Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Archive for October, 2007
It’s not just the jobs
Oct 31st
The all-time favourite complaint about a liberal immigration policy is that foreign talents deprive “local” Singaporeans of their jobs. Actually, I think there’s another big problem brought about a liberal immigration policy in Singapore and that the preservation of the current political hegemony enjoyed by the PAP (of course, I don’t think the PAP would think it’s a problem).
It is my observation that people who migrate to Singapore love the PAP. Many of these migrants come from countries where the government is rife with corruption, low security levels and poor general infrastructure. For these people, Singapore is like paradise on earth.
For this people, it is probably not worth quibbling about ideals such as liberal democracy. These are not pragmatic things. Good paying jobs and stable living environment are more important. I do think that most recent immigrants are pragmatic people who do not mind exchanging some personal “rights” to live in “paradise”.
And, Singapore is aiming at an eventual 6.5 million population, which is a huge jump from the current 4 million. Bulk of the increase would be due to immigration. And I am sure the immigrants will not want to rock the boat. They will be staunch PAP supporters, just as many of the generation before me are.
Even if the PAP is having flagging support from those of my generation, it doesn’t really matter. Elections is about numbers. We have a declining birth rate. Even if my generation and those after my generation are not staunch supporters of the PAP, our numbers will be dwarfed by the immigrants.
For those who think the Internet will bring about political change, I don’t mean to be a wet blanket. It’s just that reality bites, and it bites hard.
Of morals, rights and harm
Oct 26th
I’ve been busy but I spend a short amount of time daily tracking the debate over whether Singapore should repeal s377A, the law that criminalizes sexual intercourse between men. I intend, with this entry, to critically summarise the debate using a broad brush and explain why I still don’t think opponents of the anti-repeal s377A camp have a convincing argument.
Those who oppose the repeal mostly rely on the argument of a numerical majority of conservatives who view sexual intercourse between male to be an immoral act. It is my observation that religion is usually invoked to define the parameters of the immorality of males have sex with one another.
As I’ve pointed out in the previous entry, the term conservative is extremely loaded. So is the term morality. One man’s meat is another man’s poison. What is considered poison today might be considered medicine tomorrow. Terms such as “conservative” and “morality” differ from person to person and from time to time. Case in point: oral and anal sex between heterosexuals is no longer considered “immoral”, thus the repeal of s377.
The same argument can be made for proponents of the repeal who are invoking equality of rights as their basis (myself included). My idea of “rights” is probably different from yours, and “rights” most certainly have changed with time. Singapore’s Woman’s Charter is a good example of how “rights” have changed with times. Such legislation would have been an unacceptable proposition a century ago.
Given that morals and rights are both problematic justifications for the respective camps, how then should we evaluate whether to repeal s377A or not? One of the best answers is probably the concept of harm. Michael Hor, a professor of law at NUS, wrote an excellent piece on the concept of harm in relation to s377A which was published at The Online Citizen.
If two men choose to engage in sex behind closed doors, there is no harm to anyone else. There is obviously no physical harm to third parties and since it’s behind closed doors, there’s no emotional or mental harm to others as well. Why should sexual intercourse between two men be criminalised, even when it’s behind closed doors and not seen by third parties?
I think it is time people get off their moral high horses and think about what sort of possible harm is done to third parties by two or more men having sex behind closed doors. If there should be any stiff legislation at all, it should be for public display of sexual acts, and not the act of sexual intercourse itself.
Be it intercourse between males and females, males and males or females and females, they all have the right to carry out the act. At the same time, other people have the right not to see the act of intercourse as well. So, to strike a balance between the two, I can accept strong laws against public display of sexual acts. However, I cannot accept criminalising the act of sex, be it homosexual or heterosexual because I don’t see the harm to others in the act itself.
Of course, my arguments are moot if the “conservatives” are going to shun critical evaluation of their position. With this entry, I have already critically assessed my position on the repeal of s377A using the rights argument and I hope the conservatives can similarly do so and critically assess the concept of morality as the basis of their opposition.
What the heck is the meaning of “conservative”?
Oct 24th
I am growing more and more annoyed every passing day. To be specific, I am annoyed with those self proclaimed “conservatives” who insist that Singapore is a “conservative” society and that we cannot repeal s377A because of this.
