Fencing out, fixing in

Mindset: A fixed mental attitude or disposition that predetermines responses to and interpretations of situations.

I don't think it is news to anyone here that our government tends to make policy decisions based on a utilitarian assessment.

In Singapore, the economic imperative is supreme. Much else, like civil liberties, the rule of law, and, as we shall discuss here, even questions of morality, are relegated to secondary importance.

More interestingly, Catherine Lim, in her commentary in the Straits Times (Utopia or Dystopia, 10 May 2005), noted that another pillar of the PAP's philosophy is the absolute necessity of trust in the government-people relationship.

This requirement -- obsession, if you will -- means that any criticism of government policies tends to be seen as an attempt to undermine that trust, the loss of which is too easily equated with the collapse of Singapore. Hence, the response to dissenting opinions tends to err on the robust.

That, I think, is the somewhat apocalyptic mindset in operation in the Singapore government.

* * * * *

Morality: A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct

When we think of right and wrong, we have the idea that somehow these are permanent concepts, wisdom forged through the centuries of human experience.

Well, yes and no. Indeed, we've been forging moral concepts for as long as humans have been able to think, but every now and then, we melt down what we have and forge anew. So, far from being somehow unchanging or permanent, morality has been constantly reworked. Hence, we see considerable differences in moral concepts through history and across geography, that is to say, even at the same point in time, different systems of morality are favoured in different places.

I'm going to give you three examples of how moral ideas have changed.

* * * * *

Firstly, let's talk about marriage, that bedrock of family values, it is said. Actually, this has been one of the most changeable things known to humankind.

Fifth uncle takes third wife

Just about a month ago, Spain and Canada legalised marriage between persons of the same sex.

But I wish to take you back just 47 years, to 1958. That year, a couple who were in love and wanted to be married, was arrested by the police. They were charged for contravening a law that banned their kind of relationship. They were convicted and sentenced to 1 year in jail.

The judge said,

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents... The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

(Virginia vs. Loving)

As you can guess, the couple was male and female, but one was white and the other black. Sex between them was a crime and marriage impossible.

Three years before that, in 1955, another case came up to the Virginia Supreme Court, involving a Chinese man and a White woman. The Court decided that

"the natural law which forbids their intermarriage is as clearly divine as that which imparted to them different natures."

(Han Say Naim vs. Ruby Elaine Naim)

Do you think we ought to have such laws in Singapore, banning inter-racial marriage? If not, why not?

Do you think Spain and Canada (and Holland and Belgium before them) were wrong to legalise same-sex marriage? Do such marriages violate "natural law" just as inter-racial marriages violated "natural law"?

* * * * *

While we're on the subject of race, many of you may know that there was a terrible conflict, called the American Civil War, from 1861 to 1865. It was fought over the question of slavery.

Abolition was first brought to public debate by parliamentarians and churchmen in England more than half a century before the Civil War, and today we give great credit to these men of conscience who argued passionately for their case. 

That history is conveniently forgotten since Abraham Lincoln led his side to victory. In 1865, the war was won and slavery abolished in the United States.

Barely six months later, in 1866, the Vatican issued a statement IN SUPPORT of slavery. The document stated that

"Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law."

What this illustrates is how sometimes, leaders, despite their mantle of authority, can be behind the times.

* * * * *

Let's come back to marriage. In that very noisy debate in the US currently about "gay marriage" it is often argued that the institution of "holy matrimony" has been with Western Civilisation since the beginning of Christianity. By this long antecedent, it is suggested that its claim to moral monopoly is incontestable.

However, a Jesuit priest and scholar Prof Stephen Schloesser, pointed out that

"...early Christianity was really not into marriage, and it takes quite a leap of the imagination to spin biblical Christianity as somehow being the party of 'family values'."

(Open letter to Mass. Sen, Marian Walsh, 2004)

John Boswell, another eminent scholar, wrote that St Paul urged his followers not to marry, as the world was coming to an end soon.

"For the enthusiastic and devout ... marriage – along with all other human pleasures and satisfactions – seemed... a dangerous distraction."

(Boswell, Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe, Chap 4)

A dangerous distraction from piety. 

He also noted that,

"Christianity remained overwhelmingly ambivalent about... heterosexual marriage during the first millennium of its existence."

(ibid)

And that the church insisted on

"the preferability of lifestyles other than family units – ... celibacy, virginity... monastic community life."

(ibid)

The church had "a dim view of human eroticism," Boswell said.

For a thousand years, church policy was not to officiate at marriages. Priests could, if requested by a parishioner, bless the bride as the newly acquired property of the man, just as priests blessed the new plough, the horse and the fishing boat.

It wasn't until the 12th century that the Church got into the marriage business through the development of Canon law (Boswell, ibid, Chap 5).

* * * * *

To sum up at this halfway point, ideas of morality were very different at different times. The only way a people can be led to think that their current ideas of morality are somehow authoritative, timeless and perhaps universal, is if there is active fencing off of inconvenient histories and alternative cultures.

I can also put the equation the other way around: that historical and cultural ignorance leads to rigidity of moral ideas, impairing our ability to work with and understand other peoples and cultures. This being the Singapore International Foundation, one of whose missions is to prepare Singaporeans for better interaction with the world, I think it's a point worth remembering.

* * * * *

As we all know, the Singapore government has a pathological need for control. Control is easier when a population is homogenous and conformist; it is much harder when it is diverse and individualistic, and as a consequence, perhaps a bit more contentious. This may explain why the government has been so intolerant of sexual diversity, coupled with perhaps a knee-jerk homophobia in some ministers of a certain generation.

People Like Us, a gay and lesbian society, was denied registration, twice. Gay-identified parties have been banned. Even concerts to raise funds for charities have been banned because performers were gay. In addition, serious magazines that talk about gay issues and politics are banned, and innumerable movies and TV shows censored.

