26 Oct 2007
repeal: a well-fought campaign with huge gainsAlex Au''It was a beautiful campaign, and while it eventually failed, there is a lot to celebrate,'' says Alex Au, Singapore’s pioneer gay activist, as he points out the significance of the Prime Minister’s parliamentary speech.
No one behind the campaign to repeal Section 377A of Singapore's Penal Code seriously thought that their chances were high anyway.[PIC]On the other hand, the anti-gay camp's victory will prove to be a Pyrrhic one. They threw in everything they had and all they have to show for it is a complete loss of credibility. In particular, their spokesperson, law professor Thio Li-Ann, who is also a nominated member of parliament, may have forever destroyed their case by a speech that a respected Straits Times journalist described as "ghastly."Another senior columnist in the same, usually pro-establishment, newspaper, told me, "More speeches like hers will turn off the majority."These journalists have a very acute sense of hearing when it comes to political messaging. The latter journalist has enough experience to know how the political leaders of Singapore think.Thio nailed her colours to the mast by saying 377A should never be repealed "in any event." That's forever. By saying so, she has positioned her camp in direct opposition to Singapore's political strongman Lee Kuan Yew, who just a few months ago had said the law needs eventually to go. Adopting this diehard position will alienate the decision makers rather than win them over.Further wrecking her side's credibility, she employed some extraordinary arguments, even if couched in seemingly erudite language.She argued that "there is no such thing as ‘sexual minorities’ at law," suggesting that a fixed trait is a necessary condition for such classification as a "legally recognised" minority. "Race is a fixed trait," she offered as an example. She ignored the way law protects religious minorities, when an individual can change his religion at will. Certainly, however incomplete the scientific data is, it is widely acknowledged by researchers that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, and there are jurisdictions that have effectively treated sexual minorities as a protected class."Singapore law only recognises racial and religious minorities," she said, but such a statement adds nothing to the debate. The issue isn't about what Singapore currently does, but what Singapore law should do.The spectre of AIDS was also raised, and incredibly, she used this argument to justify why it was all right to allow heterosexuals to engage in anal sex, yet ban it for gay men. "Opposite-sex sodomy is harmful, but medical studies indicate that same-sex sodomy carries a higher price tag for society because of higher promiscuity and frequency levels."It's like saying, driving under the influence of alcohol is dangerous, but since ethnic group A tends to drink more than other ethnic groups, so the drinking-and-driving law should only apply to ethnic group A.Distancing his government from the anti-gay camp"Actually, I think PM is a potential ally in this issue," said the Straits Times columnist to me. At first, I thought she was exaggerating, but after scrutinising his speech, I can see where she draws this observation from.Basically, when speaking to parliament, he had two main points to make: firstly to concede that things are hardly happy for gays and lesbians though he kept reiterating that there would be "space," secondly, to explain why the government could not move to repeal 377A. In this, he mostly referred to the symbolism of repeal. "Singapore is basically a conservative society. The family is the basic building block of this society," he pointed out. "If we abolish [the law], we may be sending the wrong signal that our stance has changed and the rules have shifted."However, what was noteworthy was that for the first time, he spent time demolishing some of the arguments of the anti-gay side, thereby distancing his government from their agenda. In so doing, he was accepting the points made by the repeal campaign.Listen to this: "... there is growing scientific evidence that sexual orientation is something which is substantially inborn. I know some will strongly disagree with this, but the evidence is accumulating. You can read the arguments and the debates on the Internet. And just to take one provocative fact: Homosexual behaviour is not observed only amongst human beings, but amongst many species of mammals."Then, with reference to the anti-gay camp's claim that they represent the majority, "And speaking candidly, I think the people who are very seized with this issue are a minority... I would say amongst the Chinese-speaking community in Singapore. Chinese-speaking Singaporeans, they are not as strongly engaged either for removing 377A or against removing 377A. Their attitude is live and let live."It's a point that I have repeatedly made in previous writings myself.About a flood of emails to ministers demanding that the law be retained, PM Lee said: "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." "Model answer style"? Not exactly praise, is it? Lee revealed that there were also people showing up at parliamentarians' constituency offices to suck up to the members of parliament "to congratulate the MP on what a good government this is that we are keeping Section 377A." The prime minister described it as a "well organised pressure campaign."Keeping the door open to further liberalisation, he said: "We are a completely open society. Members have talked about it, the Internet, travel, full exposure. We cannot be impervious to what's happening elsewhere. As