In early January 2004, Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, Ho Peng Kee, informed Parliament that the government was reviewing our sex laws with a view to decriminalizing oral sex between a man and a woman. He seemed to have taken particular care to restrict the likely outcome to heterosexual oral sex.

People Like Us wrote an open letter to all Members of Parliament pointing out that such a proposal would be discriminatory. The group further asked how each MP would face his sons, daughters or other family members who were gay. How would you as a legislator justify your position to the ones you love?

"This does not apply to me or my family - we are all apt to say. We know our children are not gay - parents are apt to say. But the law of probability tells us some of you are going to be proven wrong," said PLU's letter.

The Straits Times picked up the story and rang a number of MPs for their responses. Most of them brushed aside the question and shot back, "emotional approach!", which, as Alfian Sa'at pointed out, had the subtext of accusing People Like Us of emotional blackmail.

Specifically, these were the responses reported by the Straits Times in their story of 27 January:

'Such appeals from special interest groups are no surprise, but... these groups cannot push ahead of what wider society is able to support,' said Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines GRC).

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast GRC) said that as the Government opens up, individuals and groups may try to raise particular issues. But he added: 'Those who use this avenue must respect the space of others as well.'

Further on in the story,

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC) said he would regard the letter as feedback which, if constructive, would be discussed.

'From there, the Government will have to take a position, in the interest of the whole community. As society progresses, new norms will develop. But we will still need to strike a balance and know where to draw the lines.'

But he did not think the reference to children of MPs, even if meant as an illustration, was 'the right way to do it'. 'Should we ask for 20 lifeguards for a swimming pool, because children drown and MPs also have children?' he asked.

Said Mr Gan Kim Yong (Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC), who has two daughters, aged 12 and nine: 'Its main argument is there will be some homosexuals among us and our children, given statistical averages.

'However, I think the mere statistical presence of homosexuals among us does not make it the right thing to do and certainly does not imply fundamental shifts in societal norms.'

Added Mr S. Iswaran (West Coast GRC): 'Using statistical probability, why stop at homosexuality? If there is a statistical probability that a certain percentage of people will be pick-pockets, that will include MPs' children and relatives as well. So then what?'

Mr Gan also said the writers' personal approach showed they were 'trying to appeal to the paternal instinct of the reader rather than rational reasoning'. 

Let me pick apart the rubbish we have just heard:

Sin Boon Ann said that we "cannot push ahead of what wider society is able to support". Gan Kim Yong basically echoed the same view.

First of all, they avoided the question of how they would face their gay family members. Secondly, they abandoned their political responsibility to apply critical thinking to the issue and to lead their constituents. The "wider society" may hold certain views out of habit; the average person might not have had opportunity to rethink those views. But it is the role of political leaders to think through the issues and persuade. It is not the right role for political leaders to say, oh since the population is bigoted, thus I must colour my flag with bigotry too.

Furthermore, Gan Kim Yong actually said that homosexuality is not "the right thing to do". Well, somebody should inform him that homosexuality is a not a "do" but an "is", and that discriminatory acts of government are what is not right.

And then he dismissed everything by saying that appeals to paternal instincts are not rational. He is wrong. If the views one holds are built purely on the abstract, but in practice cannot be justified to people face-to-face, especially people affected by those views, then there is something inherently wrong with those views. To use simple language, those views are "unreal". The test is in practicing what you preach: Go report your gay son to the Police. If we indulge in a disconnect between personal applicability and abstract rationalization, we are engaging in farce.

Arthur Fong's "must respect the space of others" argument is even worse. There's a vacuum between his ears. Who is invading whose space? The heterosexist moralists are the ones beating a path into gay persons' beds.

Teo Ho Pin talked about balance. I don't know what balance he is talking about when you're telling your gay son, "you're a felon for loving Jeffrey!"

And his 20 lifeguards analogy is plain out off the mark. Gay people aren't asking for special resources to be thrown in, where indeed the question of balance may arise, but for the government to cease and desist from discriminatory acts.

Iswaran thoughtlessly confused sexuality with theft. One is a condition of being, and oral sex is a victimless expression of sexuality. The other - pickpocketing - is a willful act with a victim.

As you would have noted, none of the MPs were prepared to reflect on the central question posed by the Open Letter - what if your son or daughter is gay?

© Yawning Bread