This is a systematic effort to ensure cross-cultural ignorance and historical amnesia, and to avoid any discussion or communication that might open people's minds.

The government's reasoning for bans and censorship is that the majority of Singaporeans are conservative. Conveniently for them, with bans in place, it's hard to even discuss whether their reasoning is a valid one. Meanwhile the media is deployed to sell the officially endorsed morality.

* * * * *

For example, the Straits Times has, at least twice, featured a 1999 survey by NUS lecturer Vivien Lim.

In her survey, 413 students were asked to respond to the statement, 

"I would feel disappointed if I learnt my child was homosexual."

86.6% agreed, 5.2% disagreed and 8.2% said, don't know.

From this, the Straits Times suggested that Singaporeans are strongly opposed to homosexuality.

Hold on, think for a moment. If parents learnt that their children were different from what they had expected, in any way – not as athletic, not as blond, not as interested in the 'mother-tongue' - wouldn't they be disappointed, generally speaking?

Or consider this: if we rephrased the statement to become 

"I would feel disappointed if I learnt my child was going to marry someone of a different race." 

would you like to hazard a guess what percentage would agree with this statement, even today?

Does that mean we should pass a law banning inter-racial marriages if many parents would be "disappointed"? Should we censor TV shows that feature mixed couples?

The way fragments of data are being used to support broad official sanctions are troubling, to put it mildly.

* * * * *

Another example:

In July 2003, the New Paper carried out a straw poll with 60 respondents. It asked two questions.

The first was: Do you approve of gay marriages? 31 persons said yes, 29 said no.

The second question was: Do you think Singapore is ready for gay marriages to be made legal? 5 said yes, 55 said no.

Look carefully. Many of the respondents were themselves quite relaxed about the idea of gay marriage. But generally, they believed that other Singaporeans didn't share that opinion, and thus that a huge majority would be against. But is that belief supported by the replies to the first question? Or is the belief created by the government and its media?

(For another interpretation, see box at right)

Regardless, the headline had to make it clear that Singapore was a conservative society that didn't approve of homosexuality. When published, the big headline was

"Firm 'no' to gay marriages: poll"

(The New Paper, 6 July 2003)

These are examples of the way we deploy our media to manufacture consent for the state doctrine.

* * * * *

Behind the government's statements lies a belief that because ours is an Asian society, we're very coy about sex and we frown on homosexuality unlike the " decadent West". This is another variant of the Asian Values excuse for authoritarianism.

But what would be a more objective reading of Chinese tradition or Indian tradition, for example, regarding sex generally and homosexual relationships specifically?

Has it struck anyone that Asian religions such as Daoism, Buddhism and Hinduism are neutral in their attitudes to homo-sexuality and hetero-sexuality? Their scriptures, like Confucianism's, the governing morality for over 2,000 years in China, have almost nothing to say about homosexual relationships. Sex was a personal matter.

How did State Confucianism manifest itself in laws? Only during the Song (1127-1279) and Qing (1644-1611) dynasties were there any laws pertaining to homosexual sex, and even then, were applied narrowly towards male prostitution and same-sex rape (Bret Hinsch, Passions of the Cut Sleeve, p93, 143)

Koikuntole, Andhra Pradesh, 11th Century CE

Chinese, Indian and Japanese traditions have been quite matter-of-fact about things sexual. Same-sex relationships are found in imperial court records, in classical literature and art.

Sure, homophobia was present in some people as was racism in others. Humans have a habit of treating badly those who are different in some way or another.

Homophobia as prejudice, even if widespread, is one thing. Elevating it to moral codes and institutionalising it in law and censorship, is another. And that has been largely absent in this part of the world until the arrival of the European powers.

Young man flirts with maid servant while playing
with his older lover, Japan ca 1730

* * * * *

I am concerned that a systemic denial of moral enquiry damages our society. We are fed certain ideas and given little opportunity to question them. When our understanding of morality has never had to face challenge from histories and alternative systems of belief, when we are misled into thinking that authority figures are always right, we have only a shallow understanding of why we should believe what we believe. 

Catherine Lim said,

"... strength and resilience ..... come not from sameness and agreement, but from engagement with differences,"

(Utopia or Dystopia, 10 May 2005)

Otherwise,

"These people can be compared to artificially nurtured hothouse plants, unable to survive if thrown among the sturdy plants in the wild. Living in a utopia as long as they are protected, they are plunged into a dystopia when circumstances change and they have to fend for themselves."

(ibid)

She was talking about political differences, but the principle can be equally applied here.

Murals to ward off evil, Bhutan, present-day 

When our morals are programmed by diktat, while learning, debate and reflection are discouraged, how are Singaporeans to cope with a varied and changing world, whether at home or abroad?

Nation party, Singapore, now banned  now unbanned

We can't even engage internal differences, such as our own gay and lesbian communities, in a rational, enlightened way, without resorting to banning and censorship.

When our understanding of morals is shallow, how do we resist a myriad of temptations?

Are we agitated by moral horrors? Do we even recognise moral horror when we see it or do we wait for authority figures to tell us what to think? 

Mahmoud Asgari, 16, left, and Ayaz Marhoni, 18, right, were hanged on 19 July 2005 in Mashhad, Iran. The natural human instinct would be to ask what crime they committed. There are conflicting reports, ranging from merely having consensual homosex (with each other? and is it not common for teenagers to have sexual contact with other?) to assaulting a 13-year-old boy. See the article in Fridae.com But in questions of morality, the natural instinct is often unhelpful. Instead of wanting details, we should step back and ask the bigger moral question: Is there any crime that justifies capital punishment for teenagers?

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None