attitudes around the world change, this will influence the attitudes of Singaporeans."The incoming tideElsewhere in his speech, a small reference sounded very significant to me. Agreeing with a statement from the repeal campaign's open letter to him, he noted that gays and lesbians "include people who are responsible, invaluable, highly respected contributing members of society. And I would add that among them are some of our friends, our relatives, our colleagues, our brothers and sisters, or some of our children."Our children. Way back in early 2004, just weeks after the Minister of State for Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee first mooted the idea that oral and anal sex be repealed for heterosexuals only, People Like Us wrote an open letter to every single member of parliament pointing out how discriminatory such a move would be. "What if your own son or daughter were gay?" the letter asked.Gay activists were slammed as being overly confrontational and too personal. It will set you guys back rather than win anyone over, the detractors said. Members of parliament themselves bristled at the idea that their children could be gay.Now, we have the prime minister acknowledging this reality.Social change behaves like an incoming tide. The water does not rise gradually, but comes in waves, each surge going a little higher than the previous. Every time a wave comes rolling in, the sand is churned up. It's not welcome; it's disruptive to repose of the beach. Likewise, during the latest repeal campaign, there were even gay people opposed to the attempt. They don't realise that that is what it takes to erode the shore. Surge after surge after surge. Even now, they see only failure. "What did you achieve, in the end?" they would ask. Look closely, feel the vibes in society, and you'll see we achieved a lot. Countless straight men and women stood up to be counted, some making even better arguments in their blogs and speeches than gays themselves. Three ruling party MPs spoke up for repeal when previously, we all assumed the People's Action Party was monolithic on this question. Thousands of ordinary Singaporeans, faced with the headlines, have had an opportunity to think about the issue and clarify their thoughts on it. Most, I am convinced, came down on the side of non-discrimination.The more optimistic among us would even point to the fact that when PM Lee made his speech in parliament, he chose to wear a pink shirt.Well, I'm not sure about the significance of that, but this much I am sure: The end of 377A is in sight.Alex Au has been a gay activist for over 10 years and is the co-founder of gay advocacy group People Like Us. Alex is also the author of the well-known Yawning Bread web site.
http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=2063&viewarticle=1&searchtype=all
repeal: a well-fought campaign with huge gainsAlex Au''It was a beautiful campaign, and while it eventually failed, there is a lot to celebrate,'' says Alex Au, Singapore’s pioneer gay activist, as he points out the significance of the Prime Minister’s parliamentary speech.
No one behind the campaign to repeal Section 377A of Singapore's Penal Code seriously thought that their chances were high anyway.[PIC]On the other hand, the anti-gay camp's victory will prove to be a Pyrrhic one. They threw in everything they had and all they have to show for it is a complete loss of credibility. In particular, their spokesperson, law professor Thio Li-Ann, who is also a nominated member of parliament, may have forever destroyed their case by a speech that a respected Straits Times journalist described as "ghastly."Another senior columnist in the same, usually pro-establishment, newspaper, told me, "More speeches like hers will turn off the majority."These journalists have a very acute sense of hearing when it comes to political messaging. The latter journalist has enough experience to know how the political leaders of Singapore think.Thio nailed her colours to the mast by saying 377A should never be repealed "in any event." That's forever. By saying so, she has positioned her camp in direct opposition to Singapore's political strongman Lee Kuan Yew, who just a few months ago had said the law needs eventually to go. Adopting this diehard position will alienate the decision makers rather than win them over.Further wrecking her side's credibility, she employed some extraordinary arguments, even if couched in seemingly erudite language.She argued that "there is no such thing as ‘sexual minorities’ at law," suggesting that a fixed trait is a necessary condition for such classification as a "legally recognised" minority. "Race is a fixed trait," she offered as an example. She ignored the way law protects religious minorities, when an individual can change his religion at will. Certainly, however incomplete the scientific data is, it is widely acknowledged by researchers that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, and there are jurisdictions that have effectively treated sexual minorities as a protected class."Singapore law only recognises racial and religious minorities," she said, but such a statement adds nothing to the debate. The issue isn't about what Singapore currently does, but what Singapore law should do.The spectre of AIDS was also raised, and incredibly, she used this argument to justify why it was all right to allow heterosexuals to engage in anal sex, yet ban it for gay men. "Opposite-sex sodomy is harmful, but medical studies indicate that same-sex sodomy carries a higher price tag for society because of higher promiscuity and frequency levels."It's like saying, driving under the