Donaldson Tan
There have been acts of mis-information over Thio Li-Ann’s decision to cancel her visit to New York University (NYU). Particularly, Thio Li-Ann’s supporters attempted to demonise the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBT) community and their supporters by categorically stating them as an intolerant lot – an abuse of the vernacular term tolerance on top of the unspoken conflation between the Singaporean and American LGBT communities.
The Princeton Wordnet defines tolerance as “permissible difference; allowing some freedom to move within limits”. Clearly, tolerance does not mean no disagreement and hostility but being able to accommodate the disagreement or hostility of others regardless of others’ triumph. Moreover, it is naïve to demand people to solely rebut Thio Li-Ann’s arguments and opinion on LGBTs when these people do not necessarily share her access to the major public platforms and policy forums in Singapore. Reasoning alone is insufficient.
The crux here is what is considered permissible and what isn’t. The fundamental liberties guaranteed under Part IV of the Singapore Constitution are the freedoms of movement, speech, assembly, association and religion. An individual does not necessarily operate alone and he may use his freedoms to promote a particular opinion and persuade his target and opponents to accept this opinion.
However, these freedoms are subject to restriction by law. For example, religious liberty is curtailed by the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act while free speech is curtailed by the Defamation Act. Similarly in the United States, these rights are guaranteed by the United States Bill of Rights and they are also subjected to restriction by federal and state legislation.
Ronald Wong wrote to TODAYonline: “I think it is one thing to hold an opinion and tolerate others who have their own, and another thing to hold an opinion and then persecute others who disagree, in the name of non-discrimination.” Such a statement is symptomatic of “constantly shifting the goal posts” because no person holds the same criteria on what persecution is and there is no mechanism to ensure that this personal criteria is a fixed one. As a commonly accepted standard, the law sets the bar for what is considered as civil or illiberal and how opposing camps operate.
Christian Blogger Alastair Su wrote: “By intimidating professor Thio out of her appointment, they have essentially silenced someone in the name of freedom.” While suppression is illiberal, there is a need to differentiate between suppression and competition in the marketplace of ideas. In suppression, one’s liberty is taken away forcibly. In competition, one’s ability to exercise liberty effectively is damaged. The fact that Thio Li-Ann’s letters are published in the mainstream media is testimony to the fact that she retained her liberty but lost an international platform to propagate her views on LGBTs.
Going beyond permissible limits in Singapore and America is not only illiberal but also criminal. So why are there people mislabelling civil means to express disagreement and hostility as illiberal? Petition and boycott are democratic means to either express disagreement with policies or sway policies towards a particular direction. This is democracy at work. Rejecting democratic means to achieve result is surely illiberal and this embodies a tinge of dominionism.
A petition with 887 signatories questioned Thio Li-Ann’s suitability to teach “Human Rights in Asia” as a visiting professor at NYU. The signatories include NYU alumnus, faculty, students and other LGBT Supporters. The low registration rate of Thio Li-Ann’s classes also suggests boycott and a legitimate scepticism of her candidacy. Heartland Alliance also wrote to NYU to inform the university’s administration that they would boycott NYU’s future fund-raising events. The LGBT association NYU Outlaw also sought a Town-hall style meeting with the university’s administration to clarify the situation on Thio Li-Ann’s appointment.
An important thing to note is that the petition and boycott are targeted at the administration of NYU and not Thio Li-Ann herself. In a letter to TODAYonline dated 27 July 2009, Thio Li-Ann wrote: “To say I was ‘disappointed by the hostility’ minimises the virulence of the attacks I received. A cursory glance at the invective online explains why many friends worried for my safety.” Avoiding unnecessary risk is prudent but it is paranoia when she and her friends assume the LGBT Community in New York are not law-abiding citizens. By voluntarily resigning from NYU, she had missed out on a good opportunity to learn how LGBTs are just as human as her, how LGBTs can be just as conservative as heterosexuals in terms of public display of affection, and how LGBTs support family values..
Last but not least, is there a need for her to invoke nationalist sentiments in defending herself? She wrote in the aforementioned letter: “This was just one of the hostile, often vulgar messages I received, some insulting my intellect, gender, ethnicity and country.” Our national pledge emphasises “to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality”. Invoking nationalist sentiments in Singapore to resent democratic manoeuvres in America runs contrary to our national pledge and this begs a question: what is she really up to?