All you “conservative” opponents of the repeal of s377A, come on out and define the meaning of “conservative”. Stop throwing that word around as convenient justification for not repealing s377A without defining what it means. Are all the self proclaimed “conservatives” avoiding this question because attempting to define it will mean they have no case?
To me, the term “conservative” is so loaded that it should never be used as a means of defense against the repeal of s377A. Any attempt to define it will lead to a natural crumbling of this line of defense.
For starters, why are we having casinos in Singapore? I thought Singapore is “conservative”? How can a “conservative” society promote gambling? Isn’t gambling a form of vice?
Also, why are women wearing bikinis on the beach? For that matter, why are they wearing short skirts and tube tops, or even T-shirts? If Singapore is indeed “conservative”, we should be looking to the Middle East for directions on “conservative” dressing.
We should also be abolishing SDU because there’s no need for such things in a “conservative” society. Parents decide who their children should marry. Just bring back the matchmakers and the system of arranged marriage. That’s how things are done in a “conservative” society, no?
Actually, since Singapore is so “conservative”, just eliminate the entire Woman’s Charter! Since when do women have rights at all in a “conservative” society? If we are truly “conservative”, people like Thio Li-Ann would never have got a chance to stand in Parliament and deliver speeches.
Of course, my favourite example would be that now, Singapore is “conservative” enough to allow men to have anal sex with a consenting woman (and if the woman is the legally married spouse, the man has the added option of engaging in anal rape) but yet, Singapore is so “conservative” that men cannot have anal sex with another man.
Pray tell, what is “conservative”?
Superb open letter rebutting Thio Li-Ann’s nonsensical speech in Parliament
Oct 24th
If you have not read this letter by a first year law student, please do. It’s quite long but it is worth your time.
I’m terribly disappointed with Thio Li-Ann. When I first heard her talk about her area of specialty in law, I thought that Thio was an excellent academic and lawyer. Her arguments were so well reasoned and convincing. Her subsequent speeches on homosexuality started to cast doubts on my initial assessment of her but this latest speech in Parliament is the last straw.
I must qualify that I still think she’s a pretty darn smart woman. My beef with her is that when she cannot win an argument, she resorts to making unsubstantiated assertions. She starts throwing in loaded and ambiguous terms in an attempt to win the argument. Very disappointing.
Here are 2 more resources that shreds Thio Li-Ann’s arguments as well. I still like the the letter by the law student best but these 2 are also worth a read as well.
http://mollymeek.livejournal.com/168810.html
http://singaporepeasants.blogspot.com/2007/10/nmp-thio-li-ann-and-her-intellectually.html
Singapore’s law encourages men to rape their wives
Oct 23rd
I just read AFP’s report on the failed attempt to repeal s377A (the act that criminalizes sex between two men) and this was what the Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, Ho Peng Kee, has to say:
“While homosexuals have a place in society… repealing section 377A will be contentious and may send a wrong signal that the government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life,” Ho said.
Well, for years we have the marital immunity law. For the uninitiated, the marital immunity law basically means that a man CAN sexually force himself on his wife, whether she likes it or not. If you are in Singapore, don’t worry about raping your wife. By not repealing this law, the government is also sending the “right” signal that a man can legally rape his wife.
Singaporean men are really privileged. They don’t have to worry about their wives cooking up lame excuses such as headaches and being too tired. If they can’t get their wives to consent, just resort to rape! The law “encourages” Singaporean men to satisfy their sexual urges at ANY time of the day by granting immunity from marital rape. I don’t think there are many other countries where men have it this good!
Oh, now that “unnatural” sex between consenting heterosexuals has been legalised, all the better! Singaporean men have more choices in raping their wives! This is simply great, isn’t it?
Singaporean men, be thankful that the government encourages and endorses marital rape as, in the words of Ho Peng Kee, “a part of our mainstream way of life” by not repealing the marital immunity law. Like s377A, repealing this law “will be contentious and may send a wrong signal”.
Remember to tell your wife tonight that you can rape her and she can’t do anything about it because the government said so.
