October 25, 2007

Alternative Perspectives

I write in response to the post by Loveless Summer, entitled "Singaporeans are scared sh*tless by gay people".

I agree with his general theme. This post of mine is not to critique his argument point by point, because I am swamped with 335912838 things to do right now, but to add some comments in line with his general theme of the fear experienced by The Majority.

Perhaps one of the reasons the repeal did not go through, is that The Majority fears their own behaviour around our gay people. And that may be because many people do not know any gay people, or if they do, their gay friends and acquaintances and (maybe) relatives have not yet dared to tell them they are gay. I would, for example, seriously reconsider telling Thio Li-Ann I was gay (hypothetically), if she were an acquaintance.

I am reminded of Baey Yam Keng's Parliamentary speech on the subject, where he questioned the knowledge and understanding The Majority had of our gays. Here I highlight some quotes from his speech. The emphases in bold are mine.


I assume most Singaporeans do not have many gay acquaintances. We are likely to gather our knowledge and form our opinions of the homosexual world from media reports. I believe certain stereotypes of homosexuals in people’s minds will include effeminate men (eg Boy George), men who prey on young boys (eg Christopher Neil), flamboyant men who seem to lead decadent lifestyles (eg Elton John) and AIDS patients (eg Paddy Chew). I do know quite a number of homosexual men and women. The majority, if not all of them, do not fall into any of those above-mentioned stereotype categories. Well, they include some very talented and creative people, a common descriptor of gays which many have said is unfounded, eg directors, actors, hairstylists and designers. But I also know gay men who many will say are just your average man on the street, making a living as lawyers, lecturers, engineers, accountants, bankers, teachers and civil servants.

[...]

Because of the extensive and some may say, polarized debate, we may not be ready to repeal the act [section 377A] now. However, whether the perceived majority holding the status quo view has enough knowledge and understanding of the subject matter to make an informed opinion, is another question. I suspect a significant segment of our society does not really care and some are just uncomfortable with this topic and choose the convenient way to stick with status quo without knowing what the act [section 377A] exactly is and does.


For now, obviously the government is not going to welcome another call to repeal the gay sex law. It would be tremendously silly for gay rights activists to push hard to do so at this very moment. Therefore in response as a gay rights activist (not a gay activist, thank you), over the next few posts I will instead offer some anecdotal personal perspectives for the Majority to consider. It will be worth hearing the stories of the gay people in a less emo form than has been presented over these past few weeks. (I also recommend reading Ng Yi-Sheng's SQ21, a compilation of personal stories from the LGBT community.)

But we begin with something non-homosexual today, since you're not too used to it. Something light to start off with.

Suppose you are straight, which many of you are. It's not something you think about a great deal. You simply chase girls, or allow yourself to be chased by guys. You have firm ideas about gender roles and feel that those ideas are shared by everybody. Being accepted and validated by your community is very important to you. And you feel that all of Singapore is your community (which I agree is good, btw).

So first I ask: what would you think of girls who express their interest in the men they are interested in? They are straight, just like you. Are they still 'girls'?

Would you continue to see them the same way if you knew they had taken the initiative to show their interest in their guys?

This seems a trivial question, but it is especially relevant to the notion of equal consideration of diversity.

For the guys especially, how would you behave if a girl said that she liked you, in the best-case scenario of foreknowledge where she has given you plentiful hints over some period of time? Would you physically shove her aside? Would you be rude to her? Would you, perhaps, consider her any less of a person for having had the unbelievably "socially unheard of" good grace (or bad taste) to make the first move? Would you, oh horrors, beat her? I hope not.

For the girls, it is much socially ingrained in us that we should not be rude to people, and many of us have developed fairly effective methods for rejecting guys without resorting to physical or emotional violence. But I have also heard horror stories of girls thinking that by right of their birth as girls, that they can trample all over the feelings of the men.

In Singapore there is no culture of courteously and graciously rejecting someone, that I know of. We should begin to develop one, the way we would want to develop a rational basis for thought and opinion in Singapore. You would be quite perturbed if someone rejected you by calling you the worst specimen of your gender ever to live on Earth.

In so many ways, all our people deserve the same courtesy that we wish was shown to us those times long ago in our youth when uncaring girls or guys rejected us badly due to their own fears. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you... People do take hints and good rejections when delivered well.

Some Quotes from others on the Fallacy of the Majority, for my own reference

1. The Daily Backtrack: Applause and Thumping of Chairs


"No, no, that's not the worst line, this is: "(A) heterosexual, stable family... it's what we teach in schools, what parents want to see, want their children to see... to set their expectations and encourage them to develop in this direction". From our own Prime Minister's mouth- and here's a coinage, we live in a country with a "Straight Atmosphere". Breathe in our wonderful heterosexual air, it makes everyone grow up into Biblically acceptable copulators, go forth and multiply, nevermind the gay people.

[...]

In the past, the government used the word "backlash" instead of "pushback". In the former, the government insisted that the more gay people pushed for their rights, the more clamping-down would come. This was a warning- shut up or we will turn violent. In the latter, however, the government realises that it is not just gay people who find the law unconstitutional, and they would never touch their precious heterosexuals, so it becomes a "pushback"- shut up or you'll get more resistance. I for one do not believe the resistance could get any stronger."


