The mortification of Jill

Here's what one person on the newsgroup Soc.Culture.Singapore.Moderated had to say:

From: Alvin Lim Cheng Hin
Date: 29 Nov 1998

The Moral Depravity of The New Paper

After the TNP had demonstrated its utter lack of journalistic and editorial integrity in the Toh Chin Chye incident, I believed that it would be very difficult for the TNP to top itself. But the TNP has clearly topped itself in its publication of Jill Lim's article 'Who will hold back this tide?' (TNP, 28 Nov 98, p. 26), for in doing so the TNP has descended into the moral depravity of hate speech which mirrors that of 'Jew Suss'. (Of course I'm not certain if this is the first time the TNP has published hate speech; with the TNP anything is possible.)

Ms Lim's article is a model of moral depravity and intellectual dishonesty. The first thing that hits the reader when reading the article is that it is a non sequitur: Ms Lim wishes to claim that homosexuality is morally wrong, but fails to present any argument which supports this. Ms Lim claims that ideas such as 'a person's sexual orientation has no relevance to his politics or job' and 'you can both be a homosexual and a good person, a homosexual and a competent teacher, writer or parent' are 'dangerous ideas, liberal ideas'. This claim is left unsubstantiated, for Ms Lim completely fails to show, and even to attempt to show, how these ideas are indeed 'dangerous'. Reading the article, I can only conclude that the only support she has for her claim is simply her (personal) dislike of homosexuality and what seems to be her belief that what she dislikes is precisely what all morally right-thinking persons would also dislike.

(Perhaps Ms Lim means that these ideas are 'dangerous' because they are 'liberal'. But of course this does not follow, for I assume she would not want to label 'liberal' contributions such as Singapore's being a parliamentary democracy, and her having the right to vote despite her gender as 'dangerous'.)

The article's moral depravity is seen its claim that the idea that 'a person's sexual orientation has no relevance to his politics or job' is 'dangerous', for this is precisely the sort of claim which has founded unjustified discrimination throughout history. Simply substitute 'race' or 'sex' for 'sexual orientation', and you'll have the basis of racial and sexual discrimination. This of course is precisely the basis of the systematic racial prejudice which led to the Holocaust, as well as the systemic prejudice against women which denied them basic rights, including the right to vote.

Perhaps the cause of the failure of the article to justify its claim that the idea that 'a person's sexual orientation has no relevance to his politics or job' is 'dangerous' is simply that it cannot be justified. I argue that the article's moral blindness lies in its blindness to the fundamental principle that attributes of persons which are irrelevant for consideration should not be considered. Consider her attack on Tony Blair's refusal to sack his agriculture minister because of his homosexuality. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to a person's performance in a job such as that of an agriculture minister, and Ms Lim's inability to substantiate her attack clearly reflects this.

Ms Lim also claims that 'privacy is the big argument used to support homosexuality.' This, of course, is disingenuous. The intellectual dishonesty in this claim lies in the fact that privacy is appealed to to attack the practice of outing closeted homosexuals, not to 'support homosexuality'. Furthermore the issue is not the support of homosexuality, but rather the rejection of the unjustified discrimination of homosexuals. The 'big argument' for this is of course founded on the fundamental principle that attributes of persons which are irrelevant for consideration should not be considered. I'm not sure how Ms Lim can attack this principle, or any sound application of it, without falling into hypocrisy. She of course wishes to attack this principle when it is applied to sexual orientation, but obviously not when it is applied to gender, since Ms Lim's having the right to an education, her having the right to vote, her having the right to assume roles and responsibilities which lie beyond that of a housewife, are all the result of the idea that that a person's gender has no relevance to her politics, job, etc.. Such selective prejudice is of course also known as hypocrisy. (It is interesting to note that in previous articles Ms Lim has been very loud in her exposure of hypocrisy in others, for example, the U.S., and Al Gore. Perhaps the truest hypocrite is someone who constantly detects hypocrisy in others but who fails to discern it in herself.)

