The one about Minister of State for Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee on 28 Oct 2005 was typical. It had a big photograph of him playing street soccer with Yishun residents, followed by a story about his passion for the game. All this, no doubt, was to soften his image, to make him seem more likeable, more a man of the people.

Yet, while this kind of newspaper behaviour has been standard fare for the last 30 years, I detected a bit more feistiness this time. In the second half of the feature, journalist Li Xueying posed some tougher-than-usual questions. You can see the full Q&A in On sex, values and white elephants, but the bits relevant to the gay issue are reproduced below.

Is this slightly more interrogative style meant to reflect the times?

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, in a speech 31 October 2005, said he did "not favour a subservient press. An unthinking press is not good for Singapore."

However, this was immediately qualified, "But press freedom must be practised with a larger sense of responsibility and the ability to understand what is in or not in our national interests."

The problem is who defines the national interests, a point he did not think to address.

Further in the speech, he said the media "should not parrot the government’s position. It would lose its credibility if it tries to be the government’s propagandist."

Warren Fernandez, the Foreign News Editor of the Straits Times, wrote a column on 5 November in which he concurred, but he also tried to expand the logic of this dispensation a little. He wrote, "I would argue that the media cannot play its role responsibly, unless it first has a reputation for credibility. They are two sides of the same coin. "

And to achieve credibility, he said, "while I would readily agree with Mr Goh that the media must play its role responsibly, I think this is inextricably linked to the rest of his thesis. That being responsible does not entail the media shrinking from asking tough, even awkward questions, reflecting differing views, or publishing stories which might sometimes make some officials uneasy."

What awkward questions did Li Xueying ask Ho Peng Kee?

ST: Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA) review of the Penal Code will be out at the end of this year. One aspect mentioned previously is the law on oral sex. Is it likely to be decriminalised? 

Prof Ho: That one we're looking at. Some of these laws were drafted in the past, so we have to contextualise some of these laws because society changes. It's a big exercise. The various ministries are still working on some of the details. 

What's your personal take? 

My personal take is that between men and women, if you are an adult and there's no force, then what you do in the privacy of your bedroom that has no impact on the public, then you do what you want. 

What about gay sex? 

We're still a conservative society. It's a slippery slope. Once you move, where do you go to? So you'll talk about not just gay sex but also gay marriages, then gay adoptions... 

But using the same argument, that you can do what you want in the privacy of your bedroom? 

That's different because I think men and women having sex is natural. And it is also in a sense consistent with the whole idea of marriage. Of course even if they do it outside of marriage, it is still man and woman, which is still part of this mateship. 

Then towards the end of the interview,

As a Christian, do your religious beliefs affect you in your decision making? 

You have to make decisions according to policies, what is right for Singapore, and Singapore is secular. 

But as a mature religious person, your values are internalised. That's how you act, speak, present yourself. But you don't think, oh, as a Christian, what should this policy be?

At temples for instance, I attend festivals and so on, just that I don't hold joss sticks. 

You said gay sex is 'not natural'. Is that something that comes out of your religious beliefs? 

Yes, could be. Well, I won't attribute it directly. I look at it more as a family bedrock thing, that a family is based on a man and a woman. I think all the main religions in Singapore believe it's how we are made. 

I couldn't let such inconsistent logic stand, so I shot off a letter to the Straits Times Forum.

The part which I had difficulty writing a response to was that of his internalised Christian worldview. On the one hand, he said he had to act based on what was right for Singapore, but on the other hand, he excused his own biases by saying they're so deep down, he may not even be conscious of them. How does one claim to be making fair decisions that is right for a secular state if one does not make an effort to overcome subjective bias?

For the gay issue, this is of critical importance, because the most vocal, hateful homophobia comes from the evangelical churches. No fair perspective can surface unless one is conscious of the terrain, and one's role in it.

Unfortunately, these are rather complex ideas, requiring a degree of background information about the influence of Religious Rightwing politics imported from the US into Singapore, and are therefore difficult to express within the confines of limited word count. Furthermore, it risks being construed as an attack on a religious faith when it is primarily a critique of how the pulpit is being used for political ends.... but that's too subtle for the general Singaporean public. So finally, I left it all out.

In any case, I had little hope of seeing the letter published. The Straits Times, to my knowledge has refused to publish all letters that criticise homophobia, they have not allowed any letter arguing for more enlightened laws and policies since late August 2003.

Other gay observers have also noticed a silence in the Straits Times' pages. Some with inside information into the editorial room have reported that a conscious policy is in place not to touch the subject, with one exception: only trusted senior columnists may mention it. Gingerly. In a reliably safe way. Outside voices are not welcome.

For all the posturing about a credible, responsible, press, there still seems to be an acceptance that the gay issue is outside an OB marker. The national interest, that nebulous thing that everybody is holding aloft, does not include informing Singapore society and engendering a debate on a matter where we are completely out of step with much of the world. We are out of step to the extent that we are beginning to suffer economically for it (remember the fiasco of Warwick university?).

Still what's there to lose? I clicked "Send".

To the Editor

I refer to the interview the Straits Times conducted with Minister of State Ho Peng Kee on 28 Oct 2005, specifically his comments about gays.

He repeats the claim that Singapore is a conservative society. This claim is suspect firstly because large numbers of Singaporeans think homophobia and discrimination is wrong, and secondly because the government itself, through its own censorship policies deny fair representation of gay people and modern views. To shape public opinion this way, and then claim that public opinion clamours for homophobic policies is disingenuous.

It was quite stunning to read that he feels heterosexuals should not be impeded by the law when it comes to non-procreative oral sex, and "even if they do it outside of marriage, it is still man and woman, which is still part of this mateship," yet he thinks our laws criminalising what gay people do in private should stay, even when they are in committed relationships.

It is extremely difficult to reconcile his views with the Prime Minister's assurance that the government is not homophobic.

The view that only heterosexuality is "natural" is a construct from the time of St Augustine (4th century). It is disputed among biblical scholars. It not universally accepted among Christians today, let alone other religions despite Ho's claim that "all the main religions in Singapore believe it's how we are made."

Just recently, a highly acclaimed Buddhist monk gave a talk to thousands at Bright Hill making it clear that homophobia, which is a form of hate and ill-will, is against Buddhist teaching.

Ho also used the slippery slope argument against repeal of anti-gay laws, when he said, "Once you move, where do you go to? So you'll talk about not just gay sex but also gay marriages, then gay adoptions..."

Throughout history, the slippery slope argument has been used every time anyone suggested any social progress. It was used when education for girls was first mooted, when giving the vote to women or to non-whites were first raised, when abolition of slavery was suggested.

The funny thing is, human civilisation gained strength with each of these moves despite initial fears.

4 days later, I heard from the Straits Times. They would not be publishing it.

© Yawning Bread