—-
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
Hi Donaldson,
Granted that being secular is the best counter-balance. The right phrase which you have used here is “counter-balance”, and it must be that. This is recognizing the influences of race and religion and working at striking a balance between these influences and secularism.
What cannot happen is for secularism to run away on its own. If it does, that secularism is also in danger of taking a fundamentalist form. What if one day, in the name of secularism, a leader decides to eradicate religion and to attempt establishing a common race, without consideration whether you are Malay, Chinese, Indian, Muslim, Hindu or Christian?
PM Lee made a good start by elaborating that religion cannot be allowed to influence the political domain – where the big picture of governing the multi-mix nation is at stake. However, he was quick to admit that where the social domain is concern, these influences cannot be divorced without adverse consequences. That’s why the need to always work with the religious leaders to get the right balance.
My question is this: what if PM Lee thinks like one of you and is adamant that there is no room for religion and race in whichever domain?
You see. one need not be a fundamentalist to ask such questions, does it? (So Kezu, your attempts to stick the label on me in your last few posts do not work. It shows up your lack of depth in the argument, if anything).
Hi Gemami,
Race and religion are as certain as death and taxes. You are giving secularism too much credit. Christianity was unable to eradicating other religions during the reign of the Roman Empire when Christianity was the State Religion. Besides, secularism specifically refers to exclusion of religion in the political sphere.
Gemami
If you are refering to the label of fundamentalist.
Well lets reexamine it then.
When you keep insisting that religion be included in secularism, that’s where i deduce the fact that you are one.
What you keep seeing is secularism will eliminate all religion.
But why cant you see that from my point of view, a secular society that ALLOW all approved religions to exist?
(it is already so, and cross fingers and hands on heart will continue to do so)
Does secular society for the last 44 years see any church, mosque or temple be denied their existence? Any legal religions practices be denied? Or other religion belief and practices that not in sync with yours imposed onto you?
I dont need to prove my depth in arguement to you. You on the other hand just attempting to auto-loop the same arguement till we all give up in frustration.
No point to get upset my friend, its only online debate. Instead write to the Lees instead to insist secularism must include all influences and diktat of religion. :-)
Donaldson
Did you manage to catch the documentary ‘Secret Bible’ on discovery channel?
I find it extremely insightful that we are living in information technology age.
Where history is more assessible to us all.
Kezu,
By your logic, why stop at calling me a fundamentalist? Why not go the distance and call me a racist, a conservative, a traditionalist and everything else except secularist?
Hi Donaldson,
I understand the tautological definition of race and religion and it is also easy to see where both are coming from and heading to. They have been well archived.
It is secularism that has the element of the unknown and that is why I am questioning the full merit of it: and my questions arose from the clear exclusion of religion in particular. Do we have a model society we can look upon where the societal composition is as diverse/mixed as that in Singapore?
In societies like the US, or Iran, where there is one major influential religion, it is easier to separate religion from the secular. However, in a society like Singapore where various faiths are adopted, each in almost equal proportions, their influential differences cannot be lost on the governing aspect of the society. Can they be conveniently amputated from the day to day affairs governing their well-being?
So you see, from the religious viewpoint, it is not the fear of secularism that questions arise, but it is how secularism relates to who they view themselves to be – the complete package – as citizens, as the race they are and with the faith they hold dear. For the secularist to deny them all these is to tell them to be a completely different person from who they truly are.
In this sense, if you are sympathetic toward the GLBT plight, then doesn’t it seem apparent to you that it is the same plight the non-secularist is caught up in? And since you can empathise with the gay plight, surely you can understand the non-secularist’s predicament as well.
Gemami
Well deeply apologized if you are offended by the term.
To be honest, there’s nothing wrong with fundamentalist (if you are one)
Let me clarify my understanding and definition of religion fundamentalist.
That one see everything as black and white and religion has to be involved in every part of society, even politic (then i dont know any other defination), help me out here?
I dont understand why the need to bring in the term of rascist? A bit uncalled for.
To bring home your final point, i have no problem with fundamentalist. As long their action are within the law, their opinion is their own.
Different, yes but wrong? not necessary so.
Live and let live my friend, peace.
Kezu,
The correct term is ‘realist’.
Gemami
Hahaha, ok then.
Then I too am a ‘realist’. But my denomination is of ‘Ignosticism’
See there’s not that much difference between us after all. :-)
gemani
model of secular society that works?
Hmmmm let’s see ya, how about countries in Europe?
Quite successful if i recall, and with high percentage of their society are religiously affiliated.