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.

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 .

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.

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?