Oct 26th, 2007
Of morals, rights and harm
Email This Post
Print This Post
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.
Loading ...
Devil’s advocate - if you would allow me to bring up something that has not been considered much in the various blog articles on 377a:
If two men held hands and walked down the street, would you change your mind to then support the retention of 377A? They are not expressing their sexuality behind closed doors after all. Although they are also not having sex in public.
CD,
I fail to see your point. The core issue with s377A is why are some forms of sex criminalised while others are not. Whether it is between males and females, males and males or females and females, sexual intercourse is still sexual intercourse. Red apples and green apples are both apples. Why should we allow apples of one colour and disallow apples of another colour? If the problem is the apple, then ban the apple. Why be so selective?
Holding hands is another issue altogether which should not be conflated with s377A. If the law criminalises hand holding between two men but not between men and women, then perhaps we have something to discuss. I honestly don’t think your point is relevant to whether s377A should be repealed.
I agree with aaron ng on this.. i dun see the point about holding hands
Aaron,
Alamak…after you looked at this issue in depth, I’m surprised you still don’t understand the concept of harm. Many laws in Singapore are in place to prevent Singaporeans from harming THEMSELVES!!!
That is why we have censorship laws to prevent harmful images from damaging the pristine Singaporean mind….these laws are there to prevent Singaporeans from harming themselves. There is a law against people walking around naked in their own home….to prevent them from doing something pornographic.
.
Many christians want 377a to be kept to prevent gays from sinning and losing their place in heaven. They are also working hard for the good of gay men.
s377A is there to prevent gay men from harming themselves!!!…Singapore is lucky to have great laws and good people who don’t want others to harm themselves.
Aaron,
Forgive me, I think cognitiveD is asking a very pertinent question. This whole issue of gayness and 337a IMHO is a red herring and a wild goose chase. Main issue is how does one define the public against private.
I believe it was darkness who said something like this, 337a is about keeping out the private from the public and the public from the private. It is to define what is acceptable and deemed unacceptable in the public sphere. The brotherhud guy took the matter by its head and cut it off in one swipe and it came off dam clean, the rest like TOC and Mr Siew etc are still running around in big and small circles and confusing others and themselves, they are just incredibly blur and it just confuses me no end.
Whatever it is this topic has many angles and dont see how one can successfully approach it without very specific legal training, just my two cents
377A, as a law, does not work. I think everyone agrees with that. Even PM Lee has come out to say, in his own words, ‘it won’t be actively enforced’.
By giving this reassurance, he has staked his own political career in this. I believe the next time we see someone prosecuted by this law, it will be at a huge political cost to the government.
But 377A has come to be more than a law. It is now a symbol. To gay rights activists, it is a symbol of how they are prejudiced by society. To the religious, repeal of 377A is a symbol of the loosening of moral values of society.
This is the crux of the matter. It is not whether the law is justified or not. It is what the law symbolises that is the issue. And this is, I think, what the conservatives refer to as the ‘gay agenda’.
The NTU survey, despite its flaws, has already demonstrated the general mood of people in Singapore. I think it’s safe to say that, based on its data, the majority of people still have prejudices against gays.
By repealing the law, are these prejudices going to disappear overnight?
I dare say that the repercussions of repealing the law will be worse for gays (as opposed to gay rights activists). Religious groups, seeing their ’space’ encroached, will start lobbying for more ‘family-friendly’ measures. Would we see an increased incidence of police raiding gay spas? Clamping down on Indignation activities?
Meanwhile, gay rights activists would probably be disappointed at how the repeal of 377A has failed to change peoples’ prejudices on their plight. They will start lobbying for gay marriages, child adoption, etc. This will further galvanise the religious groups, who will ask for more protection.
That would be the ’slippery slope’ argument that people have been raising. Although to me, ‘arms race’ might be the more appropriate term.
