Resolving the question of whether the State should be regulating the sexual choices of consenting adults depends on whether the State is a paternalist or liberal one. In the former case, the State's default tendency is to regulate, and one would have to present positive reasons for it not to. The opposite applies in the liberal paradigm.

Alex Au uses the example of homosexuality to show how weak are the arguments for regulating sexual behaviour in a liberal context, even for such a contentious issue. But isn't Singapore a paternalist society?

The question before us today is: Should the State be in our bedrooms?

How do we resolve this kind of question?

Many will take the view that the answer depends on what IS in the bedroom. We should look at the merits (or demerits, as more commonly conceived) of what goes on in there and decide whether the State should intervene.

I beg to differ. I don't think we'll get anywhere by assessing the activity itself. After all, lots of people think that speaking rudely to your parents is wrong, but it does not follow that the State must pass a law in this regard.

I think we should be asking instead: what kind of State do we want?

Although it is an oversimplification, I posit two opposing paradigms: The paternalist State and the liberal State. I will grant that no State is ever a pure form of one or the other, but for purposes of analysis, we need to think in these abstract terms.

A paternalist State generally seeks to create or defend a particular social model taking in adaptations only when these changes are considered "good", whatever "good" means.

In Singapore's case, "good" is usually defined in utilitarian terms. Does it bring economic growth? Does it help entrench the incumbent power?

Other communities, States even, may define "good" in other ways, for example, in religious terms. Things are permitted only if they are somehow "righteous" and help people go to heaven.

The liberal model sees quite a different role for the State. It's more concerned about defending liberties from majoritarian encroachment.

The yardstick is not whether something has been proven to be good, but whether, if you want to forbid something, you can bring a case that it is harmful - and I'll come to what "harmful" means, in a moment.

The State recognizes that each human being has an inherent dignity. They are not just cogs in a machine to serve some collective, or elite-directed purpose.

This difference in approach results in rather different societies:

The paternalistic society, because it has a higher bar for admitting change or difference, tends to be more stable, even homogenous. The comfort level, at least for the in-crowd, is high. But if you're not part of the in-crowd, you will feel considerable pressure to conform.

The liberal society has a far lower threshold for accepting, or at least tolerating innovation, difference, even the outlandish. The result is greater social diversity, which may be disconcerting to some individuals, but as many historians and sociologists have pointed out, such societies are more dynamic and creative. Being more adaptable, they thrive better, through various challenges.

With specific reference to homosexuality, to convince "society" to change policies and attitudes under a paternalistic paradigm, I will need to show you how greater equality for gay people will make stronger families, will add to our economy, and even contribute to national security, and so on.

I believe I can make these arguments, but I won't.

I consider it deeply offensive that a whole section of society who pay taxes and do national service, needs to justify itself before getting due respect and fair treatment.

Nor do I think I would be doing Singapore a service to go down this road and dignify the paternalistic model by debating within its framework.

Speaking as a Singaporean, my belief is that we cannot remain a paternalistic State. We have no future under that model.

We will ossify and get poorer relative to other countries. Then, whether Singapore accepts its gay citizens or not becomes a moot question.

Many of us, straight or gay, will instead be asking a different question: where can we migrate to for a better life?

In this connection, we've heard from Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong how we need to set the default at "yes" rather than at "no".

And DPM Lee Hsien Loong, speaking earlier this month about entrepreneurship, said,

"We used to err on the side of caution and conservatism, and take a 'one-size-fits-all' regulatory approach."

But not anymore, he said.

"... as long as the activity does not cause unmanageable problems or harm to others, our default position would be to allow the entrepreneurial activity.."

- as reported in the Straits Times INSIGHT, 20 March 2004

Of course he made it very clear he was only referring to economic freedoms, so it's quite irrelevant to sex.

In a liberal context, what constitutes 'harm' that can call upon regulation?

Generally, there are two tests: the argument for 'harm' must be (a) rational and (b) compelling.

It must be founded on objective facts or a logical extension from those facts. It is not enough to be based on a subjective notion that something "feels right" or "feels wrong".

Arguments invoking culture, tradition or religion are weak, because in a diverse society, not everyone subscribes to the same interpretation of cultural or theological standards.

Nor should a liberal State even keep a bias in favour of the historical or existing, over the new and unconventional.

The 'harm' must also be compelling. The injury scenario should be considered plausible, not merely hypothetical. Even in the event that harm occasionally arises, are there specific remedies that can be put in place that will address the consequences? If there are, then we shouldn't blanket-ban an entire swathe of activity or choice.

