January 2004

Oral sex: more letters in 'Today'

    

  

 
The letters here followed my letter to the editor of 'Today', published on 10 January 2004. You can see the original as well as the published (much edited) version at Oral sex: how 'Today' edited my letter 

* * * * * 

'Today' newspaper
13 January 2004

'Gay gene' is still a theory

.. and will of majority should prevail.

I refer to Mr Alex Au's letter, "Why should oral sex law disfavour gays" (Weekend Today, Jan 10-11).

In all forum discussions of homosexuality-related issues, including that of oral sex, PM Goh Chok Tong's "born that way" statement has been cited as if it were the final and authoritative word on the issue.

PM Goh also said that homosexual acts would remain a criminal offence.

PM Goh, in his National Day Rally speech last year, also disapproved unequivocally of the homosexual lifestyle.

Firstly, the causes of homosexuality are yet to be determined fully.

Current research indicates environmental factors such as troubled relations with the same-sex parent and child abuse as significant causal factors in same-sex attractions.

Believers of the "gay gene" theory have been searching for the last 30 years, but they have yet to discover that elusive gene, the existence of which Mr Au appears to want us to accept as true. 

 
I am grateful for Mr Au's honesty in admitting that the Penal Code only criminalises behaviour and not the person.

Prevailing social values do not regard homosexuality as acceptable, so to remove a law encapsulating this value is to impose a change on society, against the will of the majority.

Law, in this sense, is being used as a social engineering tool to change thinking and beliefs - and, in this case, to legitimise a questionable and unproven proposition that homosexuality is acceptable. [1]

While I agree that the majority will not always be right, I do not think Mr Au (or more generally, those seeking to legitimise homosexuality in Singapore) has given us sufficient reasons or credible evidence to say that the majority is wrong this time.

Angela Thiang Pei Yun 

* * * * *

'Today' newspaper
15 January 2004

Who knows majority's will?

I refer to Ms Angela Thiang Pei Yun's letter, " 'Gay Gene' is still a theory" (Today, Jan 13).

Ms Thiang seems to assert that decriminalising homosexuality would be tantamount to acting against the "will of the majority" - because the majority doesn't regard homosexuality as being acceptable.

What Ms Thiang must have unwittingly omitted to do is demonstrate, with supporting evidence, that this is the case. This made it look as if she were making an unsubstantiated assertion. Here are some supporting data that may help fill the gap in her assertion.

In 2000, it was reported that a scientific survey conducted by Dr Vivien Lim, a lecturer at the Department of Organisational Behaviour, National University of Singapore (NUS), showed even young people had a conservative view of homosexuals.

Ninety per cent of the students surveyed, aged between 17 and 35, said they would be disappointed if they learnt their child were homosexual, while 80 per cent said they would be upset if they learnt their siblings were homosexual.

In 2002, it was reported that a study by the Ministry of Community Development and Sports showed 88 per cent of the older Singaporeans and 77 per cent of the young Singaporeans frowned upon homosexual behaviour. 

An informal online poll was conducted last year by some students supervised by Associate Professor Eleanor Wong from the NUS Faculty of Law - for Sex, Rights & Videotape, a programme produced for MediaCorp NewsRadio 93.8. Its results showed 61.2 per cent — mostly aged between 19 and 25 -  disagreed that it should be illegal for a man to have sexual relations with another man, even if they both agree to it. 

 

This "grateful" bit really gets me upset. My original letter to 'Today' said, 

"To this we can anticipate the argument that it is only behaviour that our Penal Code will continue to criminalise. It is not directed at gay citizens as a minority. "

But I rebutted this bifurcation by quoting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor,

"After all, there can hardly be more palpable discrimination against a class than making the conduct that defines that class criminal."

However, the Justice O'Connor quote was edited out by 'Today' leaving readers with the impression I accept that it is only behaviour being criminalised.

 
This may indicate a shift in the attitude towards homosexuality. But this is a doubtful conclusion as the poll was not a scientific survey.

The data may lend credibility to Ms Thiang's assertion that the will of the majority of Singaporeans is still against homosexuality, lest she be criticised by others for not substantiating this assertion. It may be argued that providing such data is superfluous. The will of the majority is not to be gleaned from surveys. 

After all, our people are represented by their MPs. The will of the majority is, therefore, ascertained most accurately by what is decided in Parliament, where MPs debate upon an issue and reflect to the House their constituencies' voice, having gathered this from consultative sessions.

But this rests on two assumptions: Firstly, that MPs can then vote according to the voice of the people in their constituencies and not according to their political party's stance on that issue. However, history shows that a parliamentary whip is rarely lifted.

Second is the assumption that people feel connected to their MPs as their representatives in Parliament. This cannot be taken for granted, especially in walkover constituencies.

If the people in a constituency do not feel connected sufficiently totheir MPs, it is likely they may not lend their views in matters that concern them. Either way, the will of the majority may not be portrayed accurately as it seems then.

This is not to say that scientific and/or formal surveys are always accurate and superior. It is just that their helpfulness should not be dismissed too quickly when ascertaining what the will of the majority is.

Paul Quan

 

But the Vivien Lim 'survey' cited above was not a 'scientific' study either, at least not in the sense of being representative of the larger population. It was a poll of 413 students average age 20.

See the article Ma, I'm gay!, (bottom) where the Vivien Lim results are mentioned.

 
* * * * *

My reply to 'Today'
sent on 13 January 2004.
Unpublished

I refer to Angela Thiang’s letter published 13 January 2004. 

Once again the homophobic lobby speaks of a ‘gay gene’, which is a red herring. Mainstream scientific thinking is that sexuality – not just homosexuality – is largely determined by biology, but it is scientific illiteracy to reduce complex biological processes to a single gene, as her letter attempts to do. 

Non-biological theories of homosexuality have largely been discredited, and are becoming as marginal as theories of creationism. It is no coincidence that the American fundamentalist rightwing are the chief promoters of both these notions.

However, my letter was not meant to argue this point. Instead, I meant to point out the inconsistency of our government. On the one hand, they accept that homosexuality is largely inborn, just as racial minorities are born the way they are; yet on the other hand, they want to criminalise an inborn trait. 

In an effort to deny discrimination, some would argue that only acts were being penalized. My original letter touched on the fallacy of that, pointing out why the two cannot be separated. To quote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, "After all, there can hardly be more palpable discrimination against a class than making the conduct that defines that class criminal."

Asking what the majority wants is not the best way to look at such issues. 

Firstly, with a policy of heavy censorship constraining the way opinions are allowed to evolve, it is ludicrously circular logic for the government to then justify stasis in policy by saying public opinion has not evolved. 

Secondly, a mature democracy recognizes the importance of respect and space for minorities, and it is along these lines that we should reflect. 

It is also inconsistent for the Deputy Prime Minister to hope for Singapore to be as vibrant, integrative and remarkable as New York (see his Harvard Club remarks) without the same degree of open-mindedness and inclusiveness. If the government is serious about an open and inclusive society, why are they so parsimonious in decriminalizing only heterosexual oral sex, when it takes no extra effort to repeal the whole she-bang?

© Yawning Bread 

 

This reply of mine was written in response to the Angela Thiang letter and sent to 'Today' before I saw the Paul Quan letter.

However, I addressed the question of majority will which formed the crux of Paul Quan's letter.

This reply was not published by 'Today', so the public never saw any rebuttal to Angela Thiang and Paul Quan.

 

Footnotes

  1. Did she not realise the irony of her own words? Is law not now being used as a social engineering tool to create the idea that homosexuality is wrong?
    Return to where you left off

Addenda

None