377a

Readers of this blog (which are admittedly dwindling in number) would have noticed that the penchant to intellectually masturbate is getting less and less. That's great. Less philosophy, more action.

But I do want to put my 2 cents' worth on 377a, or the non-repeal of which. You know which side I'm on, it's a really stupid idea. There's this law which is almost never used anyway. It's not sinful.

It'll be unfortunate if people reject raising a nuclear family because they think that homosexuality is cooler than being "straight", which has connotations of being uncool. I believe that homosexuality is inborn, and there are those out there who can't help it, but I also believe that it is a continuum, where you can say "On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being straight, 10 being gay, I am a 4" or something. So there are some people out there who can choose.

I've heard the arguments on both sides before, so I won't bother with that. I'm not that interested either. I'm just wondering how the events of the last few weeks have played out. We have Siew Kum Hong, young NMP sticking his neck out to push this issue in Parliament. In practical terms this is not an issue. The law did not persecute homosexuals but it will not do so in the near future regardless of the outcome of this motion.

What we do have is that this seems like a fairly new phenomenon in Singapore, if not unprecedented: a motion to be discussed in parliament, raised by citizen activists. What does it mean? Will the government's decision on this issue be tainted by whether this is a citizen action? Are they going to say, "we shouldn't allow this to go through because once we are seen as being receptive to the opinion from the ground, we will have to contend with citizen action for the rest of our (overpaid) lives."

Singapore is not what it was during the LKY era where 1 dictator (albeit a fairly benevolent one) just decided what was to be done and things got pushed down from the top. Now, even for the casino issue, you were just going to have to get permission from people. You were going to have to explain it to people, why you went through with it, even though in the 80s you were telling everybody that gambling is bad. Even though there were petitions everywhere not to have these casinos in our country.

The other issue is that politically, the parliament is sensitive to the charge that it doesn't exactly represent the entire segment of the population. Chinese and Christians are over- represented in parliament. (I'm saying this even though Tang Liang Hong got his ass whipped for saying the same.) And what would it look like if this westernised elite allowed some fancy westernised ideas through? To a lot of people, it might seem alarming to repeal the act 377a. It would not look like a neutral act. It is a pro-homosexual act. It is different from saying that you want to be neutral on this issue, which is what you'd want to do if you were to avoid kicking up a storm. Singaporeans are kiasu, and the most kiasu thing is to maintain the status quo: you can always tell the people who want you to repeal that you are never going to use the act, and you can always tell the people who get offended by homosexuality that this is a "statement of our values".

Then there is this other issue about how it contradicts what we have all along been trumpeting as our "asian values". Which Singapore value should we choose? We don't accept their "gay lifestyle", but what do you mean by that? Going to parties and fucking strangers in the ass? Or having a domesticated happy family life with your partner? Both of these are "gay lifestyles", and it's hard to see how the latter would contradict family values.

On the other hand, a fairly entrenched value in Singapore is tolerance. Maybe we might even have racial harmony one day, but at base we have tolerance. We recite the pledge and say "regardless of race, language or religion". And some versions of this include "creed". Which means acceptance is also central to our national values.

Thio Li-Ann is taking the approach that many conservatives tried on Bill Clinton when they were trying to impeach him. Ken Starr's report on his affair with Lewinsky was spiced up like it was some kind of a Jackie Collins novel so as to elicit disgust. She called anal sex 'shoving a straw up someone's nose to drink'. Now this is stupid. To be sure, anal sex is disgusting, but why not place a ban on picking your nose? (other than because the whole of Chinatown would be up in arms?) Some forum letters have defended her as being fiery and passionate. Come on, you can be fiery and passionate over matters that don't relate to persecuting disadvantaged minorities.

What would people make of this issue? What would Chinese make of this issue? I can imagine that the typical reaction would be similar to Lee Ang's "Wedding Banquet" when the old father learns that the son is gay. First he has a stroke, because it's like dishonour onto the family. Then he thinks that it's his son after all and then he forgives the son. In Chinese culture, when you look at a person, you don't really ask "is he gay?" You're more likely to ask, "what's his relationship with me?" It's less likely that this homosexuality, which is just 1 attribute of the human being as a whole.

This debate could only have been carried out amongst people who view this issue the way that a westerner would see it. Only in western culture would a label like "homosexual" would assume the gravity that it does. A Chinese educated guy is more likely to point at the guy and say "chow ah kua", then absent- mindedly turn to his kakis and say "ai lim kopi mai?"