influence of alcohol is dangerous, but since ethnic group A tends to drink more than other ethnic groups, so the drinking-and-driving law should only apply to ethnic group A.Distancing his government from the anti-gay camp"Actually, I think PM is a potential ally in this issue," said the Straits Times columnist to me. At first, I thought she was exaggerating, but after scrutinising his speech, I can see where she draws this observation from.Basically, when speaking to parliament, he had two main points to make: firstly to concede that things are hardly happy for gays and lesbians though he kept reiterating that there would be "space," secondly, to explain why the government could not move to repeal 377A. In this, he mostly referred to the symbolism of repeal. "Singapore is basically a conservative society. The family is the basic building block of this society," he pointed out. "If we abolish [the law], we may be sending the wrong signal that our stance has changed and the rules have shifted."However, what was noteworthy was that for the first time, he spent time demolishing some of the arguments of the anti-gay side, thereby distancing his government from their agenda. In so doing, he was accepting the points made by the repeal campaign.Listen to this: "... there is growing scientific evidence that sexual orientation is something which is substantially inborn. I know some will strongly disagree with this, but the evidence is accumulating. You can read the arguments and the debates on the Internet. And just to take one provocative fact: Homosexual behaviour is not observed only amongst human beings, but amongst many species of mammals."Then, with reference to the anti-gay camp's claim that they represent the majority, "And speaking candidly, I think the people who are very seized with this issue are a minority... I would say amongst the Chinese-speaking community in Singapore. Chinese-speaking Singaporeans, they are not as strongly engaged either for removing 377A or against removing 377A. Their attitude is live and let live."It's a point that I have repeatedly made in previous writings myself.About a flood of emails to ministers demanding that the law be retained, PM Lee said: "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." "Model answer style"? Not exactly praise, is it? Lee revealed that there were also people showing up at parliamentarians' constituency offices to suck up to the members of parliament "to congratulate the MP on what a good government this is that we are keeping Section 377A." The prime minister described it as a "well organised pressure campaign."Keeping the door open to further liberalisation, he said: "We are a completely open society. Members have talked about it, the Internet, travel, full exposure. We cannot be impervious to what's happening elsewhere. As attitudes around the world change, this will influence the attitudes of Singaporeans."The incoming tideElsewhere in his speech, a small reference sounded very significant to me. Agreeing with a statement from the repeal campaign's open letter to him, he noted that gays and lesbians "include people who are responsible, invaluable, highly respected contributing members of society. And I would add that among them are some of our friends, our relatives, our colleagues, our brothers and sisters, or some of our children."Our children. Way back in early 2004, just weeks after the Minister of State for Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee first mooted the idea that oral and anal sex be repealed for heterosexuals only, People Like Us wrote an open letter to every single member of parliament pointing out how discriminatory such a move would be. "What if your own son or daughter were gay?" the letter asked.Gay activists were slammed as being overly confrontational and too personal. It will set you guys back rather than win anyone over, the detractors said. Members of parliament themselves bristled at the idea that their children could be gay.Now, we have the prime minister acknowledging this reality.Social change behaves like an incoming tide. The water does not rise gradually, but comes in waves, each surge going a little higher than the previous. Every time a wave comes rolling in, the sand is churned up. It's not welcome; it's disruptive to repose of the beach. Likewise, during the latest repeal campaign, there were even gay people opposed to the attempt. They don't realise that that is what it takes to erode the shore. Surge after surge after surge. Even now, they see only failure. "What did you achieve, in the end?" they would ask. Look closely, feel the vibes in society, and you'll see we achieved a lot. Countless straight men and women stood up to be counted, some making even better arguments in their blogs and speeches than gays themselves. Three ruling party MPs spoke up for repeal when previously, we all assumed the People's Action Party was monolithic on this question. Thousands of ordinary Singaporeans, faced with the headlines, have had an opportunity to think about the issue and clarify their thoughts on it. Most, I am convinced, came down on the side of non-discrimination.The more optimistic among us would even point to the fact that when PM Lee made his speech in parliament, he chose to wear a pink shirt.Well, I'm not sure about the significance of that, but this much I am sure: The end of 377A is in sight.Alex Au has been a gay activist for over 10 years and is the co-founder of gay advocacy group People Like Us. Alex is also the author of the well-known Yawning Bread web site.
http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=2063&viewarticle=1&searchtype=all
Comments