Unacknowledgments

It's really funny how, in Thio Li-Ann's post-377A parliamentary debate article, she makes a very concerted appeal to readers to refrain from "allowing public debate to degenerate into fruitless name-calling and distorting issues by speaking misleading half-truths.", for fruitless name-calling is something that both sides are guilty of. It's also easy to spot. The second part however, is an offence that she seems to be not aware of having committed. Like a well-hidden sniper, the eloquence with which she expresses herself makes her a little harder to spot as an accusing black pot, but it can nevertheless still be done. Here are some choice lines from her most recent essay.

"A central goal of debate must be to lend clarity to the issue, as where PM Lee stated that Singapore law recognises only racial and religious minorities. Thus , the politicised term "sexual minorities" is legally vacuous."

But no less substantive. If not, Thio herself would not have preceded the above with the following:

"While acknowledging "space" for homosexuals to live quiet lives, PM Lee firmly stated that homosexuality activists "push this agenda", that would elicit "push-back" from the morally conservative majority. In other words, don't aggressively push the bedroom into the public square."

Thio curiously reaffirms Lee's mistake in speaking of agendas as if they're dark, evil things that should be feared when they surface and are identified. Come on, everybody has agendas. You do, and I do. Even if Thio is blind to her own fanning of moral alarmism, she very definitely has an agenda with regard to 377A as well, as evidenced by her remark at the end.

"Terms like "dignity" and "tolerance" are empty apart from a theory of human nature, human good and community. To go beyond sound-bites to substance, we must not gloss over the real issue."

Again, what is interesting here is not Thio's accusation of pro-repeal arguments as being a largely empty one, but her implication that anti-repeal arguments have much more substance.

"Furthermore, specific isues should be debated, rather than making emotional and vague apeals to "fairness", "equality", "inclusivity" and "tolerance". The concrete issue is: what should we exclude or include? What should we not tolerate? "Tolerance" must not become the refuge of a person without convictions."

Ahem. So apparently I'm now a vague, emotional person without convictions. Silly, it's easy to tell what should not be tolerated: any behaviour that can be deemed to be morally unethical. If such an argument can be made convincingly in court, then it should be publicly acceptable as well. The truth is, a lot of what Thio's said recently wouldn't hold water in court, simply because it lacks the spine that only evidence can provide, which so far, is largely on the pro-repeal side. The most revealing quote however, was early in the essay, when she wrote the following:

"To say the law should ignore moral questions is to impose a "hidden" morality by default. Hedonism, a recipe for societal suicide, is the philosophy underlying the argument that the law should not interfere with private sexual behaviour. As philosophy affects law, we need wisdom to know what the law should encourage or hinder."

Ah yes. Only gays are hedonistic, because they have anal sex. What Thio needed to add there, was proof that only gays are hedonistic, for I don't think any of us could survive life for long if we did not catch a movie every now and then, or go for an ice-cream at the nearest Swensens. You get the idea. By her definition, we should already be in the throes of societal suicide.

There's something that I think isn't being said here, and that is the assumption that gays will kill us all, just like in that largely misunderstood biblical tale about Sodom and Gomorrah. It's therefore justifiable to criminalise anal sex, because these men and women are walking, talking, fornicating WMDs hell-bent on societal suicide. Yes, I'm putting words in her mouth here, but how unreasonable is it to assume? Anyone holding such beliefs, not just Thio, would be justified in reaching the conclusion above. Assuming that this is true, what then needs to be highlighted is that Thio's logic is at least partially informed by religion. Aren't church and state supposed to be separated?

Evidently, it is not so easy for some. At the very least, we can take consolation in the fact that the reality many gays contend with has very little to do with 377A. The tug-of-war that has ensued over the signpost that it is though, has been instructive. At least we're on the moon now.