To compound the moral depravity and intellectual dishonesty of the article, it indulges in pedestrian racism in its lament 'If only the decadent West was not so decadent.' Ms Lim valourises the Malaysian group Pasrah (People's Anti-Homosexual Volunteer Movement) as a model of 'moral rectitude' and seems to suggest that support for homosexuality is a Western phenomenon. But this is intellectually dishonest, for Ms Lim fails to acknowledge the role of Asians and Asian groups such as Marina Mahathir and the Malaysian human-rights group Suaram in combating the blind prejudice manifested in groups like Pasrah.

It is difficult to understand how the TNP can publish an article as rationally incoherent and morally depraved such as this. But given the TNP's track record perhaps this is just to be expected.

---------------

From: Alvin Lim Cheng Hin
Date: 30 Nov 1998

A couple of thoughts occurred to me after I had posted 'The Moral Depravity of The New Paper'.

First, Ms Lim seems to say that the 'dangerous' and 'liberal' ideas are 'beliefs that man should be accorded as much freedom as possible'. But this sort of belief is not a liberal one, but rather a libertarian one. I think this goes to show that Ms Lim doesn't have anything substantial to say, and that her article is nothing more than a presentation of her personal feelings.

Second, Ms Lim mentions Georgia's recent removal of its anti-sodomy law. She specifically mentions that this law is 165 years old, probably wishing to show that this was a good tradition that shouldn't have been eliminated. What she doesn't mention is that Georgia also recently got rid of another similarly old law, one which prohibited inter-racial marriage. Perhaps Ms Lim doesn't wish to consider that not all traditions of Bible-belt states are morally good. Also, Ms Lim fails to note that the case which led to Georgia's supreme court declaring the anti-sodomy law unconstitutional was a case of sodomy involving a *heterosexual* couple. Perhaps she realised that mentioning this would have further weakened her already failed case.

Two days later, the following responses to the above could be seen:

From: Autolycus
Date: 1 Dec 1998

Ah, come on. If you were a true liberal, you'd appreciate her right to fair comment. Just as we appreciate your right to slime her. Besides, you proved her point: homosexuals ARE dangerous - slime them and Alvin Lim gets on yer case...

---------------

From: Autolycus
Date: 1 Dec 1998

A couple of thoughts occurred to me as well.

1) Ms Lim has a conservative morality and seems to write from that viewpoint.
2) You don't think that's good.
Oh, bugger all. Why're you so... intolerant? *grin*

---------------

From: Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
Date: 2 Dec 1998

I don't think Alvin is being intolerant. She's had her say, now he's having his say. He never really argued that she should have kept her mouth shut; rather, he seems to be saying that if she's going to make some noises, at least make sure that the noises she make are well-constructed and supported instead of being intellectually dishonest and using examples in misleading contexts.

And I'm pretty sure if TNP had run an article by Alvin going the opposite direction, she'd have been spewing vitriol as well. And as far as I can see, he's been able to poke some pretty damn big holes in her argument.

NB. "Bugger all" is such a sensitive expression to use in the context of this thread...

 
Meanwhile, on SiGNeL...

Binx, a American subscriber to SiGNeL, the email forum, saw through the writing and explained that,

This is called SARCASM - actually it is sarcasm in a mocking in tone so it is a SARDONIC piece.

Actually I thought it was a real joy to read. I needed a laugh and this provided it - you all should send Jill Lim an email and tell her how hysterically funny you found the piece. She needs your encouragement - to keep producing pieces like this that smack at the authorities in power.

Even so, most SiGNeL subscribers were not mollified. Snug Pug wrote:

... but unfortunately, I think her message is lost because of the medium it appeared in. TNP's target audience will probably take it literally.

A friend of mine confirmed that it was intended as a sardonic piece, but the original article had been trimmed to fit the available space. In the process, much of the sarcasm was removed as well, leaving the article to seem anti-gay. Jill herself was receiving

... telephone calls from readers protesting the apparent anti-gay stance of her article, and was apparently quite mortified.

