. But please, brush anything that Smallvice says to the side. He is not here to participate properly in the debate; he is here to chase me off this thread.
I thanked you for your positive attitude; and I hope you will maintain it.
4) Yes, as you say, “problematic on all levels”. So, have you a feeling for smallvice’s true agenda yet?
5) Indeed.
6) No, it isn’t a straightforward equality issue either, although that is what the Pink Lobby tries to portray. It is not straightforward, however, because of the psychosexual aspect, which is a different aspect from the biological aspect in race discrrimination.
7) The government sees the repeal of 377A as a possible cause of Liberal-Conservative violence in Singapore, which would harm our political stability and the government’s prize treasure of FDI by MNCs. So it is a pragmatic policy to retain 377A.
@plopp:
Basically, I’m arguing that institutions like marriage and civil unions are not entitlements, i.e. no one has a ‘right’ to marry, unlike the right to engage in sexual activity. Rather, the State may disburse subsidies and levy taxes on certain classes of individuals as appropriate to promote certain goals (e.g., the proper bringing up of children), by modifying individual behaviour. Marriage is one formal way of doing this. As long as there’s some connection between the class of people identified (such as opposite-sex couples in a long-term relationship who have kids) and the social goal, no one can claim to be ‘discriminated’ against simply because he or she does not receive the benefits others get.
I think the benefits/taxes for marriages would encompass both child-related and non-child-related subsidies (like priority for HDB flat ownership), since even if the couple doesn’t currently have kids, the expectation is that they’ll have kids soon (say within the next 5-10 years). If they don’t, then they should lose the subsidies/benefits by being ‘downgraded’.
This is not to say that there shouldn’t be subsidies/benefits for civil unions too, although less than those for marriages. After all, as I said, the State has a separate interest in promoting stable monogamous relationships, regardless of whether child-raising is involved. So the State may recognize a separate category called ‘civil unions’ for couples unwilling or unable to have children (whether opposite-sex or same-sex).
If a childless couple subsequently wishes to have children, then they should be ‘upgraded’ again. Here, the marriage-civil union distinction serves precisely to incentivize having children.
Of course, I’ve been assuming an equivalence between (1) opposite-sex couples unwilling or unable to have children, and (2) same-sex couples. As you say, adoption and/or modern science are changing that somewhat. But the issue is then is not whether same-sex couples can have children — they can. It’s whether the State should promote this. A lot turns on what would be in the child’s best interests. The ‘play it safe’ approach, which I subscribe to, says that the State should promote only opposite-sex parenthood unless and until same-sex parenthood is shown to be equally beneficial for the child’s welfare.
I actually couldn’t follow the comments here=P had to keep tracing back to see which comment/ commentor everyone is referring too…
But for those who think this is just a LGBT issue, and just another ploy of LBGTs trying to push their agendas… Then perhaps we should ban any article related to animals, racism, politics- or just any article at all. Cos all articles are trying to convince us of something that the writer believes in.
So why only shut out LGBT issues? Do they not have the right to have their concerns addressed, just like any other minority groups?
@Arix
Because I censure Interested, it doesnt make it imperative on me to do the same to others. I am no neutral party in this online debate that can be expected to play this role. If it helps, I see interested as a much larger problem than smallvice. And because I disagree with smallvice on some counts, doesnt mean that I should censure him (from my personal pov) the same way I do to interested. After all, I disagree with my friends on some issues, but they are still my friends. And anyway, both interested and smallvice can just say “up yours” to me.
Well Arix, no one can chase you off any thread. Its your arguments and value-add that interest. If you feel you are being chased away, look at your arguments again. Obviously others disagree and have different points to make. Clearly your “gems” dont seem to have done you any favours. Maybe more people disagree with you here – and thats ok. You made your points, they’ve made theirs. Case closed, let the readers decide.
I dont understand this – 6) “No, it isn’t a straightforward equality issue either, although that is what the Pink Lobby tries to portray. It is not straightforward, however, because of the psychosexual aspect, which is a different aspect from the biological aspect in race discrrimination.”
Wld you at least perhaps concede that equality has a large part to play in the gay debate, even more than the psychosexual issues you speak of, without prejudicing your anticipated explanation?
I see your point about the govt keeping a lid on this because of a possible liberal-conservative values clash. But I sense an inductive leap here, between repealing 377a and FDIs. Has FDI disappeared from countries that treat gays relatively more equally?
la nausee (#76),
1) Put it this way, a person with a phobia of spiders can still force himself – or be forced – to watch a movie entirely about spiders. So, a heterosexual that is exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex can still have sex – masturbate, anal, groupie – with members of the same sex for reasons other than sexual attraction.
Whereas, Homosexuals publicly claim that their genetic make-up explicitly stops them from any possibility of having sex with a member of the opposite sex for any reason.
2) “Listening attentively” should not be confused with “persuaded”. “Listening Attentively” simply means bothering to understand fully where the speaker comes from, and being able to see the speaker’s evidence from the speaker’s POV. Whether you agree with the speaker is something else.
I listen attentively; I bother to respond to each and every paragraph of each post I respond to, even the short ones. Unlike Smallvice, who is simply forcing a plaster mould onto me out of his own anti-religious prejudice.
3) I don’t actually believe in a conservative majority either. I believe instead that there is a conservative minority, a liberal minority and an apathetic majority.
Anyhow, “listening attentively” does not provide the carte blanche for anyone to be silenced. Instead, if they listened more attentively, they would be able to provide more informed criticism and might find that all this agitation to be really unnecessary.
The one element that is different between a non-Fundamentalist Religious Authority and a Secular Government is this: the former is required to demonstrate love in its association with others as part of its duty; the latter cares only about mechanical efficiency. If the Pink Lobby was a little more attentive, it might realize that it could work with the Moderates against the Fundamentalists, and come to a solution whereby both can accept, without compromising either side’s deep-felt convictions.
