First 3 PAP newbies don't deserve the gay vote

On Thursday, 23 March 2006, the People's Action Party (PAP) revealed the first 3 of their new candidates for the coming general election, without specifying which constituency they would stand in. 

They were Lim Wee Kiak, 37, an eye surgeon, Denise Phua, 46, president of the Autism Resource centre and Zaqy Mohamad, 31, a director of an IT company.

The PAP held a press conference to introduce them to the media, but The New Paper followed up with telephone interviews. Two questions that The New Paper asked are pertinent to this essay:

Q: Pre-marital sex is happening -- even among the young. Your views?

Dr Lim: I'm against it because I'm conservative. As a kid, my mother used to tell me not to do 'those things'.

Even when I had a girlfriend later, she told me that if I wasn't sure, don't spoil somebody else's life.

And you really can't be sure about these things until you get married.

Mr Zaqy: From a religious perspective, the stance is clear. But society has changed a lot.

Ms Phua: I'm not in favour of it because I'm a Christian. 

But if young people cannot control themselves, then they should take precautions.

Q: Last year, the application to hold Nation.05, a National Day party for gay people, was rejected as contrary to public interests. Do you think it was a right decision?

Dr Lim: I haven't watched Brokeback Mountain yet! But seriously, I'm a doctor and I do not think that homosexuality is natural.

If my son told me one day he is gay, I will honestly be upset. But I won't condemn it.

We need to study the deeper underlying issues involved.

Mr Zaqy: From a religious standpoint, I believe it was a right decision.

But I do have acquaintances who are gay.

Ms Phua: I am not in favour of homosexuality but sexual orientation is an individual decision.

-- The New Paper, 24 March 2006

One gets the feeling that these are rehearsed answers. They've been prepped to say middle-of-the-road things, making reference to their own "upright morals", waving their religious credentials where possible, while sounding "compassionate".

But in most instances, they came out wishy-washy. The "upright" part of their answers didn't gel with the "compassionate" part. We can see conflict of logic. This suggests that they either don't know what to think themselves, so they merely mouth the prepared replies, or they don't/can't think.

Take Zaqy's first reply. On pre-marital sex, he mentioned the "religious" perspective, without specifying which religion. In fact, only Islam and some denominations of Christianity, have anything to say about pre-marital sex. Does this man know about other religions? Is this man going to bring his own religion as a guide for governing a secular state?

But he also says, "society has changed a lot", which is to repeat the obvious. So where does that leave him and his gray matter?

The New Paper should have asked a follow-up question, but failed to (typical of the standard of journalism in Singapore). A question that was sorely needed was one specific to the role of a legislator, which all 3 were aspiring to be. The reporter should have asked to what extent they felt a secular state should interfere in sexual decisions, whether through (a) law, (b) censorship, (c) the bully pulpit and (d) funding for causes against pre-marital sex.

On the second question, all three did even worse. Lim and Phua didn't even directly answer the question --whether Nation.05 should have been banned -- but spoke about homosexuality in general.

Phua waved her Christian credentials, saying she was "not in favour of homosexuality" as if it was a choice. I wonder whether she thinks it is also an intelligent answer, on another occasion, to say she's "not in favour of musical talent", or "not in favour of Thai ethnicity", because that's what homosexual orientation and gay identity are analogous to.

Then she said sexual orientation is an "individual decision" avoiding an answer to the reporter's question that was at least pertinent to the role of legislator -- should the government have acted the way they did, and whatever her opinion, why?

Where will she stand when a secular principle such as equality for gay citizens clashes with her religious beliefs? Will she say, damn equality, damn secular principles, my Christianity first? How will she act as a legislator? Will she serve the secular constitution or not?

At least Zaqy answered the question directly. He said he agreed with the ban, but then flunked the question by citing his religion as his reason! 

Same issue then arises. Where does he stand when a secular principle such as equality for gay citizens clashes with his religious beliefs? Will he say, damn equality, damn secular principles, my religion first? Will he serve the secular constitution or not?

Lim was the worst of the lot. I need to highlight how insidious one of his sentences was. He said, " I'm a doctor and I do not think that homosexuality is natural."

Why did he open with "I'm a doctor"? By doing so, he immediately medicalised the question of sexual orientation. It's a medical condition, he says, and therefore I am unusually competent to pronounce judgment on it.

The second insidious thing was to suggest that sexual orientation was a matter open to judgment. "I do not THINK that homosexuality is natural."

This shows utter ignorance. It is not a medical condition and he therefore has no special qualification in this subject. And just about all scientific findings in the last 50 years have indicated homosexual orientation is a very natural condition. Evidently, he doesn't know that. So much for the attempt to paint himself as an expert.

The third insidious thing about such a statement is how he implicitly claims that his opinion carries more weight than others' because he has a paper qualification. Does the word "elitist" come to mind? 

None of the three deserve the gay and lesbian vote either because they are making homophobic statements or because they evidently haven't given thought to something that is of paramount importance to our lives. They seem to think superficial leaning at "compassionate" words is enough.

