The letter by George Lim, published in the Straits Times Forum section on
Tuesday, 15 July, was quite a classic case of anti-gay rant. See Letter
in the Straits Times, 15 July 2003.
It provoked a storm of replies. The Editor of the
Forum section, Kong Soon Wah, himself wrote, in his comment "It's been
raining cats and fairies" (Straits Times 19 July 2003) that,
For the past eight months, I
have been a busy man of letters - letters to the Straits Times Forum.
Each day, the Forum receives an
average of 60 letters, almost all via e-mail. A few come in via fax and, once
in a blue moon, one comes in on the snail mail. On a couple of days, we
received 120 letters. All in, there were 11,293 letters in the six months to
June 30.
On Wednesday, we received a
record 204 letters, 145 of which were on the homosexual debate sparked by the
revelation that the Government was now more open to employing gays. The
majority of the writers were for accommodating the gays.
[the rest of his letter is not
relevant to this subject]
Among the 204 letters he received were the four
below. One of them is mine. Speaking
for myself, I wasn't unduly disappointed that mine didn't get to be published.
The Straits Times chose to publish far betters letters, by Dr Yap Kim Hao, the
retired bishop of the Methodist Church, and Anthony Yeo, a highly respected
counsellor. 
© Yawning Bread
1. Letter by Clarence Singham to the Straits Times:
I refer to the letter from
George Lim (Govt Should Rethink Hiring of Gays) in the Straits Times dated 15
July.
I am Christian and I am gay. I
have never been addicted to pornography, never been sexually abused and had a
loving father and mother as well as other strong male relatives in my life. My
family knows I am gay. They love and respect my partner and I because we
strive to be filial, to care for them and to lead productive and decent lives.
The gender of my partner is irrelevant to their esteem for us.
The argument that the Bible
condemns homosexuality merely represents the view of one segment of the
Christian world. There are many others, both gay and straight, who can see a
full reconciliation between homosexuality and the Christian faith. The
favorite scripture texts that are often used to clobber homosexuals, such as
the Sodom and Gomorrah and Romans verses, have long been captive to the
narrow, and some would assert, distorted interpretations of one sector of the
Christian church. To make strident religious assertions without a fair
consideration of alternative views, runs counter to our society's multi
religous ethos and is plain prejudice.
Appealing to doomsday type
arguments about the fall of empires, implying that gay individuals are like
viruses to be eliminated and suggesting that accepting gays will mortally
endanger our children is simplistic and frightening. Simplistic because in one
fell swoop it asserts that complex phenomena are brought about by one culprit
who is to be demonised and disenfrenchised. Frightening because it is
arguments like these that fueled the mass extermination of a race, of
homosexuals and other "undesirables" in Nazi "Christian"
Germany. Such polemics merely instill fear and irrational emotionalism. They
falsely suggest that the road to greater security and happiness requires
excising those who are different from us.
To insist that morality is
black and white, even Christian morality, is to be blind to the complexities
of morality and life. Only people who are able to develop a highly selective
morality based on their own prejudices can say that moral issues are so clear
cut. Does Mr Lim intend for the Government prohibit all divorced individuals
from ever marrying again? What about banning women from holding positions of
authority over men? And while we are at it let's sack every heterosexual who
engages in oral sex or practices masturbation shall we? After all, these are
some of the so-called black and white moral stances that people have held not
too long ago.
It is high time we recognise
that we live in a world whose complexity calls us to base our lives and morals
on broad principles of respect, reflexivity and relationship. Respect because
we need to give others due space to live their lives to their highest
potential. Reflexivity because we are fallible human beings who need to
regulalry interrogate our assumptions and beliefs about others who are
different. Relationship because we need to harness our diversity and
similarities to build a resilient nation. Let's make this nation one that is
able to handle the incredible complexities we will be facing in the years to
come and not hide behind the guise of religion to justify our insecurities,
prejudices and unfounded fears.
2. My letter to the Straits Times:
I refer to the letter by George
Lim Heng Chye, "Govt should rethink hiring of gays" (ST 15 July
2003).
He writes of homosexuality as a
sin, and, in the example that he uses, places gay people in the company of
criminals, gangsters and hooligans.
Mr Lim writes from the
perspective of his religion. Each Singaporean is free to believe in whatever
religion he wishes, but at the same time, we should remember that this is a
secular state. No religion should expect the state to enforce its particular
morality or code of conduct, least of all on those who aren’t of that
religion.
There is no majority religion
in Singapore; in fact, many Singaporeans declare themselves as free-thinkers.
Mr Lim made an appeal to "the majority of the public" to make known
its disapproval. First of all, it is doubtful what majority Mr Lim has
assumed, but more importantly, a state has to hold itself to higher standards
of human liberty and dignity.
As an example, for many
generations, even now, many Singaporeans held prejudices against interracial
marriage. But it has never been the business of the state to yield to baser
instincts and ban them. Instead the state remains colour-blind and respects
the individual’s choice of life partner.
Mr Lim says that the government
has lost its moral authority by hiring gay persons. Others, on the other hand,
might argue that a government would lose its moral authority if it
discriminated against a section of its own citizens.
It is chilling when Mr Lim says
there is no greyness between white and black, and that morality is absolute.
He is free to subscribe to such absolutist ideas if he wishes, but in
practical terms, managing a country necessarily means balancing various shades
of grey.
Also, in practical terms, where
does Singapore’s future lie? We have no choice but to be part of a wider
world. As a small country, we have to compete with every resource we have. The
world out there is diverse and we need to be open-minded and tolerant if we
want to interact successfully with it. We also need every individual and more
-- thus the need for foreign talent -- to do his best for Singapore. To
exclude a significant part of the available talent pool, local and foreign, on
the basis of an absolutist mindset is the surest way to diminish our future.
