I’ve often said that one the best things about Singapore is
the fact that we have a government that prides itself in being exceedingly
rational and is willing to take a position contrary to popular opinion if it
has the facts on its side. This wonderfully matter of fact approach to “tricky”
and “difficult” matters has been on display in its handling of the Coronavirus.
The government has been careful to follow the facts as they come out, they’ve
restricted movements and been generous on the economic front. The government
has avoided “Trump-like” messaging and avoided confusion and panic in the
market place.
Yet, there remains one topic in which this rational and
pragmatic approach gets rolled into the proverbial shit-pot and flushed down
the toilet. That is the issue of 377A, or the law which criminalises consensual
sex between two adult men. I’ve blogged about this topic on countless occasions
and I seem to be making the same point – there is no rational, logical or
helpful reason as to why the State should intervene and criminalise private and
consensual behavior. I’m not the only one to make that point. We’ve had a
former senior diplomat (Professor Tommy Koh), a former Chief Justice (Justice Chan
Sek Keong) and two former Attorney-Generals (Professor Walter Woon and Justice
VK Rajah) come out and make exactly those points. None of these men can be
accused of being stooges of “Western Liberalism.” All of them are highly respected
members of society and all of them are regarded as being amongst the most
brilliant minds that our society has produced.
Yet, despite all these brilliant and respected men coming
out to make the obvious points, our system remains entrenched in an almost
childlike thinking when it comes to the topic of 377A. Today (30 March 2020),
the High Court released its verdict on three constitutional challenges presented
by three men. The news report can be read at:
The only thing that seemed to make some logical sense was
the statement - “The court is not the appropriate forum to seek a resolution of
a scientific issue that remains controversial. This is in any event an
extra-legal argument that does not come under the proper purview of the courts.”
This statement by Justice See Kee Oon makes sense in the same way that a
janitor in a hospital telling you that he’s not the appropriate person to talk
to if you ask a question about a complex medical issue
However, the rest of the verdict seemed to lack a logical
and reasonable thought in its delivery. The most embarrassing moment came from
the way in which the court had to defend the fact that while the law is set to
remain on the statute books, the government has “promised” not to enforce it. Poor
Justice See had to deliver these lines:
“Statutory provisions serve an important role in reflecting
public sentiment and beliefs. Section 377A, in particular, serves the purpose
of safeguarding public morality by showing societal moral disapproval of male
homosexual acts.”
Unfortunately, the public morality argument has been long
blown away. The public, for example, does not approve of prostitution or gambling.
Yet, these vices are perfectly legal and until Covid-19 forced the government
to shut down “entertainment,” were thriving industries. Both gambling and
prostitution have been proven to cause social problems (there is such a medical
condition called “gambling addiction,” and sleeping with prostitute’s does
leave you open to venereal diseases – a warning that is well publicized in Singapore’s
brothels). Yet, nobody seems too bothered by the presence of gambling and
prostitution (a cynic might argue that there are more gamblers and customers of
prostitutes among the well to do than there are homosexuals).
Furthermore, the public disapproval argument does not stand
when you consider that genuinely conservative societies like India (I repeat
the place that gave you the caste system) and Taiwan (the China we don’t recognize)
have done away with laws banning consensual sex between consenting adult men.
A certain section of the “conservative” movement might argue
that this argument holds because it enforces “approval” onto a disapproving majority.
This is an ingenious argument. It seems to argue that if something is legal, it
means that one has to accept it. It forgets that a certain portion of society
had nothing more than the government’s promise that they would not be sent to
jail for behaving like everyone else with the exception of their choice of
consenting sexual partner.
Since logic is unfashionable, I’ve always wondered if 377A
proponents who made this argument were not repressed homosexuals themselves. I’m
speaking as a heterosexual man with a normal sexual appetite. I like to have
sex with women and as long as I have sex with a consenting woman, nobody is
going to disturb me and nobody is going to care who I have sex with. So, if you
look at this basic fact and apply it to a homosexual couple, why should anyone
really care what they do in the bedroom as long as its in the bedroom. Homosexual
sex (like any other form of sex) should only be a problem if its done onto
someone who does not consent to it.
The bout of cases of voyeurism in our universities is far
more damaging to society than what the homosexual community does in its
bedroom. Are we really easier with boys setting up spy cameras in the girls public
showers than we are with two gay guys doing it in the privacy of the bedroom.
In one of the challenges, experts (as in people with
scientific knowledge) were brought in and just about everyone concluded that
gay people are well…..gay. It’s not a lifestyle choice of something people do
because its fashionable. If the science did not favour homosexuality as a
genetic fact, “gay conversion” therapies would not be banned in most places.
We are lauded around the world for being intelligent and
rational. So, surely, it is time we showed some rationality and intelligence
when it comes to this topic. Though having said that, I was once told that
there is intelligence in this refusal to listen to rationality on the topic of
377A. I was once told at a party that the “LGBT” community contains the highest
portion of opposition voters. Let’s be cynical here.
No comments
Post a Comment