Nonetheless, Anne, another subscriber to SiGNeL retorted:

Does it matter what the original intention was given the bent and readership of TNP? This smacks of, "Geeze - I was just KIDDING! Can't ya take a joke?"

I can't feel much sympathy for the editorial injustices suffered by the author. This was clearly a sensitive subject and the butchered piece should not have been published in its final form. This wasn't just "another article" (it's a very politically sensitive subject) and I have a hard time believing the result was just due to carelessness. Who would be so careless with this topic? These people aren't idiots. They're brilliant at moulding and moving the masses.

This was pulled off very poorly and whatever the intention, the effect will be the same. A lot of people will have their stupid beliefs reinforced because they read it in black and white.

Finally, the journalist's brother stepped into the fray. This was his explanation on Soc.Culture.Singapore.Moderated

From: keith lim
Date: 2 Dec 1998

Alvin Lim wrote:
: It is difficult to understand how the TNP can publish an article as
: rationally incoherent and morally depraved such as this.

Full disclosure:
1. Jill Lim is my sister.
2. I don't read the New Paper, and my sister isn't in the habit of giving to me copies of everything she writes, so I found out about her article (and the reactions to it) only after the criticisms started going around the 'net. Fun, fun, fun, let me tell you.
3. "Insider information" in this post comes from JL.

The bottom line: The article was intended as satire, a la Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal".

Check out TNP in a day or two. It's planning a followup feature on the article and the aftermath, explaining the situation, and will also be including some of the letters received. (That issue may appear on the streets before this post does in scsm--it depends on how soon the moderator sees it). The hate mail is, so I'm told, just pouring in; much of it expresses horror over JL's "hypocrisy" or regret that she would descend to writing such an "irresponsible" piece after her previous "mature" ones.

Oh, and BTW, if anyone thinks the article sounds bad now, you should read the original, pre-edited piece. I expect to get hold of a copy of it in a day or two; when I do, I'll post it for comparison. There was apparently a great deal more fire-and-brimstone in the original, which was removed by the editor. Unfortunately, by toning it down, by removing the most outrageous parts, many of the clues to it being satirical were also lost, and it was pretty much universally read at face value.

The lesson-for-the-moment would probably be that satire is a dangerous weapon for a writer, and indeed, for a publisher -- self-inflicted injuries are easy.

---------------

Two days later, Keith Lim enclosed the original text of Jill's article.

From: keith lim
Date: 4 Dec 1998

Below is Jill Lim's pre-edited article, posted with permission, but also with the request to always pass on along with it, the info that it was intended from the start to be satirical.

IMHO [in my humble opinion] , the 'AIDS is a punishment from God' part was one of the biggest clues that the article was not meant to be taken at face value, but that it was meant to be read between the lines -- unfortunately, that was one of the parts edited out, along with the strangely gushing praise of womanizing world leaders, and most of the paragraph about liberals' beliefs about human nature.

Updated news at this time is that the New Paper may not run a follow up article after all (or if they do, it would only be a short clarification). Apparently, they're having trouble contacting the letter-writers who wrote in on the issue (it's their standard policy to verify with the writers of any letters they intend to publish). Have to wait and see what happens.

That struck me as strange. I myself had written to The New Paper three days earlier, on 1 December, and no one from the paper had attempted to contact me to verify that I was the author. So I posted to Soc.Culture.Singapore.Moderated:

From: Alex Au
Date: 4 Dec 1998

keith lim writes:

: Updated news at this time is that the New Paper may not run a
: follow up article after all (or if they do, it would only be a short
: clarification). Apparently, they're having trouble contacting the
: letter-writers who wrote in on the issue (it's their standard policy to
: verify with the writers of any letters they intend to publish). Have to
: wait and see what happens.

I sent a protest letter on Tuesday Dec 1, to the editor. In the main, my letter criticised their editorial judgment more than the writer since I had concluded that the article by Jill Lim was most probably satirical.