I would like to say that, firstly, I identify myself with the ‘conservative majority’. But also wish to clarify that this debate has not 2, but 3 sides. There is the gay rights activists camp, there is the religious extremists camp. And most importantly there is the ‘conservative majority’ camp, where most Singaporeans probably are. Repeal or not, the law itself is not going to affect me in any way. But the repercussions, as I have highlighted above, are not worth having.
In such a situation, then, it would be wisest to take baby steps to approach the issue. Repeal, on its own, is too sudden a move. By declaring that the law would not be actively enforced, this is already an unprecedented move by itself. But in the light of the MM, PM and other politicians admitting in public about the existence of gays, and perhaps it is inborn, there has been a gradual shift in the government’s stance towards gays.
Evolution, not revolution. That is the philosophy of conservatism.
one person wears blue-tinted sunglasses, the other wears red-tinted sunglasses. both see a yellow bouncing before them. person 1 will say “look at that green ball”, person 2 will say “that ball is orange”.
then person 1 will get very angry and say “orange is immoral”. haha.
law is all about consent and protecting consent.
if you wanna give space for sexual minorities, give them the social, economic spaces, but don’t take away the ‘legal’ space, as you will take away some rights. giving space should be unequivocal.
homophobes usually use a lot of moral rhetoric to justify their cause. you see “asian values”, “conservative majority”, “family unit/values” and the dangers of endorsing a “gay lifestyle”.
all the negative meanings of sexual perversion, paedophelia, criminal behaviour, drug use, AIDs are conflated into the “gay lifestyle”, which represents the fact that little is known about sexual minorities.
the use of “conservative majority” is every bit as political as “sexual minorities”. after all, majority of singaporeans will not fancy the idea of polygamy, so what is being done about it? we exercise pluralism and allow muslim singaporeans to have their space.
the main problem is the perception of sexual minorities as isolated deviants, who do not possess “natural” human qualities like healthy and “normal” and unperverted people like you and me. this is carried on by religious fundamentalism and gross misinformation.
for example, let me rebutt thio li-ann, who believes in “ex-gays”. the ex-gay movement is highly politicised and empirical studies have found that reparative therapy is not successful, and furthermore, highly harmful and unethical. thio li-ann is harnessing dated information to campaign for continual discrimination in singapore, in other words, propagate hate, misinformation and stereotypes.
the hate is so deep. that even if a gay man were to tell a religious fundamentalist that 1+1=2, the fundie will still say “it’s wrong, the way you say it. it’s so gay. it’s so immoral. hence it’s wrong. it’s sinful too”
imagine if you were a minority, and worse, people call you and your identity “wrong, immoral, sinful and illegal”. any way, we are all minorities in some way or another, and we’re just lucky we did not get hate speech and abuse directed at us.
Well I do not deny that repealing the law will changes things overnight. However having a law and not actively enforcing it is tantamount to disrespect for the law! What use is a law that you are not going to enforce?
Perhaps we should also study the examples of how other countries dealt with controversial issues, dealing with homosexuals, abolishment of death penalty, equality for african americans. Sometimes people have to be forced to change, sometimes not.
Thanks, Aaron, for seeing and understanding the basic logic of this issue, and the discrimination and injustice involved.
If there are objections by the religious, conservative and/or moralistic segments of society, it should be against the acts of performing oral and anal sex per se, instead of targeting such acts only when carried out between two males. However, I did not read about or hear a single objection from the said components of society about the repeal of S377, which effectively legalises said acts between heterosexual couples. Since these acts do not contribute towards procreation, aren’t these non pro-family, and destroy the basic fabric of society too?
And even if S377A were to be repealed, there are more than sufficient existing laws and codes to tackle inappropriate sexual behaviours in public. If two men holding hands in public is deemed as constituting public nuisance, then call the cops on them. However, I don’t see any police reports made when heterosexual teenage couples make up intimately in public and on public transport.
And how come no one kicks up a fuss when two men from India or Bangladesh are seen walking around hand in hand? You can say that it is acceptable in their culture, but they are in Singapore afterall. If the general public can accept that, but not of say two Chinese men holding hands, the root of the matter seems to be one of internalised prejudice and unconscious (subconscious?) discrimination!
