Lee Kuan Yew's sentence, "there's such a strong inhibition in all societies -- Christianity, Islam, even the Hindu, Chinese societies", made at St James Power Station on 21 April 2007 [1], has so far gone unaddressed. Yet it needs to be dealt with because it represents a superficial treatment of a serious issue.

That homophobia is rife in many countries is true, but homophobia comes in different shades, and as far as the specific issue of decriminalisation is concerned -- which was what Lee was referring to -- it doesn't automatically mean that when people are homophobic, those people are necessarily in favour of criminalisation.

Put it this way: if you went out to observe what percentage of any population held racist attitudes, you'd probably find a high figure -- anywhere in the world. But if you tried to spin that as demonstrating support for criminalising minority races in the respective countries, your logic would be laughed away.

Or you could conduct a survey to ask how many parents would be shocked and upset if their sons and daughters were to change religion and marry someone from a different race. I'm quite certain in Singapore and most other places you'd get a rather high percentage. But any attempt to extrapolate that into justification for criminalising inter-racial marriage and/or religious conversion would make you look like a fool.

Yet this kind of thing happens all the time with the gay question, and few see the sleight of hand. Surveys are conducted asking people if they would be shocked and upset should their sons or daughters turn out gay. Many would say yes, because it is in the nature of human reproduction that we have deep instincts to want our offspring to be like us in most ways.

Chinese mothers find it hard to imagine a future with Indian grandchildren. Malay fathers find it hard to stomach the idea that their only son would convert to Catholicism to marry the Filipina girl he loved, and celebrate the wedding in Manila with roast pig, a Filipino favourite. How different is that from parents unable to consider with equanimity the prospect of their sons turning out gay and daughters turning out lesbian? 

Or, for that matter, with their children wanting to change sex? Yet, changing sex is perfectly legal in Singapore, and no one uses the unpopularity argument to campaign for recriminalising it.

* * * * *

Chinese homophobia is a very different kettle of fish from fundamentalist Christian homophobia. The latter is highly political, and related to a quest for ideological domination in a way the former is not.

A simple observation will put the matter in context. Ever since Lee's remarks at St James Power Station, where the Straits Times has received basketfuls of letters and published more than 10, Lianhe Zaobao, Singapore's main Chinese-language daily, has had none.

There's even a clue in the Sunday Times of 6 May 2007. In the story about Minister without Portfolio Lim Swee Say giving a talk to youth wing members of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), the newspaper reported that nobody really cared to follow up on the topic of homosexuality when it was raised. They were more concerned about empty pockets.

They were attending the first session of a programme that aims to give youth a better understanding of the key challenges facing Singapore. It includes visits to such places as Jurong Island and charity homes over two months.

Yesterday's session was on building an inclusive society and during the three-hour session with Mr Lim, the issue of homosexuality was also raised.

Mr Lim felt that in dealing with the subject, 'we as a people will have to collectively evolve'.

'If we move too fast, it will be a community rejection. If we move too slow, it will be a community frustration...So between frustration and rejection, we have to strike a balance.'

However, the overriding concern among the participants is the growing income gap in Singapore.

-- Sunday Times, 6 May 2007, Tales of 
governing from an insider

Thirdly, read the story in the New Paper about how hawkers and bouncers view the gay crowds they encounter in Tanjong Pagar.

It's where the 'conservative majority' brushes up against the 'liberal minority'.

Where the singlet-clad uncle shares the same table with the guy with the right earring.

And it's okay. As Ms Gina Aw, 43, who owns a Chinese restaurant opposite a gay club, puts it with a shrug 'You like to drive car. He likes to ride a motorcycle. It's as simple as that.'

-- The New Paper, 4 May 2007,
The gray area [2]

This seems to show that as far as the "heartland" is concerned, homosexuality is no big issue. Whether it is decriminalised or not, is not something people get excited about. Lim Swee Say is imagining a "community rejection" that is based on disproportionately loud shrieks from the fundamentalist fringe.

Then consider this too: even if homophobia is rampant in Chinese societies, why is it not illegal in China, Taiwan or Hong Kong? What does that tell you about how in Chinese culture, morality is seen as a private family matter, not a state matter?

* * * * *

 
You might argue that even if homophobia is unformed, unarticulated, and not seen as pressing, it's still true that there isn't majority support for decriminalisation. You won't be wrong.

However, the argument for decriminalisation does not rest on popularity, just as the argument for racial equality and religious non-discrimination can never rest on popularity. Such fundamental issues of human dignity and fairness are precisely that: fundamental. As Koh Jie Kai wrote in his recent commentary, "The onus is on people who argue for the enforcement of morality through the law to show that there are moral principles supporting that."

The "that", I'd argue, is not whether something is moral or not moral, which with respect to homosexuality is highly debatable in the first place, but whether it is moral or not moral to enforce one's beliefs.

* * * * *

On the other hand, keeping the law has real downsides:

First, there is the negative branding of Singapore as a place where individual freedoms are constrained. This is particularly damaging to Singapore's attempt to position itself as a global and vibrant city.

Second is the cultural and economic cost suffered from the loss of diversity when gay people shun Singapore. Tolerance of people who are different has been identified as one of the keys to stimulating creativity with its attendant economic benefits.

Third is the confusion that arises from having a law which is officially not enforced. Quite apart from the mistaken notion it may give foreigners that criminal laws in Singapore are generally not strictly enforced, one wonders what outsiders would think of a people who gain some sort of satisfaction from adopting an attitude which hints of hypocrisy.

And not least is the undermining of the rule of law itself. As more Singaporeans come to accept homosexuality as a personal choice, maintaining a law that is honoured only in its breach is bound to lead to erosion of respect for the law.

-- 'Today' newspaper, 8 May 2007, Why close
 one eye? by Thomas Koshy [3]

* * * * *

 
The government may think that in politics, opposition, however irrational, cannot be ignored. This despite many people pointing out, as I am doing again in this article, that the so-called "opposition" is more narrowly-based and religiously-driven than commonly supposed.

Ministers seem to be trying to put out the case that between these opposing sides, compromise is what they are seeking. But what they think of as "compromise" is in fact the status quo. It is not a middle position even, but basically a "no change" position, something that the gay community can see right through.

Lim Swee Say's statement that before the government can deal with the subject, "we as a people will have to collectively evolve" is an attempt to duck. It's like saying we should keep a law criminalising inter-racial cohabitation until the last Singaporean is no longer racist. This even as Lee Kuan Yew has admitted that the case for retaining the anti-gay law is untenable. "Eventually" it has to go. There's "no option" but to repeal, he said in a meeting with reporters. [4]

For a government that is usually hard-headed and decisive, and ever ready to act in a timely manner, even preemptively, this is a case of uncharacteristic paralysis. They seem lost in a fog of fear.

© Yawning Bread