Of course, listening attentively is dangerous too, because it involves exercising judgement over all the points. And sometimes, the judgement might result in you being “persuaded” to join the other camp. The Pink Lobby loves to assume that everyone can be “persuaded” to join their camp, but refuses to accept that it is equally valid that anyone from their camp could also be “persuaded” to join the religious (moderate) side.
Smallvice also tends to think that everyone thinks like him. Frankly, there is no more a “liberal majority” than there is a “conservative majority”.
4) The issue here is not the bias. The issue here is fair presentation of the views of the other side, and the professionalism of TOC in presenting “foreign” material that is of subjective quality.
5) Pick some other article, please. The Burger-King article is a news report, not an op-ed piece. It covers facts, not opinions.
Pritam Singh #84,
If you are referring to what seems like a disproportionately aggressive stance by smallvice, I agree. Otherwise, I am curious as to what that “context” might be.
@93) Pritam Singh
“But I sense an inductive leap here, between repealing 377a and FDIs. Has FDI disappeared from countries that treat gays relatively more equally?”
Nice one, Pritam=)
Alex Au and people like you
As our “Justice” minister said “Up to courts” to reinterpret 377A.
So why not get that lover of all causes espoused by GLBT, militant feminists and anal sex proponents, Siew Kum Hong, to return to practicising law, so that he can launch a court action arguing 377A is unconstitutional
Remember all the gd work he did for “people like you” in Parly?
Pritham (#93),
1) Perhaps “make critique” would be a better word. Anyway, it is not the points that I intend to censure, it is the attitude behind the presentation of the points.
In the case of Interested, it is correct for eg to say that homosexuals have been called “homo, queer … ah kua”, but incorrect to imply that they should continue being called that.
Similarly, for Smallvice, if he wants to state and critique Dr Thio’s POV, it is fine. But making spurious links between me and her is not.
2) Yes, let the readers decide on the topic. But I am not going to stand for my dignity to be insulted by anyone, smallvice or otherwise. We can have passionate discourse, but passionate discourse shouldn’t be including tactics of poisoning the well.
4) Equality has a large part to play for points 1 to 3 of the agenda of the Homosexual Civil Rights Movement (to use the politically-correct term), because it deals with societal structures and neutral organizations. For points 4 and 5, the psychosexual issue has a larger role to play because it deals with the personal and relational sphere.
The change engendered by points 4 and 5 is far more sweeping than any change initiated by a previous civil rights movement. That is mainly because it involves familial relationships and children. Or perhaps, civil rights don’t apply to children?
Adoption isn’t just about the child and the foster parent. It also (should) includes the feelings of the birth parent(s). Hence, the furore over Madonna’s African adoptions.
The problem with studies on 4 & 5 is that they have been commissioned by representatives from either side of the debate, resulting in results that are naturally biased towards the side that commissioned the research. We need an independent, academic study into these two issues before coming to any conclusion whether to preserve or repeal current law. Meanwhile, of course, we cannot have a policy vacuum, so we maintain the convention until it is disproved.
5) Well, it is not my inductive leap. But it is not surprising, given the government’s attitude towards public protests.
Hi Lobo76 #80,
It matters in questioning religious motivation. We cannot give religious motivation any legitimacy or religion any legitimate claim to moral authority. Otherwise, religious institutions would continue to assert undue moral tone that lead to oppression. This is especially important in public debate so as to conserve positive secularism in Singapore where religion already has a pre-determined role in public life. Beware of religious people trying to circumvent positive secularism.
@Arix (#94), I’m not sure homosexuals claim “that their genetic make-up explicitly stops them from any possibility of having sex with a member of the opposite sex for any reason”. I would be interested in knowing first-hand a gay or a lesbian who claims that he/she has an in-built circuit breaker that explicitly stops him/her from having sex with members of the opposite sex.
Otherwise, homosexuals are just as free or unfree to have sex with the opposite sex “for reasons other than sexual attraction” as heterosexuals are to have sex with members of the same sex. The vast majority of homosexuals would admit that they may be ‘forced’ into having sex with the opposite sex (e.g., rape, blackmail, impaired judgment).
Moreover, you’re introducing what a person ‘publicly claims’ to be his/her sexual orientation as a factor in his/her freedom to engage in sex. If so, you must apply it consistently across the board. The vast majority of heterosexuals ‘publicly claim’ to be incapable of feeling sexually attracted to the opposite sex — that’s the whole point of that label. If so, they as ‘limited’ by what they’ve publicly claimed as homosexuals allegedly are (according to you).
And in case you retreat into the ambiguity inherent in the phrase ‘publicly claims’, let me pre-empt that. Many heterosexuals do not expressly and publicly declare, “I do solemnly swear that I am biologically and psychologically incapable of being attracted to a member of the opposite sex.” Yet neither do a great majority of homosexuals. We often have to infer (or attempt to infer) a person’s sexual orientation from his or her conduct and words.
I’m not sure there’s any point continuing this bizarre debate, because the rebuttals have been set out in full, and it’s up to you whether you wish to listen attentively or not. No one has a right to compel you to do so.
And that adequately deals with the middle portion of our discussion too.
Lastly, you say that the article on the Burger King ad is a (‘neutral’) news report, not an op-ed piece. Is that simply because the statements are quoted in the third person, rather than simply extracted as in this article? So the essence of the distinction is that the former article expressly shows that the quoted statements are made by a living, breathing human being with his own personal views and background (‘filthy imperialist angmoh with PC liberal values’)? Conversely, this article fails to remind readers that the extracted piece may not be the absolute Truth, and therefore is unfair?