S377A - Any progress?

The recent imbroglio between the 2 opposing camps regarding 377A taught me a great deal. Firstly, We ( By We I mean Singaporeans) are not as apathetic as we have made ourselves out to be, so just for that we deserved a good pat on the back. No doubt the recent brouhaha has caused much animoisity and controversy, but it most certainly revealed a newer society that is quite unlike its predecessors - fiercely opinionated, passionate, and rightly persistent in its own views.

No doubt tempers have flared and word wars have escalated. Both sides are just as adamant and unflinching in the wake of the rancuous exchange between both - and sometimes things have retrogressed into a more ugly process of cheap shots, Ad Hominem attacks, below the belt digs and caricaturization. Both sides have unapologetically and mercilessly resorted to gutter tactics - demean your opponents ( epitmomised by the recent Dr Thio Li Ann speech, when point by point rebuttals became the order of the day), strip them bare, and assert your own stand. This obdurate, indefatigable all encompassing stance adopted by both camps is not wihout its pitfalls.

As a disengaged viewer, I am bemused to say the least. Watching the 2 camps sweat it out was infinitely more arresting and more intriguing than any thriller novels i have read in recent times. To me the picture is very clear : Two parrots of different colour perched high up in their own exclusive canopies, rallying their cries and oblivious, almost heedless in a rather bizzare fashion, to the other party's voices. So ironically, this cacophany of disccordant voices have done themselves a huge disfavour - they have drowned out their very own voices, so now it becomes more like (to borrow a terms very much in trend nowaday) hatemongering and senseless rattlings. People either refused to listen to the other party, or are themselves detached from each other within the same sections.

This is counter productive.PM Lee has wisely pointed out that both views are highly unlikely to change. Where are views so incumbent and so highly resistant to (any) sort of tendency for change? Because both sides are beginning to diverge instead of converging. Both camps revel in their ingenuity of their arguments; for the pro 377a, their moral highground and how they have managed to retain a streak of morality in an age of the "wild wild west" decadence and for the anti 377a, the sheer sound-ness of their argument and how their logic fits perfectly like a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. To each his own i would say, because both sides are so stubbornly enmeshed and entrenched in their own views that its is exceeding difficult, if not impossible, for them to even give "slight" benefits of doubt that the other side might just make sense. And once people clammed shut, any form or hopes of effective political, or social discourse would be persecuted. People only like what they like to hear.

I don't envy the PM's job. Personal bias aside ( I am in favour of the repeal), I feel that the issue of homosexuality runs deep in our social precincts. It is a pain in the ass no doubt, but a cursory glance throughout some of the pro - 377A comments would give the uninititated an idea of the extent of perpetration of misconceptions as well as the influence of religions in Singaporeans life. Anti 377A has made a fatal error in assuming that all talks about logic and notions of equality would cut some ice with the government, or the rest of the population for that matter, which actually did not. From what i see,i can only surmise that Singapore does not rely on any sort of "moral highground" theories to justify its actual stance. If Singapore had any to begin with, IRs would never materialize, bar top dancing will not make its way to the table, and prostituition will still be a crime. So it is never morality to begin with. And for this I would gladly concur with PM Lee that morality cannot be used to justify social policies or legal policies.

The realpolitik of the issue lies in what i term the equilibrium. PM lee has insisted that he would thus let the society be divided and polarised, for such is a move neccesary to prevent further provocation, animoisity and friction. In fact, as much as i hate to say it, this is a prudent move. Its more like the lesser of the 2 evil, because there are Singaporeans who have been religiously indoctrinated, whose mindsets towards homosexuality have been cast in stone, whose beliefs are not malleable. Homosexuality is too distasteful and too "morally pugnacious" a phenomenom for them to accept. Why do I use this word phenomenom? Because many believed homosexuality to be a interest driven agenda, in which any sort of leeway would set a definite precedent for many more things to follow down the slope : same sex marriages, adoption of children by same sex parents, gay pride parades etc. Homosexuality in itself ( as a sexuality ) is already, to them, a frowned-upon and rejected form of orientation. Not to mention that homosexuality was a package in their opinion, a warped convoluted lifestyles filled with haphazard, flamboyant promiscuity and (some even mentioned) debauchery and the likes. As much as we know deep down that younger generations of heterosexuals are just as likely to commit such gross acts of indecency such as fellatio, anal intercourse and rimming, we have to resign to the fact that this society is akin to a bullet train travelling with old cart wheels at its side. As much as we yearn to speed forward, there is the inevitable limitation of the speed and the direction in which we travel.

So the PM has advocated an err-on-the-side-of-caution approach. In fact, the status quo has elucidated mere caustic, fiery debates and nothing esle. Repealing the law would give rise to the possibility of much more than the evincing of unsavoury emotions and stirred passions. Whether this worst case scenario may be founded or not is not the crux. The move by government has always been meticulous and cautious. We are all perched precariously on a balance that is just right; any marginal efforts towards bolstering one particular side would inevitably topple the balance. It has taken Singapore long enough to calibrate this sort of balance, and i believe it is erudite of the government not to tip the scale. Even when I am fiercely advocate for the repeal of 377a.


Lastly, I believed that things will eventually change. The "conservative majority" will bow down to the tide of rights and equality in years to come, although for how long i am not too sure. I have always believed that the most effective rhetorical way of debunking myths is to meet a gay himself in real life, because a real life gay puts a human face on the word homosexuality.