What Do We Have Against the Obvious?

One of the nicest things about living in Singapore is the fact that it’s an exceedingly practical place. The government’s that have lead Singapore, have generally veered on doing the “practical” thing and governments have always worked on the principle of doing “What’s Right rather than What’s Popular.”

The results have been good. Singapore is probably as close as it gets to having a perfect society. We are rich and our “social” issues tend to centre around life getting expensive for Professional and Middle-Class people rather than riots in the streets and violence against particular communities.

Yet, there is one area in which the Singapore government fails spectacularly, namely the question of 377A, the act in which criminalises anal sex between grown men. For the last decade, whenever the topic of 377A comes up, Singapore’s normally pragmatic and rational government rushes to pander to the illogical and irrational. I think of Professor Thio Li-Ann’s speech in parliament in 2007 and ended up marveling at her ability to deliver a long speech without a single rational thought (“We must reject the argument from consent” -being a line from that speech, which is the last thing you’d expect from a learned law professor when discussing laws governing sexual behavior) and yet she managed to convince a room filled with highly intelligent rational people that she had a point. Our rational and pragmatic government decided to come up with a compromise that mocks the concept of the rule of law – keeping the law but promising not to actively not enforce it.

It’s bad enough when you have the government being held hostage to a peddler of nonsense. Then, it gets worse when a government that is so famously principled and pragmatic being the said peddler of nonsense.

This happened recently when the Attorney-General’s chambers responded to three challenges in the court on the constitutionality of 377A. These challenges were heard in court after a former Chief Justice, two former Attorney Generals our former permanent representative to the UN came out to express points that stated that this particular section of the penal code was not only no longer relevant to a modern society but pointless and bad for the legal system. All of the men in question are regarded as highly intelligent establishment figures that no reasonable human being could dismiss easily. You'd expect the establishment to listen.

Another interesting fact about these hearings was the fact that experts of sexuality were called upon to give evidence on the nature of homosexuality. This wasn't just about the concept of equal rights but about the scientific nature of homosexuality. The experts on both sides pretty much agreed that homosexuality is an inborn condition - you are either gay or not and you cannot be "converted" into not being gay. Once again, with the scientist pretty much in agreement, you'd expect our normally rational government to listen

Yet, despite the obvious arguments from the people who knew the law and the science, the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) decided that it was time to retreat to the irrational arguments used by Professor Thio previously to defend keeping a law that most rational people knew made no sense :

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/attorney-general-377a-challenges-constitutional-rights-do-not-include-sexual-freedom-or?fbclid=IwAR3jAPCw0_RG_l6DqbSVyELO7SyKEsINcfrNiAWSicT65Zd5psAxjx55iXo

If you read through the AGC's argument, it is clear the only  rational argument the  was the fact that the courts were the wrong venue to strike out the law.  Let’s look at some of the things said:

“Unqualified rights inherently contradict a key tenet of our Constitution, which is that the interest of the larger community is placed over the interest of the individual,”

It's always interesting to notice how those who believe this law should be kept inevitably talk about "the greater good of the larger community," trumping individual rights. Nobody has stated how this law serves "the larger community," nor has anyone explained how allowing two consenting adults to engage in an intimate act in the privacy of the bedroom would harm the rest of society. Surely, you'd expect the AGC to make its case with proof rather than to talk about a concept in vague terms.

Then there was the argument at homosexuals could control their attraction therefore the act did not discriminate:

Even” Mr Ong’s experts had acknowledged that a person experiencing homosexual attraction can voluntarily control whether to perform the act or not. “

This argument isn't just legally dubious - it doesn't make common sense. All of us feel attraction to all sorts of people but  we only act upon the attraction only when it's mutual. I, as a heterosexual man, am very attracted to the many attractive women around me. However, I don't pounce on the them and I've only slept with women who want to sleep with me.  I can control my urges and I am not a criminal for sleeping with women who want to sleep with me as much as I want to sleep with them.

What is true of myself, as a heterosexual man is also true of homosexuals. The wider homosexual community is not  asking for permission to pounce on people its attracted to. They merely asking for the same rights as everyone else - namely, if you average homosexual finds someone he's attracted to and is willing to do to bed with - he will not be labeled a criminal for doing what is natural for him to do when he meets someone who reciprocates sexual attraction.

The most ridiculous point made by the AGC was against the former Chief Justice’s point that the law had served no purpose because the government’s policy was not to enforce it.

“Section 377A is fully able to serve its purpose, which is to send a certain moral signal, by its mere existence regardless of whether and how it is enforced.”

When you read this argument, you're bound to wonder if the AGC's lawyers are so hyper intelligent that they can create a purpose for laws outside thin air or they are so dreadful that they have to resort to their personal feelings.

Morality and legality may overlap in many cases but there is a distinction. Morality is personal. We as individuals and society can find many things sinful and abhorrent but whether they should be legal or not is another question. We have laws that we enforce because we want to ensure certain outcomes for the greater good of society.

If you follow the AGC's argument on sending out "moral signals," you then have to ask why the government permits the sale of alcohol, does not criminalise adultery and even allows casinos to be built. Adultery and gambling are considered sins in most religions. The evidence to suggests that adultery, alcohol and gambling hurt innocent parties outweighs the evidence that of allowing two consenting adults to engage in a private act in the privacy of the bedroom.

So, following the AGC's argument, shouldn't we send a "moral signal" against drinkers, gamblers and fornicators? 

We have thrived by being a society that is rational and reasonable. Isn't it time, we listened to rationality on this subject and not allow the prejudices of people against a community to dominate our proud legal system?