This August, I had my own experience with this sort of hysterical attack. I received an email from someone I never met, full of vile and obscene invective which I shall not repeat, accusing me of hatemongering. It cursed me and expressed the wish to defile my grave on the day 377A was repealed.

Interestingly, she was too coy to repeat the "obscene" verb that the email used, though as readers would have noted, she wasn't averse to describing the act of anal rimming in Parliament.

Anyway, this was the email in question:

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2007 05:03 +0800 (CST)
Subject: a valentine

Dear Dr Thio,

This is a personal note to you.

I think you are absolutely fucked up.

As long as you exist, with your hatemongering and your vicious crusades against sexual minorities, I will never leave Singapore. I hope I outlive you long enough to see the repeal of 377A and on that day I will piss on your grave.

With love, 
Alfian.

Yes, another literary work by the one and the same Alfian Sa'at, award-winning poet, playwright and erstwhile relief teacher.

Yesterday, Alfian was called down by the police to answer the complaint of "intentional harassment". Here are Alfian's own words on that:

Thio Li-Ann has filed a police report, accusing me of 'Intentional Harassment'. On 26 October, I sat for a two-hour investigation at the Tanglin Division Police Station at Kampong Java Road. The Investigating Officer was a very friendly and helpful man.

In my statement, I reported the following.

1) The mail was shot off one night after clubbing with friends (hence the time). Before that, on the cab ride home, I had been told that Thio was the 'member of the public' who called the police, resulting in the cancellation of the 'Pink Picnic'. [1] The officer asked me how I felt when I wrote that letter and I said 'aggrieved, wounded and helpless'. And then taking a cue from her Parliamentary speech, I added, 'distressed, disgusted and upset'.

2) I had sent only that one email to her, which I did not think satisfies the criteria of repetition and persistence that would constitute 'harassment'.

3) The phrase 'fucked up', to my understanding, meant 'dysfunctional'. I said I did not consider the term abusive.

4) I had not threatened her with bodily harm.

5) In fact I had not made any threats to her at all, unless she thinks being a fellow citizen with me in Singapore constitutes a threat.

6) As for 'cursing' her with death by talking about outliving her, I said I was merely pointing out the obvious fact of her mortality. I also said that since I was younger than her, I would naturally expect her to die earlier, barring any misfortune. The sympathetic policeman offered to change the word 'die' to 'pass on' in my statement.

7) On the part about pissing on her grave, I said that gesture was meant to celebrate the repeal of 377A. I also said that a few lawyers had told me it was not illegal to piss on graves.

As the interview went on, the incredulity of it all I think struck the policeman. I told him that if what I sent her constituted harassment, then it would set an impossible precedent. Anyone who has received any message through whatever form of communication causing 'emotional distress' can file a police report alleging 'intentional harassment'.

I asked the policeman why he was even acting on her complaint, and whether he had more urgent cases to attend to. I told him she was wasting taxpayers' money and state resources. I said this was precisely the kind of 'bully-boy tactics' that she spoke of in her Parliamentary speech. I also said I considered her calling the authorities about the 'Pink Picnic' to be an example of harassment, and that I felt harassed listening to her Parliamentary speech.

I ended the statement by saying that I hoped she was aware that many of her actions have affected and hurt other people. I said I did not discount the possibility of her receiving other hate mail, but acting on me specifically as I was a strategic target, having written plays with gay themes.

I am posting the 'hate mail' here, knowing full well that there will be those who will chide me for my hot-bloodedness and impulsiveness. I apologise to those who think that my 'uncivil' four-liner has somewhat sabotaged the repeal-377A cause. But I think the exposure of this woman's pettiness, tendencies towards exaggeration, as well as her wanton abuse of the legal system, far outweighs the flak I will inevitably receive.

My understanding from my conversation with Alfian was that the investigating officer too thought the whole thing was an abuse of process by the complainant. As for Alfian's charge of hatemongering and vicious crusades on Thio's part, I don't think I need to argue for its veracity. Lots of people can attest to such an assessment.

 
Carelessness?