3. Vernon
Voon's letter to the Straits Times:
I am homosexual man, not married to any woman and without any children,
homosexual or heterosexual. I am also a Methodist and have no problems
balancing my religion with my sexuality.
I read with interest the articles which appeared in yesterday's Forum
section of your newspaper, especially the one titled "Govt should rethink
hiring of gays". It spells a lot of misconceptions which I would take
pains to correct.
The writer says "love the sinner, hate the sin" and lumps gays
with criminals, gangsters and hooligans. But the differentiating factor is
that all the other 3 categories of people cause harm to other people against
their consent. Gays don't do that. There are verses in the Bible that seem to
condemn homosexual behaviour, but they are increasingly coming under attack
among religious circles as referring to a cultural context where paganism was
rife, and admonition of all sexual acts other than those solely for
procreation was imperative, in order to curb idolatry and spread the Christian
message of the supremacy of God.
As for the government losing moral authority by its position, it is my
humble opinion that they have actually gained it. By showing that they are an
equal opportunity employer where the only thing that matters in your job is
your competence and your skills, they have shown the way forward to being a
true cosmopolitan society, where people can live, work and play regardless of
their race, sex, or sexuality.
And finally, the writer seems to be convinced that homosexuality arises
from nurture and not nature. The jury is still out on this point, I'm afraid.
Tests are inconclusive as to whether the root cause of homosexual behaviour is
nature, or nurture, or a combination of both.
But suffice to say that many homosexuals find they cannot change, and many
have suffered and fallen short of their true identity in trying to do so. They
deny their basic need to love and be loved, and get married to people >
only to hurt them later by the inability to form a close emotional and sexual
union, or worse.
PM Goh's views, be it personal, that homosexuality is genetic, is a real
breath of fresh air in the current debate. It has made me that much more
assured in my identity as a gay Singaporean. Here, a senior statesman, has put
his foot down and said, "Hey, to me, being gay's natural. Sure, society
can't accept it at first, but give them time." Nothing can be more
empowering and more healing to a community long cast aside as the refuse of
society.
4. Louis
Sung's letter to the Straits Times:
I refer to the letter by Mr George Lim Heng Chy,
titled 'Govt should rethink hiring of gays' dated 15 July 2003.
I find Mr Lim's argument simplistic, self-moralising
and not well thought through. Let me numerate my reasons.
He quoted 'Love the sinner, hate the sin'. This
is simply a thinly veiled hypocritical manner of saying 'please change your
behaviour and actions to suit my moral/religious views.' Mr Lim seems to forget
that this world is made up of a whole spectrum of people of diverse
religious/ethical views. What makes him so sure that his is the be-all and
end-all that would lead to a well-lived life?
What is even more simple-minded - no, laughable -
is when he said 'there is no greyness between black and white. White is white
and black is black. There is no relativity in morality.' How about a poor son
who has to steal in order to feed his feeble, impoverished parents? Is that
black or white? On the one hand, he is fulfilling his filial piety by stealing,
which is a virtue we would extol; yet stealing is clearly wrong. Isn't this a
grey area that requires subtle ethical consideration? Kant's categorical
imperative - or absolute moral right - has long been debunked in philosophy. I
would advise Mr Lim to read up on relevant texts before making such simplistic
conclusion.
Then there is Mr Lim's claim of 'corrupting and
subtle influences of such a lifestyle'. According to survey, perhaps one in ten
person is born gay. Need I point out the amount of crimes and cheating on wives
done by heterosexual men? All you have to do is flip open the Wanbao and Shin
Min, and you see heterosexual couples cheating on one another, fighting,
bickering. Why doesn't Mr Lim consider such ill-considered behaviour a
'corrupting' influence on his children's conduct? By sheer law of statistics,
the chances a child being 'corrupted' by a heterosexual is nine tenth of that
compared to that of a homosexual!
Scientific research has long since established
that brain structure of gays and lesbians are different from that straights. Yet
Mr LIm claims that they are such because of being sexually abused, from a single
parent family or being 'addicted to pronography'. I would like to know where Mr
Lim obtains such sterling research materials and their sources. Using his terms
of argument re: porn, why then straight men don't turn sexual maniacs? And pray
don't tell me straight men don't read pornography; a simple search on the
internet would reveal a vast amount of straight pornography!
More importantly, would we discriminate against
someone born with diabetes? colour blind-ness? dyslexia? So why discriminate
against people who are born gay or lesbian? If one doesn't discriminate against
the former but the latter, wherein lies the logic?
As for 'history has shown time and again that
great empires fell because of failing human values and shaky moral principles',
let me point out Alexander the Great, Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo
etc etc were all gay. They had contributed a great deal to western civilisation,
be it conquest, science and the arts whose benefits last to these days. By Mr
Lim's argument, they should long have been banished to obscurity and culture
would have been poorer for that.
Mr Lim quoted Christianianity and Islam; if he
would only read the great Chinese classics, 'Dream of the Red Chamber', he would
find that homosexuality was accepted as part of daily life. So why are we
imposing foreign monotheistic values on ourselves, and not open our hearts to
accepts values from our as well as other cultures?
It is such narrow-mindedness that has earned
Singapore in the international community the reputation as a draconian state. PM
Goh is enlightened enough to relax the rules and more power to him. We are
living in the 21st century. Let us not regress because of short-sightedness.
Otherwise Singapore would really become what Mr Lim predicted, one of a 'great
empires [that] fell'.
|