Drama over PSLE paper
Oct 22nd
It’s interesting to see the repeat of a drama that happens from time to time. First, pupils came out of PSLE crying after the mathematics paper. Angry parents start writing to newspapers and ringing up MOE to complain. The examination board chief has to come out and say that the paper was no more difficult than other years.
In the first place, why are the students crying? It’s obviously because parents and teachers are stressing them. Schooling is no longer fun anymore. I don’t mean to say that it was just fun when I was in primary school but I remember grades never seemed so important. In fact, I remember always being sent out of the class and having my exercise books flung out of the classroom door because I often did not do homework.
I honestly don’t recall how PSLE was like. All I remember was that I couldn’t wait for the PSLE to be over because it meant I could go and play soccer everyday. In fact, I think soccer was more important than my PSLE. I know I was a naughty boy back then and perhaps I should have been more disciplined but hey, I think I enjoyed my primary school days.
Of course, I do not advocate such naughty behaviour. I probably will give my own kid an earful for that. What I think parents should do is to tell kids to try their best and if the paper comes out to be really ‘difficult’, assure the kids that it will not be a problem. There are years where papers have been difficult but students still got into good secondary schools. If everyone does so badly, all the good schools are going to close shop because nobody can qualify!
Chill. Things will work out fine.
The fallacy of polling as support for retaining S377A
Oct 13th
The follow comment was left by Gerald in a comment on The Online Citizen in response to an article by Michael Hor:
The learned professor has gone into great depths to explain that acts prohibited under S377A are not harmful to society. Social conservatives, myself included, would argue that they are. Both of these are moral stands (Yes, even the liberal stance is a moral stand which is no more rational than the conservative stance.)
Since we are living in a democracy, not a theocracy, it is only natural that our laws to take a stand based on the will of the majority of voters. Consistently, every poll that has been done on Singaporean adults indicates that homosexual acts are still not acceptable to the majority. Even if a referendum on repealing S377A were to be conducted tomorrow, voters will still vote to retain it.
Some have argued that since 377A is not enforced, why have it. They have missed the point and intent of this piece of legislation. 377A is a form of “signposting” — a symbol and indicator of our society’s values (based on the values of the majority). Just like the MDA’s symbolic blocking of 100 pornographic websites.
So until our society’s social values take a sharp turn to the left in the coming years, we can expect S377A to remain, notwithstanding valiant attempts by the gay lobby to have it overturned.
I respect Gerald for stating upfront that he is a social conservative. It makes it much easier for me to see where he’s coming from. I don’t think he said anything wrong when he cited polls as having consistently indicated homosexual acts as unacceptable. However, I think that he forgot to consider the way the poll was conducted, as well as the way the questions were framed.
As a communications scholar wannabe, I am quite sensitive to the issue of framing. The same topic can possibly elicit different kinds of responses, depending on how the question was phrased. Perhaps some examples would illustrate my point. Consider your response to the following questions:
1. Do you think that homosexuality is natural?
2. Do you think that homosexuals deserve the same set of rights as heterosexuals?
3. Do you agree that homosexuals should be discriminated against?
It is my belief that in Singapore’s context, the social conservative would probably answer no to the first question while the liberal would say yes. For the second question, I think that a fair number of conservatives who said no to the first question are going to yes because it’s no longer about homosexuality. It’s about the rights of a human being. As for the last question, I think except for the extreme hawks, most social conservatives are going to disagree with discriminating against homosexuals. I do believe that in Singapore, people (and the government) are very sensitive to the term “discrimination”, given our history with racial and religious violence in the early days of independence.
I don’t want to be a wet blanket but for the social conservatives, before taking out numbers to support your argument, you might want to consider whether the instrument (i.e. the polls) was biased to begin with. Also, I think the social conservatives might want to make up their own minds as to what is it exactly that they are against. Homosexuality and human rights are two different issues.
I consider myself a liberal but I am homophobic. I don’t think that homosexuality is all that natural. But so what? That doesn’t diminish their status as a human being. I think homosexuals should enjoy the same set of sexual rights as me, a heterosexual, because homosexuals are every inch a human being as I am. The issue here is not the sexual orientation but rather equality of rights among human beings. On what basis is a homosexual less human than a heterosexual?