Er Luen,
I still do not buy the argument that s377A should be retained for symbolic reasons. Why did the government decided to repeal consensual anal sex and oral sex between heterosexuals? Why not apply the same “symbolic” reasoning?
I suppose the real “crux” of the issue is the issue of “conservatism”, which I have already explained in an earlier entry that it is an indefensible argument.
Sure, the NTU study did say that 70% of Singaporeans find homosexuality unacceptable. However, finding homosexuality unacceptable and insisting that a law exists to penalise this “unacceptable” behaviour is ridiculous. I bet that many people think pre-marital sex is unacceptable. Why don’t we have a symbolic law that we don’t enforce to criminalise pre-marital sex?
I am not for the baby steps approach because if something is evidently flawed, remedial steps should be taken straightaway. It is very easy for us to say “take baby steps” because we are not the ones suffering this unfair legislation. Would you say take “baby steps” for treatment if you discover you have cancer?
Lucky Tan,
Yes, we need laws to protect Singaporeans from fellow Singaporeans. We have laws to protect male Singaporeans from wives who are unwilling to submit themselves sexually to their husbands. The law permits marital rape. We are so lucky! We must be thankful to the government!
Cognitive Dissonance,
Please tell me I have misinterpreted your question because it appears the answer is quite trivial to me.
Well, two men walking holding hands? At worst, I would think: “ick” and that’s it.
Why? Maybe my morals and ethics are developed beyond the level of a five year old kid’s– i.e. “if it is icky it must be wrong and therefore should be banned.”
I also assume most people have a more sophisticated moral system than a 5 year old. I say this because 0-5 year olds are a very small proportion of the population of Singapore.
Thus, I don’t see what your example has to do with s337a.
i wouldn’t hold my breath if i were you! haha.
“I also assume most people have a more sophisticated moral system than a 5 year old. I say this because 0-5 year olds are a very small proportion of the population of Singapore.”
That’s not a very accurate take of the situation at ground level. I will have to agree with Xian on this. The whole issue has nothing to do with right and wrong and everything to do with defining what is public etc.
Aaron, Xian, RSE,
The purpose of my question is to ask how much the pro-repeal people have thought about mild public displays of affection, which is a perfectly natural consequence of having 377A repealed. I really had not seen much discussion on that on the pro-repeal side. It would be nice for all pro-repeal to think about the internal consistency of their arguments, since yes I agree completely with Kris that holding hands, smiling at each other, leaning head on shoulder while sleeping in the MRT isn’t an issue whether straight or gay.
PM has more or less said that 377A remains in place only to ’signpost’ the halt of the ‘gay agenda’. If there are pro-repeal people who can’t stand PDA for our gay people and would in fact call the cops on them for public nuisance but could tolerate the same degree of PDA for the straight people, I would question the sincerity of their pro-repeal stand, i.e. the location of their personal ’signpost’ for our gay people.
So, I asked the question of Aaron because I wanted to know if he had thought through his argument before declaring his position, which this post of his is a particularly clear statement of.
All his references thus far have been to gay sex behind closed doors, and I wondered.
And before anyone goes “slippery slope fallacy” at me for the phrase “perfectly natural consequence”, I’m actually quite happy to go for the full gay marriage thing, and adoption rights as well (pending studies from other countries which already have adoption rights on the well-being of children raised in these families).