2. Loveless Summer: Singaporeans are scared sh*tless by gay people


3. And an exchange between lbandit and Darth Grievous on 377A itself, links can be found from lbandit's most cogent post on it, here.

October 19, 2007

My Key Takeaways from the Repeal 377A Petition

Over the course of these two weeks, I have publicized the existence of the Repeal 377A petition to many people. Over email, over MSN, and in real life. At all times, I have tempered my words and actions during these interactions because I value and respect their decision to sign or not sign. Whichever it may be.


This may seem unusual - to fight for a cause is to be fully committed to it, which in part includes 'evangelizing' the message. But here, I believe that to coerce or persuade people into signing goes against the spirit of the petition, which is to repeal an unjust discriminatory law so as to honour the dignity and freedom of choice of all peoples. So I did not even try to persuade anyone to sign. (It took some doing to hold back, but I did manage.)

The organisers of this petition probably share this view on freedom and dignity, since they have put in place a "Report to Webmaster" option for every signature on this petition. If someone's name has been signed by someone else, the abuse can be reported to the Webmaster and the signature will be removed. I did this for the signature "Ho Peng Kee, Member of Parliament", as it was obvious it could not have been him, for 2 reasons: 1. he is a PAP MP and thus subject to the party Whip, and 2. his position against homosexuality being "promoted" has been highlighted in Yawning Bread's articles before. And it was removed in short order.

In light of this atmosphere of respectful freedom and easy accessibility to not sign, I must say that 6500+ signatures on the petition is a truly amazing and heartwarming number.

When speaking to my friends and acquaintances about this petition, in addition to respecting their decision to sign or not sign, I have also taken some time to speak with them to understand why. This post lists out the reasons.

Signing the repeal petition:

  • For justice and equality and human rights, honouring their freedom of choice and their dignity. Liberal egalitarian values, in other words.
  • To remove at least this justification for discrimination against gays, the legal justification. For those who still disapprove of homosexuality, this will promote honesty and clearer thinking for the grounds of their disapproval, so that rational discussion is more likely to happen.
  • Consensual sex between gay adults harms no one and therefore is not a crime.
  • The probability of future parliament personnel reversing the present PM's decision to not prosecute is nonzero. So PM's assurance is no full-scale assurance.
  • The fear and sorrow felt by their gay friends/relatives/acquaintances, that they will still be harassed by the police under this law, although the Attorney General's Chambers will not actively prosecute.
  • State powers: To not give the police the discretion or license to harass gays (see above point).
  • State powers: To not bow to the views of the "morally conservative majority"
  • - survey done by NTU is misleadingly framed and does not address de/criminalization merely social acceptance, and no other supporting study provided.
  • Therefore statistical proof of the existence of this group is dubious.
  • - even if such a majority exists, there cannot be a tyranny of the majority in a functioning democracy. Minority groups' rights do have to be protected, subject to some caveats.
  • State powers: A clear separation between religion and State, so that the religiously-motivated views of certain religious people are not favoured over those of other religions and therefore do not set a precedent for violating the Constitutional freedom of all religions in our State. Our Constitution says that we are a secular State, not a theocracy.
  • To assert the presence of a "non-conservative" voice given that the Straits Times does not give much representation to this sector and gives much media coverage to the "morally conservative majority" instead.

Not signing the repeal petition:

  • Fear of ISD or other expectations of doom and retribution from the State apparatus.
  • Neutrality on this issue, coupled with a "prefer to pick the winning side, whichever side wins" attitude.
  • Apathy on everything faintly political. Prefer to derive meaning in life from economic sustenance, and to heck with all the rest.
  • "I am religious, and homosexual behaviour is against my religion."
  • It is not normal. (in the sense that it is not the behaviour of the majority)
  • (interestingly...) From the gays, fear of greater discrimination from the "morally conservative majority" as a backlash of this petition.
  • Slippery slope - gay rights, gay marriage, generally a "what next?! nuclear war?" fear uncertainty and doubt.
  • The family unit should be a unit of procreation, and procreation can occur between a man and a woman only.


I think it is quite clear that the non-signers' reasons are unsound compared to the signers' reasons. But they are still valid.*

As a result, we do have to build up social understanding, instead of pandering to the unsound reasons for keeping 377A. If the law is repealed, good. If the law is not repealed, it will be a great pity, but it will not be the end of the world nor of liberal democracy in Singapore nor of the gays' hopes for fair treatment. As always, there are two ways for things to change: Repeal the law, and social acceptance will follow. Or increase social acceptance, through all our individual daily thoughts and actions, and the law will die a quiet death eventually.

Take heart, live life well, and we shall wait and see.


*I wish to say that the issue of gay marriages is vastly separate from that of gay decriminalization, if only because Singapore is so far away from social acceptance of gay marriage that it would be ludicrous and counterproductive to force it through legislation, even if it could be forced, which it can't. For that, society is truly, absolutely not ready - see the present DEBATE over basic decriminalization of gays and you'll know what I mean.

October 14, 2007

October 7, 2007

Open Letter to Repeal Section 377A

http://www.repeal377a.com/letter/

Deadline is October 19th, after which it will be forwarded to the PM. Yes this is for real. Please sign if you support it.

October 4, 2007