Let's bear these tests -- "rational" and "compelling" -- in mind as I cover some common objections to homosexuality.

They are:

• It is choice, implying that it is merely superficial, not inherent to any sense of personhood;
• It goes against nature, thus immoral or perverse;
• It lies outside our culture, tradition or religion, thus not legitimate;
• It is universally condemned by all religions;
• It's a slippery slope to worse depravities;
• It's disgusting and unthinkable.

I shall next skim through these arguments and their rebuttals.

As we do so, please keep asking yourself whether the objections to homosexuality are rational or compelling.

We should "...debunk the... myth [that] Homosexual behaviour or desire is inborn and not learnt: This assertion is not scientifically proven."

- Thio Su Mien et al, Streats, 22 July 03

The writer is well behind on the facts. There has been, in the last 20 years, considerable evidence that there is an organic basis to sexual orientation, and that it is likely to be fixed in foetal life.

On the other hand, despite a century of speculation and research, there is no credible, peer-reviewed evidence for socialization as a general basis for sexual orientation.

Another version of the Choice argument is this:

"We should ...debunk the... myth [that] homosexuals constitute a class akin to race ... and hence deserve legal protection and "equality"... based on ... immutable or fixed traits...

"In contrast, homosexual groups define themselves by their choices or preferences..."

- Thio Su Mien et al, Streats, 22 July 03

Again, this is not congruent with the facts. By now, all serious researchers accept that sexual orientation is fixed; it's not something one can change.

It IS analogous to skin colour.

The other misleading idea in the quote is that legal protection is only given if a trait is fixed.

Well, what about religion then? Religion is not inborn; it is not immutable. In fact, people change religion all the time.

Yet, most States accord protection to religious choice.

How does one explain this? What's the principle involved? It is simply that where a matter is deeply personal, or one of conscience, the State recognizes it as within a private domain.

Abortion, for example, is highly controversial, but a liberal State treats it as something a person is entitled to as a private decision. Within reasonable bounds, the law does not stand in the way.

And so it should be with sexuality. What is more personal than whom one loves and whom one wishes to spend one's life with?

"That sexual orientation is not fixed is confirmed by many cases [who have] become heterosexually re-oriented."

- Thio Su Mien et al, Streats, 22 July 03

The American Psychiatric Association has repeatedly warned that participants often come out of these groups psychologically damaged by the process.

Now that you've heard 3 versions of the 'Choice' argument, let me point out what the bottom line is: gays will be gay, straights will be straight. There is no significant risk of straights "turning" gay. So, what "good" did the sodomy law achieve? Thus, what "harm" will there be in repealing it?

Next, we come to the "unnatural" arguments.

Not at all. This so-called "law of nature" is nothing but a human construct born out of incomprehension.

In sexuality, there are at least 4 independent variables:

• your biological or physical sex;
• your psychological sex (whether you feel male or female);
• the direction of your erotic and affective interest (whether towards other males or females);
• your gender role, which is a cultural construction

It's too complex for me to go into detail about these elements, but let me at least touch on the second variable - psychological sex -- as an example to show how the layman may not fully grasp the intricacies of the field.

Whether we feel ourselves to be male or female lies in our brains, not our genitals. It's not as if we look into our pants and say, "Oh, I see I've got a willy, therefore I must feel male." It doesn't work like that. It's actually based on your wiring up here in your brain.

And just because someone identifies as male, doesn't mean, "Oh, therefore I must be attracted to females." It depends on another set of wiring up here.

In any case, it's funny how on the matter of sex, we hear this argument that is premised on the alleged "natural" as a test of correctness or desirability. because almost all human endeavour has been to defy "nature".

We don't like the heat and humidity of our climate, we go for airconditiioning. We can't chew our beef steak, we get new dentures. We love our aeroplanes; they go further than we can walk. And few hesitate to get a pacemaker or heart transplant if needed. And when that happens, thank heavens for anaesthesia! Let's not get too natural about pain, please.

".... Sexual activity should be engaged in primarily for the continued propagation of the species."

- Narayana Narayana, Streats, 18 July 03

Let's take the supposed paragon of virtue: a husband and wife married for 30 years, with a fulfilling sex life - twice a week - and who have raised, not 1.26, but 3.00 children.

Over 30 years, they have sex 3,000 times. 99.9 % of those times, there was no procreation. What were they doing?

After a vasectomy or hysterectomy - which are legal, by the way, even though they are most assuredly counter-procreative - doctors often reassure their patents that they can resume a carefree, enjoyable sex life. Why don't they don't read the riot act to these patients warning them against sex with neither intent nor possibility of conception?