RSE: “I also assume most people have a more sophisticated moral system than a 5 year old. I say this because 0-5 year olds are a very small proportion of the population of Singapore.” You are more optimistic than I am.
on public display of affection, it has got to do with the domain of social norms and expectations.
the law deals with consent. in the public domain, there are things that people do not consent to. if you do “trunking” at the coffeeshop, meaning you hang your penis outside your pants, people do not consent to the act. the same goes for public sex as substantial numbers of people in public do not consent to seeing it.
on PDA, it is a lot more grey, given the diverse moral systems singaporeans subscribe to. we can accept the holding of hands based on social identity (like indian nationals), but will less likely accept the holding of hands based on sexual identity. sexuality is a very dirty thing in singapore, primarily because the educated elite and opinion leaders are religious and buttoned-up. thus sex matters are considered important variables when one looks at “public interest” and “public morality” in governance.
it is also far to convenient to link the coincidence of law and social norms and believe that the law upholds social norms. this is a great underestimation of the law, which is based on higher abstract notions, such as justice. just because it coincides, doesn’t mean it confirms or agrees with your beliefs.
any way, gay sex in public is just as wrong as heterosexual sex in public because the majority do not consent to seeing the sex act in public. this is because the majority folk share the public space with the “deviants”. things are thus fundamentally different if we were to discuss private space.
people fear about the endorsement and mainstreaming of the “gay lifestyle”. actually, one’s fears and perceptions of the “gay lifestyle” is a function of his/her understanding of gay people and homosexuality.
on gay marriage, i believe it is ok and that public consent can do nothing about gay marriage, because marriage is legal and private. on gay couples adopting children, i believe it is ok too because public consent can also do nothing about it. marriage and child adoption does not harm society because these basically occur within private spaces. social ills, costs and crime are considered so because they have detrimental effects on the public space. so why are we wanting to police sexual minorities?
Lucky Tan
The concept of harm itself is subjective and open to interpretation. You may think the laws are protecting Singapore from harming themselves but many others think the laws are harming them. We retain our harsh censorship laws simply because we are a stuck-in-the-mud nanny state. If adult Singaporeans are harmed by these “harmful” images, then it only reflects on their immaturity.
And please don’t claim that Christians are working hard for the good of gay men. It is all in their narrow self-interests. Rather than impose your religion on others, perhaps you should work harder at understanding the real meaning of your religion and learn to respect others.
cognitive dissonance,
Actually, I’m not that optimistic. I know most people don’t care. But generally, I believe that pandering to those with the moral system of five year olds only legitimizes such nonsense.
The best way to deal with such sentiments is not to dignify them at all. Going “Eeyur, two men are holding hands!!!! Ban them!” is childish.
If only it were merely childish, we could safely ignore it; however, discriminating against a large group of the population goes beyond mere childishness. But whatever you do, don’t dignify it with debate, because reasoned debate only applies if both sides are reasonable. Don’t drag yourself down to their level either.
Even if the person espousing such sentiments themselves do not grow up, people ‘on the fence’ would realize how childish it is if you make it clear. Those ‘other people’ dictate social acceptability. Such childishness should not be socially acceptable.
In any case, why are people with the mentality of a five year old dictating social policy when, clearly, there are thinking adults in the room?
RSE,
Acknowledged
I’m a little more keen on debate than you are because following whatshisname, “the only solution to bad speech is more speech”. We try to restore the dignity of the gays to an equal basis with what we take for granted as heterosexuals, following the ideas of non-discrimination and justice. Such an exercise necessarily also involves respecting the dignity of our opponents no matter how irrational they are, and part of respecting the dignity of our opponents is to examine any possible rational bases for their arguments…. Let me say a few words more.
Generally I find the anti-repeal side quite hysterical in saying it will lead to a slippery slope of gay marriages and adoption. Those are fresh issues involving the legal rights of marriage and inheritance, and the well-being of the children being adopted. Clearly very far away from repealing 377A. But the link between repealing 377A and seeing more mild PDA from the gays is not as remote. The anti-repeal side considers 377A useful in ’signposting’ their disapproval of even this mild public behaviour. The pro-repeal side doesn’t consider 377A useful at all in any way, for various reasons and extents of pro-gay attitudes. I am looking for a middle ground that has a rational basis, e.g. staunch Christians who are pro-repeal believe that although their religion considers all homosexual behaviour to be a sin, they ‘judge not, lest [they] be judged’, and on a deeper level they know they should not compel non-believers to act in accordance with their religion just as they do not forcibly convert non-believers. I am also questioning whether being pro-repeal has any meaning if the pro-repealer in question is simply going to slap public nuisance laws on mild PDA between gays - repeal one law, just use another law for the same purposes of discrimination, seems very inconsistent.