The New Paper has not contacted me so far. They have my email address, so there is no reason to say that they can't reach me.

This only feeds suspicion among gay men that the publication is quite happy to leave the misunderstanding intact, i.e. that homosexuality is sick, depraved, immoral and incompatible with competence, leadership and honour.

About 6% of our adult males are gay. About 3-4% of adult females are lesbian (as Dr Ho Kong Chong of NUS-Sociology said at a recent symposium). The article as it appeared did gay and lesbian persons a grave injustice.

If TNP had published something which was widely misunderstood to have insulted the Indian minority, who constitute about 5% of our population, I can imagine they would have rushed to print an apology and clarification.

We can only conclude from their tardiness in putting up an apology and clarification that TNP does not accord equal respect to the sensitivities of gay and lesbian Singaporeans.

 
The Original Text

So what was the original text by Jill Lim, and how was it edited? The two versions are presented side by side below: 

'In Malaysia, we cannot accept a leader who has a strange behaviour. We cannot have a leader who is easily swayed by his lust.'

But increasingly, the sodomists and homosexuals move into places of prominence.

And this is where the cause for alarm lies -- they are not being condemned, they are being accepted.

These liberals assume that man is rational and knows what he does. They think that man can be civilised and educated. They believe that man should be accorded as much freedom as possible.

You can judge for yourself. Would its satirical intent have been clear to the average tabloid reader if it hadn't been edited?

The Journalist's Private Clarification

At about this time, I was in private communication with Keith and Jill Lim. What we said must remain private, except for passages which Jill wanted to be relayed to the gay community:

4 Dec 1998

yes, the piece was supposed to be satirical/sarcastic. i could hear my own voice in my head when i was writing it, and it sounded sarcastic enough. of course, as i see now, it wasn't sarcastic or ironic at all but came across as straight-forwardly anti-homosexual.

as said in a yet-to-be-published response, i'm really sorry about that.

... [snip] ... as a matter of fact, the angry letters/email/fone calls (your email was relatively mild) didn't bother me at all since i might have done the same in principle. what did and still does make me feel rather stupid and ashamed is how badly i expressed myself.

fyi, i wrote a comment about the article (saying sorry, it was a badly-written piece etc...) which was supposed to have been published on thursday with a few of the emails we got. it is office policy to check with the writer before we run his/her letter. so we emailed some of the [people] who wrote in. we received just one reply, and it was from someone saying that someone else had used his name to write in. this made my office more determined not to run the received responses until we had verified that they were authentic. i think my office still intends to run the whole package next week. at least, i hope so.

until then, perhaps you could convey my regret to everyone who was offended by the article. i regret attempting to write satirically when i was not proficient at it, and i regret that something so illiberal will forever be associated with my name.

A subsequent email from Jill Lim adds a bit of context:

8 Dec 1998

... [snip] ...

You're welcome to use (ie. post in your newsgroup) anything in that (Friday's) email as an apology to anyone I offended, in SiGNel or anywhere else. I hope that will suffice. Pretty much everything I felt and want to say is there, anything else would be just a repetition.

If you know the constraints journalists face, then you should understand that promoting or condoning homosexuality openly in the newspapers or anywhere else for that matter is difficult. The best I can do is to write, whenever I can, against discrimination in general, which I did last Saturday.

The "last Saturday" referred to 5 December 1998, when her article "Man vs Man" appeared, touching on Nazi persecution of minorities, such as Jews, Catholics and homosexual persons.

In my December 8th reply to Jill, I said,

8 Dec 1998

... [snip] ...

I don't expect you to speak for TNP, but perhaps you'd wish to be aware that as we see it, there is no need for TNP to wait till they have verified the letters. If they genuinely believe that an error of judgment has occurred, they can simply say so with appropriate humility. The fact that they are waiting to organise the letters for publication suggests that they intend to style the so-called clarification as, "well, these people are upset; this is what they're saying. But we're not necessarily of the same opinion."

Impatience was making my tongue sharp.