She should also be a lot more alert to her own selectivity. For example, in a commentary she wrote for the Straits Times on 26 October 2007, she said,

We witnessed a galvanisation of citizens on both sides of the fence, through letters to the press and MPs, meet-the-people sessions, cyber discussions, online hissy fits and petitions. PM Lee Hsien Loong observed that "both sides" had mobilised "very well organised campaigns" to promote their causes.

Did PM Lee refer to "both sides" when he spoke about tactics? Actually, I don't think so. What he told Parliament on 23 October 2007 was,

There was a petition to remove Section 377A. It accumulated a couple of thousand signatures and was presented in this House.

Therefore there was a counter-petition to retain it which collected 15,000 signatures, at least according to the newspapers I haven't counted the signatures - 16,000, 15560 signatures. Probably gone up since last we started speaking.

Also with an open letter to me. And the ministers and I, we have received many e-mails and letters on this subject. And I have received e-mails too in my mailbox. Very well written, all following a certain model answer style. So it's a very well organised campaign.

And not only writing letters but people, constituents have visited MPs at Meet-the-People Sessions to see the MP, not because there's anything they want done, but to congratulate the MP on what a good Government this is that we are keeping Section 377A, and 'please stay a good Government and please don't change it'.

So I don't doubt the depth of the sentiments and the breadth of the support. But it's also a very well organised pressure campaign.

Read it carefully. Lee first referred to the repeal petition. Then he spoke about the counter petition (he was mistaken; there wasn't one). It was while he was referring to the counter campaign that he spoke about emails and letters, describing them as "following a certain model answer style" which indicates that he knows it's coming from a small group of organisers.

Then, as you'd notice, he mentioned, in two places which I have marked in bold text, his view that it was "a very well organised campaign". In both mentions, he used the singular, not plural, for the word "campaign". Could he have been referring to "both sides"?

Yet Thio suggested that Lee's mild rebuke applied to "both sides". I hope it was not intentional.

 
Civility

A few days ago, I received an email from a reporter for Zaobao, a Chinese-language newspaper. She asked me: "How can netizens be encouraged to engage in debates in a more civil manner?"

I thought that question narrowed the issue unnecessarily, just as all this talk about being uncivil in the debate over 377A did. My response to her began, "Firstly, I would not crown civility as supreme in all situations."

For example, I added, "Anger has a purpose. Surely you would not ask the Burmese people to remain civil to the generals, would you?"

There is a place for other styles of communication, such as satire, sarcasm, even abuse. To demand civility in all situations is to impose a bias in favour of moderate, accommodative views, even when your opponents are talking rubbish.

How does one accommodate rubbish? How does one negotiate with the unreasonable? How can you demand that I treat opposing views with respect no matter how absurd and outrageous they are? The only way to deal with such crap is to point out that they are crap, and that has to be done by stripping those arguments of whatever dignity they pretend to have. For that, there is no better technique than satire and sarcasm.

Janadas Devan employed it brilliantly in his column in the Straits Times, 27 October 2007 "377A debate and the rewriting of pluralism", exploding some of the ludicrous arguments Thio used in her Parliamentary speech.

When crap is fortified with power, and any debate, if allowed at all, is only meant for show, then to demand a response that is civil, respectful and moderate is merely to demand acquiescence. In such situations, anger is justified. One doesn't deal with crap/power by engagement, but by demolishing it.

Too many Singaporeans have grown up afraid of contention. Daily, this is reinforced by our government's and mainstream media's use of words like "polarising", "confrontational", in a negative light. Please, let's not be such wusses, afraid of a fight.

If readers would look at some of the later comments I received for my essay The loonies are marching, you will see a discomfort with my taking a stand on issues. One wrote,

It seems that you have lost the ability to maintain a perspective that is above the involved and beyond the casual observer. The wisdom of your words in the articles prior to the latest one comes from the neutral and inpersonal [sic] view point that you have managed to maintain in the course of thought and expression. Sadly, this is lacking in your article "The loonies are marching".

Why should I remain dispassionate? The anti-gay law affects me. My life and my personhood. I've always been opinionated and (Heaven forbid!) I have never intended for Yawning Bread to be dry and passionless.

When the Religious Right (and this includes Thio) are out to bludgeon me psychologically, socially and politically, they don't deserve respect or civility from me. Nor from Alfian and thousands, thousands more.

© Yawning Bread