* * * * *

The PAP tries to present their new candidates as non-conformists. The party realises that Singaporeans are sick of authoritarianism and the robots that rubber-stamp our government's heavy-handed actions. Their aim is to try to sell the idea that we don't need any opposition party representation in Parliament because the PAP members themselves will offer alternative voices and ideas.

Really?

At a 90-minute press conference where these 3 new candidates faced the media, Zaqy tried to suggest his non-conformism in this manner, 

'We have all these policies to help the poor, yes, but in terms of execution, more needs to be done to reach out to the right target groups properly,' he said

-- Straits Times, 24 March 2006, Middle-class
Malay hopes to help poor

Hello? This is not a difference of opinion about policy. It is just a comment that execution can be done better.

Phua did better, She said that for children with special needs, their schooling should be led by the Government and supported by the community.

'It shouldn't be the other way round.'

-- Straits Times, 24 March 2006, An advocate
for kids with special needs

At least, this is a self-confident disagreement about one policy.

Lim again was the most bland. The feature article in the Straits Times devoted to him was headlined, "Doctor wants to repay debt to society". It said it all. Nowhere in there was a single original thought that could be attributed to him.

Even Chua Mui Hoong, a trusted feature writer for the Straits Times said conformity wasn't too far beneath the surface.

She opened her 24 March 2006 opinion piece recalling what the PAP had said about the things they looked for in new candidates.

The four Cs the party favours are: capability, character, commitment, compassion. The fifth C it does not want: conformity.

But further on, she noted, 

Quizzed on their political views, the three candidates, alas, retreated to textbook answers. For example, they were asked their views on a Straits Times survey of young voters which found that 40 per cent cited political freedom as one issue that would sway their vote. They were also asked if they thought it desirable to have more opposition in Parliament.

Mr Zaqy's reply was that it all depended on how freedom was defined.

Dr Lim thought having more opposition was not a priority. 'Within the PAP itself, there's a self-checking system,' he said, adding that while monopoly of power tended to corrupt, 'thank goodness, I think that has not happened over here' as 'honesty is one of the values of the PAP'.

What checks does the PAP have? Dr Lim referred to the government parliamentary committees where PAP MPs debate policies and the systematic attempt to solicit feedback on policies. 'There's always consultation going on,' he said.

While desirable, having consultation on policies is surely not the same as having constitutional checks and balances on the Government - but this was not a point that he chose to finesse over.

As for Ms Phua, she observed that Singapore could not afford to waste time on internal politicking as regional economies moved ahead, seemingly subscribing to the view articulated by some that democracy, with its debate and jostling for power, is a waste of time that detracts from the real work of government.

Even the issues they said they want to push for are all within the PAP's radar screens, such as Dr Lim on devoting more resources to children from low-income families and Mr Zaqy on bridging the gap between policy and implementation.

What little they revealed about their views on political issues was generally pro-status quo, even conformist at times.

In his introduction, PAP chairman Lim Boon Heng described the 2006 batch of candidates as a non-conformist lot.

While Ms Phua is non-conformist in her choice of vocation, yesterday's batch impressed more with their conviction and zeal to serve the community - that old cliche so many mouth, which very few actually carry out.

But non-conformist, people who will push the boundaries, people who will Remake Singapore? The 40 per cent of young voters, to whom political freedom type of issues matter, will have to wait and see what the other candidates offer.

-- Straits Times, 24 March 2006, They've
got 4 C's the party wants - and
more, by Chua Mui Hoong

For a Straits Times piece, that's pretty damning.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda/Comments received:

1. My God, what a trio of intolerant and pallid stooges. Dr Lim Wee Kiak says "I'm a doctor and I do not think that homosexuality is natural" - what the heck? Is he implying that his medical training gives him some special expertise to declare that homosexuality is not "natural"? What sort of doctor is this, who can boast of his bigotry with such pride? What a pity that we can't have candidates of intelligence, compassion and enlightenment, instead of these politicos spouting party pablum - Gil

2. I agree with the evaluation on the "Lim" character. Using his credentials as a DR in a manner that is non-objective is irresponsible (in fact, if anything, it smacks of a personal and prejudicial bias)...there are many other "DRs" out there who have read and evaluated psychological and ecological studies that have concluded that in NATURE, homosexuality is really a subject that cannot be ignored (which he seems to have dismissed entirely...and he's a friggin eye surgeon...what part of the argument did he devote toward understanding the psychology of homosexuality??? I can accept that he could be well read...i can even accept that the New Paper may have preferentially printed only part of his response... what i cannot accept is the blanket coverage and expression of a one-sided view that doesn't even seem to have indicated that he may have had professional and balanced reservations of a scenario or situation that is infinitely multi-layered and goes well beyond the surface party line and stance. If you want to vote for such a YES man, then go ahead... but all it just indicates is that he's going to screw you over for issues that go against his party line on issues that matter to you, WITHOUT even giving you due consideration beyond the politically correct stance. - Steve