The Published Clarification

Finally, on 11 December 1998, The New Paper published some complaints and the clarification. See box on right.

Don't get too upset over the last two paragraphs. They are the required genuflection to the keepers of the national dogma; otherwise her poor editor might get an admonishing phone call from the relevant ministry.

One More Round

You might think that with that clarification, that would have been the end of the story, especially since it came 13 days after the piece "Who will hold back this tide" on 28 November. People would have lost interest, wouldn't they?

Incredibly, it was none other than her own brother, Keith, who inveighed in again, in soc.culture.singapore.moderated

From: keith lim
Date: 14 Dec 1998

Alex Au wrote: : [snip]
:
: If TNP had published something which was widely misunderstood to have
: insulted the Indian minority, who constitute about 5% of our population, I
: can imagine they would have rushed to print an apology and clarification.
: We can only conclude from their tardiness in putting up an apology and
: clarification that TNP does not accord equal respect to the sensitivities
: of gay and lesbian Singaporeans.

Original article: 28 November 1998
Clarification & apology: 11 December 1998 (13 days later)

[snip]

Readers may draw their own conclusions about how much TNP cares about the sensitivities of gay and lesbian people.

As a comparison, consider the "Toh Chin Chye is a hit-and-run driver" incident. After realizing that they had screwed up, they took mere *hours* to retract that front page story, pulling the edition from the stands the very same afternoon.

---------------

From: Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
Date: 14 Dec 1998

keith lim wrote and I quote:

: As a comparison, consider the "Toh Chin Chye is a hit-and-run driver"
: incident. After realizing that they had screwed up, they took mere
: *hours* to retract that front page story, pulling the edition from the
: stands the very same afternoon.

I'm no fan of TNP (glad to say I haven't forked out for a copy since Italia 90), but it's not quite fair to use the time-lag in publishing a clarification and apology as a benchmark for comparison. The Toh Chin Chye story was a real error on TNP's part. This article was meant to provoke complaints, so they had to actually wait for complaints to come in, hence the delay.

---------------

From: keith lim Date: 15 Dec 1998

Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong wrote:

: [...] it's not quite fair to use the time-lag in publishing a
: clarification and apology as a benchmark for comparison. The Toh Chin Chye
: story was a real error on TNP's part.

Ok, I'm willing to withdraw any mention of the TCC "hit-and-run" story. It doesn't really affect my point: Why did TNP take almost two weeks to issue a clarification on an article that was widely misunderstood? Perhaps they don't care that they were misunderstood? Perhaps they don't think the people offended by the article deserved a timely explanation?

: This article was meant to provoke
: complaints, so they had to actually wait for complaints to come in,
: hence the delay.

Not that I'm aware of. What's your source for this assertion? The article was meant to provoke thought. It was not written to deliberately inflame people; it was intended to be recognized and read as satirical from the start. Unfortunately, that didn't happen; the piece was mostly interpreted as being straightforward, resulting in an unexpected amount of anger and outrage. There was no shortage of mail received by TNP, most of it coming in within a few days of the publication of the article.

There really doesn't seem to be any good reason for the long delay in publishing a clarification. They didn't have to "wait for complaints to come in", since they weren't even expecting, let along waiting for, complaints to arrive, if they were expecting any at all. Even given the unexpected flood of 'hate-mail' and more reasoned complaints that rapidly arrived -- in fact, *especially* given the amount that came in -- they should have made haste to publish the clarification/explanation/apology immediately. The followup article with readers' responses could have come a week or two later, but the clarification should have been published as quickly as possible, and not delayed until the followup article was ready.

So, once again: why did TNP wait 13 days to publish a clarification and apology for the misunderstood article?

---------------

From: Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
Date: 16 Dec 1998

[snip]

OK, I misunderstood the purpose of the column then. I had thought that it was to get complaints to come in and gauge responses. Got the impression from a previous post (by you I believe). So if that's wrong, then TNP should indeed have run a clarification faster.

---------------

And with that, the topic was (finally) exhausted.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None