Isn't it highly suspicious, then, when moralists suddenly disinter the procreation argument only when faced with homosexuality?

Another variant of the "unnatural" argument:

"... even in the animal kingdom, a tiger will look for a tigress to share their lives together"

- Phiroze Abdul Rahman, Straits Times, 15 July 03

I don't know about tigers specifically, but at last count, over 400 species have been observed where homosexual behaviour takes place. If that is not nature, then I don't know what is.

Nearly 50% of sexual encounters among bonobo apes (one of the 4 kinds of apes, the others being chimpanzees, gorillas and orang utans) are same-sex.

8% of rams are homosexual, and as reported recently in the Straits Times, researchers Roselli et al have found anatomical differences in their brains compared to heterosexual rams.

But whether you think homosexuality is natural or unnatural, the key question is again: where's the harm?

"I applaud .... her "open-mindedness"... but she may have been misguided by Western propaganda."

- Peter Wong, Streats, 11 July 03

May I suggest one reads up a bit of Asian social history before asserting that the idea of accepting gay persons is a decadent western notion.

"I think we have to progress step by step.... We are an Asian society."

- DPM Lee Hsien Loong, reported in Straits Times, 1 Jan 04

And as for progressing step by step, this is rather strange. Asia as a region has seen social, political and technological revolution over the last 100 years.

Here in Singapore, we continue to demand rapid social changes to support economic development: in education, job retraining, immigration. Why, when it comes to sex, does our government say that we can only creep?

Does this argument reflect society or ideology? 

"Cannot push ahead of what wider society is able to support"

- Sin Boon Ann, Straits Times, 27 Jan 04

Is this really true? Are Singaporeans really conservative? Not if one looks at how much premarital sex is going on in university dorms, or how many women do not feel obliged to comply with tradition and get married.

And if they are conservative, who has shut the minds of Singaporeans through censorship?

In any case, so what? Why must the majority always trump the rights and freedoms of minorities?

What is the purpose of the State? Majorities will always have the weight of numbers. Recognising this, the State counterbalances them by defending the equal rights and opportunities of minorities.

We subsidise Malay and Tamil broadcasting, for example. We provide housing and health subsidies to the poorest sections of society.

And here's another take on the question of "conservative heartlanders": most "conservative" parents would object to inter-racial marriage for their sons or daughters. I daresay they're a majority, even today. Have we ever considered enshrining this attitude in law, making it an offence to marry someone of a different race? Why not?

This is plain wrong. I know for a fact that there is nothing in Buddhist scriptures that treat homosexual relationships any differently from heterosexual ones.

My (albeit limited) understanding is that Hinduism too has nothing particular to say about the subject, if one strips away the Victorian mores that came via British rule. [See pale yellow box]

And so what if one or two or three religions condemn something? What about the views of atheists and non-religious people? Don't their opinions count?

"If homosexuality is allowed to take root, the family system would disintegrate."

- Dorothy Koh, Straits Times, 18 July 03

Slippery slope arguments are often only good for a laugh. Rather than convince anyone, they merely reveal the panic that lies just under the skin.

I would argue the contrary -- that family bonds are strengthened when they are based on honesty, inclusiveness and acceptance. And when gay persons choose commitment to each other and their children, social stability can only benefit.

This one takes the prize. Unlike the rest, it doesn't even attempt a rationalization.

Have we seen any good arguments that demonstrate harm? Any argument that meets the tests of being rational and compelling, such that we can justify intervention by the State?

No, not at all. All the objections we've seen have been based on

• a refusal to see facts,
• self-serving takes on history and culture, and
• an attitude that minorities and atheists have no rights.

Ah, but Singapore is not a liberal State. It is far and away a paternalist one.

Hence, it is not enough to say that harm has not been demonstrated. I need to be realistic and argue: What GOOD does it do Singapore to accept and decriminalise non-normative sexual behaviour?

It's true: I haven't been providing positive reasons.

And it's true, that even in Lee Hsien Loong's statement, he was only referring to a more liberal economic environment for entrepreneurs.

But this same month, the government relaxed the mother-tongue requirement for university admission. I have no doubt of course, that it was done for economic reasons, which is that:

We need to create a knowledge economy, and for that we need great universities. Social engineering is now seen as incompatible with that. We were losing talent, as Jeremy Wong pointed out:

The mother-tongue U-turn is just one step, but it's a good example of the necessary direction. Although the government probably started out with a purely economic motivation, they ended up with the same conclusion: that Singapore's future needs a more liberal approach, beyond economics.

That's a liberal sentiment.

In 1997, PM Goh said,

© Yawning Bread