Straits Times editorial: Gay tolerance

The Straits Times prides itself as an establishment newspaper. Its detractors call it a mouthpiece of our PAP government. Everybody knows that its senior editors are, to put it euphemistically, on the same wavelength as the cabinet. Some say they’re on the same telephone line.

Occasionally, a few of the Straits Times’ senior correspondents write commentaries that are a bit controversial. Occasionally, a minister or two would even take issue with a particularly bold column. But does anyone remember when was the last time the government disagreed with a Straits Times editorial?

I’m sure you can’t think of any example at all.

You can take it as more or less true that a Straits Times editorial on any especially important issue reflects the government’s position. The gay issue is clearly an important one. Many inside sources have told us that it has exercised the government’s thinking for some years now. Foreign journalists have been badgering ministers with the gay question repeatedly. (I don’t believe local journalists would dare ask a gay question, lest they be labeled troublemakers.)

The editorial of 5 July 2003 is a landmark. It can be read as a statement of the government’s new position. And like all political statements, it may be worthwhile to read it carefully, to dissect it even, so as to tease out its real meaning.

 
Dissecting it

The first paragraph largely recapitulates the most obvious point that the Prime Minister made to Time magazine in his interview in February 2003 – that the government now happily takes on civil servants who are known to be gay, provided the civil servant is open about his sexuality, and therefore free from the risk of blackmail.

The second paragraph basically maps out the status quo and praises it. And then it gets a bit contrived, saying how no one is starving because of his sexual orientation.

The third paragraph takes your breath away. It could have been penned by a gay activist!

"Ethically and logically, it is as untenable to exclude people on the basis of their sexual orientation as it is to exclude them on the basis of the shape of their noses or the colour of their hair."

"'Blaming' someone for being homosexual is equivalent to faulting that person for simply existing."

I read it as a statement of the state’s revised belief, the new credo. The completeness of the conversion leaves me virtually speechless. Few governments, even in the West, would take such a stand.

The final paragraph appears, at first glance, to be a pullback to reality and pragmatism. But it’s open to many possible interpretations.

A friend of mine said that you can distinguish objectives and process. The endpoint is clearly set out in paragraph 3 and mentioned again in paragraph 4, with its reference to Western Europe, Australia and Canada. The pace of change however, may have to take into account the realities of Singapore. But overall, he felt that what it was saying was that if the gay community is patient, the government will eventually go all the way.

It may be too optimistic. I doubt if any government save the most ideological, decides more than a few steps at a time. How far we’ll eventually go is probably not a decision anyone can confidently take now.

 
The fourth paragraph

I did my own little bit of deconstruction of the 4th paragraph, and I thought three things stood out:

Firstly, look at this sentence: "But this is not a position that everyone would agree with. Many religions - or more precisely, segments of many religions - explicitly prohibit homosexuality."

Did you notice the qualifier, inserted in such a way as to heighten its prominence? "…or more precisely, segments of many religions…" I’m certain it was inserted with great deliberation. One would normally write, "many religions explicitly prohibit homosexuality."

Why the qualifier? I see it as a preemptive hedge against objections they expect to pour in with some vehemence. Many of the objections will come from a religious point of view. They are laying the groundwork for saying that it’s just your interpretation of your religion, which other co-religionists may not agree with. You don’t speak for your religion as a whole.

A very knowledgeable selection of countries. Notice how the US is excluded. The named countries -- OK, Western Europe is a half continent, or an agglomeration of countries making up the European Union -- are the most forward in terms of legal protections for gay people. Canada even has a majority of the population in favour of legalizing same-sex marriages. Whoever drafted the editorial had a well-researched grasp of recent gay trends throughout the world. I doubt if it really was the editor-in-chief. Unless he was a closet gay (which is almost impossible for such a sensitive position) he wouldn’t have had the time or interest to follow gay developments through the years that closely, would he?

The Straits Times has more than a few gay journalists on their staff. Any one of them could have drafted this. Or maybe, just maybe, someone from the government who had as his responsibility, that of closely following gay developments worldwide?

Thirdly: "But the process cannot be forced." A quick read would leave you feeling that this was a natural closing sentence. But there are many other ways of finishing. I can think of this possibility: "If Western Europe, Canada and Australia are any indication, attitudes towards homosexuality will change in the long term. And policies must change in tandem."

My example of an ending would bring the editorial back to the issue of policy change that kicked off the news.

But there is a stark difference between my example, which I think is a more natural finish, and the actual concluding sentence. My example ("And policies must change in tandem") makes sense if the editorial is directed at the general population. It basically says: attitudes change, thus policies must change. Hey Singaporeans, learn to adapt.

The actual conclusion ("But the process cannot be forced") only makes sense if directed at the gay community. 

Thus, one way of reading the editorial is as a reply or warning by the government to gay Singaporeans: don’t push too hard.

Generally, my feelings about the editorial are a little ambiguous. The credo statement was great; it was everything we could have asked for. But there were few indications that substantive changes would soon be coming. 

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None