Politicians should be judged by their public statements

In First 3 PAP newbies don't deserve the gay vote, I pointed out that Denise Phua earned a failing grade from me for saying, in response to a question whether she agreed with the ban on gay parties, "I'm not in favour of of homosexuality but sexual orientation is an individual decision."

Somebody wrote to SiGNeL, the gay and lesbian news list, to tell of his (or is it her?) experience with Phua. The Signeller said,

[A] whole bunch of us (mostly gays) have worked with Denise Phua extensively on an autism project a few months ago, and she has been nothing but respectful and accepting of our diversity. She is definitely not your typical self-righteous PAP politician from what I have observed. I guess, being an MP means that one has to "appeal" to the general public, in order to get voted right? ( Hence, the term "General" elections, hehe)

It's a little like how, we apply for jobs. We'll always present quite a middle-of-the-road kind of persona to the deciding party, but once hired, we can then truly be ourselves.

2nd week into our new jobs and off goes the stuffy jackets and sedate grey ties! Slowly but surely our own personalities seep in. Let's hope that this is truly the case here, as we definitely do not need any more stiffnecks in our government.

That's a valid point, but the "once hired, we can then truly be ourselves" part strikes me as a tad too optimistic. 

Geh Min, a Nominated Member of Parliament, speaking recently at forum at the National University of Singapore, expressed her disappointment -- I don't recall her exact words -- with how PAP Members of Parliament seem to undergo a homogenisation, a dumbing down, after they get elected. They tend to become the usual automatons. Vivian Balakrishnan, once touted as the "rebel" who in his younger days had spoken out against the PAP government, is probably the best example of dumbing down. Has he said anything remotely non-standard since the last general election?

I don't know very much about the specific project that was mentioned by the signeller and how much interaction there was between Phua and the gay helpers, but the following question still comes to my mind: Did Phua accept the help of the gay ones and in turn treated them with respect merely because the project needed their help? Would she, for example, have accepted help from the devil and smiled at him too? (Not that gays are anything like devils).

This is not to detract from her commitment to helping autistic children. By all accounts, she is exceptionally committed, but this commitment itself can motivate her to keep her opinions to herself in the interest of her project.

By this reasoning then, her public, homophobic statement represents her true self and her smiles at the gay helpers were fake.

On the other hand, she may really be gay-friendly as the signeller says. Yet she did say, publicly, that she is "not in favour of homosexuality." If so, her public position would not represent her true views.

In other words, her true self is gay-friendly, her homophobic statements are fake.

Yet, at the end of the day, we should judge politicians by their public statements. If they don't even have the courage to stand up for gays and lesbians when they truly are gay-friendly (as the signeller suggests Phua is), then what makes anyone think they will do anything for gays and lesbians when in Parliament?

The PAP leadership did say after all, that their new candidates could be as non-conformist as their conscience takes them. If they really mean it, and if Phua is really gay-friendly, then why did she mouth homophobic words? Wasn't she free to speak her mind? And if not, what does that tell us about the PAP's dispensation to its candidates to be non-conformist?

If she can go along with the PAP line and say she's against homosexuality, what makes anyone think she won't go along with more anti-gay legislation and policies of the government?

All this shows:

• We don't know what Phua's true convictions are;
• We don't know how honest her public statements are.

What a way to represent a party that keeps boasting about integrity!

Now, I'm not saying the opposition candidates are any better, but for now, we shall have to reserve judgment. So far, no reporter has asked them similar questions, nor have they made any comment about gay equality one way or another. When they make their positions public, we should subject their statements to the same degree of analysis.

* * * * *

 
The part that gets my bile up about Phua's reply to the Nation party question is how she referenced her religion. In the earlier article, I said this kind of answer cannot be good for Singapore, because it mixes religion with politics, confounding our obligation to a secular constitution.

In this regard, a small story from the US, reported in an American's blog, cuts to the heart of the matter and is worth re-telling:

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, was requested to testify. At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?" 

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." 

The room erupted into applause.

Singaporeans must learn to be as watchful as this, or this country will go to the dogs. Our pledge does say, after all, "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion......"  

So stop imposing your religion on me.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None