While I do respect the views of the conservatives in general, I dislike how they are framing the debate over S377A as an issue of whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural, rather than whether homosexuals deserve the same set of rights as heterosexuals. It is way too complex to determine whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural. There are many conflicting evidences, so on this note, I say let’s apply the rule of innocence unless proven guilty and take the nature versus nurture debate over homosexuality out of the debate.
So, the two critical questions the social conservatives should answer are:
1. Do you think that homosexuals deserve the same set of rights as heterosexuals?
2. Do you agree that homosexuals should be discriminated against?
Note: Please check out http://www.repeal377a.com/ and sign the open letter if you think the legislation is unfair. I’ve already done so in my capacity as a concerned Singapore citizen.
Argumentum ad hominem
Oct 12th
This entry was inspired partly by some comments in my last entry which mused about some possible unintended consequences of compulsory annuities. Bart, one of the authors of the blog Perspective Unlimited, was attacked by another reader for his opinions in my last entry. The attack was not on Bart’s argument but rather, his background as a civil servant.
The following is the definition of argumentum ad hominem from Wikipedia:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
I do not agree with engaging in argumentum ad hominem because most of the time, such an approach is unproductive. Besides, it is my observation that people tend to be impolite, sometimes to the point of being downright nasty when engaging in ad hominem arguments.
Disagreeing with one another is something very normal, and I suspect a large part of disagreement arises because people have different educational backgrounds and life experiences. Whether we realise it or not, our opinions are grounded in what we know and have experienced. No two people are the same in their education or life experiences. That being said, how can a person then criticise another person’s background? Unless one has gone through the exact same education and life experience, one cannot fully understand why another person made an argument the way they did.
Does this then means a person’s background is irrelevant in an argument? I don’t think so. I think it is important to know just so that we can appreciate why the argument was made in a certain manner. As I mentioned in the earlier paragraph, we can never fully understand the reasons behind a person’s argument. However, if we understand the person’s background, we can appreciate the direction of the argument, even though we might disagree with the argument itself.
It does take quite a fair amount of effort not to engage in ad hominem arguments. I suspect this is because it is so much easier to attack a person’s character or background and therefore, we have an instinctive urge to do just that. By targeting the opponent’s background, one does not bring to the table his/her opinion, which means that one will not have to answer tough questions on why they hold that opinion.
I admit I’m guilty of engaging in ad hominem arguments at times. It’s usually not conscious, though, which is why I have the conjecture that it’s an instinctive urge. I do suppose human beings are not perfect and the only solution would be for people to help one another and remind each other that argumentum ad hominem is a logically fallacy when seeing such an act being committed.
Compulsory annuities give the rich spare change in twilight years?
Oct 5th
I wasn’t expecting to comment further on my main bugbear with the CPF changes but a letter published in Today Online changed that. It was a letter by Dr Vincent Chia who pointed out some statistics that the government should take note of.
I have not had the time to verify whether the information cited by Chia was true but it is certainly plausible that it is the rich who can expect to live longer compared to the poor. Overall life expectancy might be increasing to 85 and beyond but who are the ones living to such ripe old age? According to Chia’s letter, epidemiological data from America and Britain has shown privileged groups enjoy longer lifespan.
Chia even cites a local study which shows that in 1999, “43.5 per cent of the old-old (defined as aged 85 years and above) live in HDB four-room or larger flats. In comparison, 29.1 per cent of old-old Singaporeans live in HDB three-room flats, while the remaining 11 per cent live in HDB one- or two-room flats”. The figures add up to 83.6% and the missing percentages are probably those who live in private housing (Census 2000 housing data put the percentage of Singaporeans living in private housing to be around 12%).
It is possible that in future, increasing numbers of those age 85 and above will come from upper middle-class and above, and these folks have the ability (in theory) to take care of their themselves. These are the folks who are likely to live longer as well. So, it could be likely that the nice sounding “longevity insurance” could end up benefiting those who are more well-off.
Of course, this is not the main basis on my objection to the annuities issue (see earlier entry) but it is interesting food for thought that the rich (million dollar ministers, wealthy bankers, lawyers and doctors) are more likely to live long enough to enjoy an extra few hundred dollars of spare change every month while the poorer folks find themselves in a permanent resting spot in a columbarium. 
Recent Comments