What am I trying to say? Pandering to the homophobia of the anti-repeal crowd is bad - it misuses the coercive powers of the State to inflict suffering on another group of people simply because some people do not like them. So my comments throughout this post of Aaron’s is not to suggest that we should cater to the anti-repeal people’s dislikes by inflicting pain and force on the innocent group. Instead, it is simply to ask the pro-repeal people, what they think of mild PDA for the gays. As someone has said, PM Lee has staked his career on the non-(proactive)enforcement of 377A. His head is on the line if he breaks his word for no good reason. In this light, what would people, especially the pro-repeal people, think of mild PDA between gays?
cognitive dissonance,
I’m not saying keep quiet. Keeping quiet is the last thing you should do.
I’m saying, don’t pretend that there is rationality where there is none. Don’t patronize them. They aren’t kids without the cognitive ability to tell the difference between fantasy and reality (no offense to kids). Call them on their bullshit, as you would for any thinking adult. Above all, don’t confuse the onlookers.
As for Thio Li-Ann, what can I say? Rehashing WBG’s arguments with better grammar and rhetoric does not make them any less based on lies, inconsistencies and self-delusion. She seems to also have picked up his victim-complex too.
Wau lau! Verli confusing leh. I have to agree with Xian lah. The only body who is making it like ABCDEFGHI like the same way he killed the Singapore Angle is the Darkneess character. He take 377A. Find one spot and kill it dead. The rest is just giving me a headache. I think, I am going to take a holiday from myself and the net and come back after this whole thing blows over.
We better pretend, we all know what we say abt them can be very sensitive one! I was not here, pls erase this away. Kam siah!
RSE,
On totally unrelated topics, the Janadas Devan article published in Saturday Insight section, on Thio’s speech, was amusing. And I have long admired your comments on Singapore Angle. Do you have a blog? Or, email me? Hope to get in touch.
[...] a self-righteous NMP out to persecute - Comfortably Numb: Blaming the victims - Hear ye! Hear ye!: Of morals, rights and harm - The Online Citizen: NMP’s views at odds with AIDS relief research paper - Theory.isthereason: [...]
The Janadas Devan article was good. Sounds a bit Lucky Tan-like, but in a good sense. Either way, so now religious fundamentalism is part of Singaporean politics? I thought we were worshipping money already. Heh…
actually religious fundamentalism is overestimated in singapore, there are other less obvious factors such as ingrained confucian beliefs and stereotypical beliefs (independent of religion) we have in singapore. we are after all, multi-cultural.
cognitive dissonance,
Haven’t been reading the news lately, I’ve got school and exams are nearing, and I don’t need to get myself depressed by reading the ST :p
No, I don’t have a blog. I’ve always been planning to write one but I keep procrastinating. Some other time? And erm… I never check my email :(.
hmm, overestimated? No, religious fundamentalism is not overestimated. Given Singapore’s multicultural nature, you would expect fundamentalism to be kept to a low, because religions have to be inclusive and not exclusive.
Confucian and stereotypical beliefs have been told to us again and again, and now replaced by the term ‘conservative.’ But how do you encourage plurality when ‘conservativism’ is defined so broadly that everyone is conservative? And is everyone conservative? There has been no definition of conservative, so everyone must be. Smart way of representing the people right?
Coming back to religious fundamentalism: i am not saying that fundamentalism is prevalent. I am just saying that fundamentalism in the hands of politicians is especially dangerous, especially because we in Singapore tend to believe that whatever they say has to be followed to the word. I am sure there are fundamentalists in Singapore, who believe that every word of the Bible / Koran or any other religious text is literal truth. However, the danger lies in those who can wield rhetoric like a weapon to sway the masses, namely our law professor NMP. Think about Hitler and the Holocaust, on a much smaller scale.