Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Superb open letter rebutting Thio Li-Ann’s nonsensical speech in Parliament
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
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 24/10/2007 at 9:44 am, and is filed under Ramblings. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
and you have just given the very reason why the word ‘conservative’ can never be defined. Because any definition of the word, save a definition which encompasses all connotations of the word, will lead to the conservative defence crumbling.
to use a historical example, let’s look at the Enlightenment. Everyone spoke of Enlightenment in Europe as though it was THE movement which would bring humanity to the Age of Reason. Ultimately, no one knew what they meant when they used the word ‘enlightenment.’ It was not until a theologian wrote an essay asking what ‘enlightenment’ really was that the argument started.
Indeed, we should ask what ‘conservative’ means, before throwing it around so much. However, it leads to discourse plurality and that’s not what Singapore wants right? Gahmen says we’re conservative. So we are lor. A good introduction to sociolinguistics maybe…words used in politics are deliberately NOT defined clearly so as to encompass as many definitions as possible.
about 4 years ago
whoops, i think i wrote on the wrong post. However, it’s still relevant. You must remember that in spite of being a lawyer, she is still a politician.
about 4 years ago
i got robustly replied in the straits times by thio’s ex honours supervisee student, for using the term “sexual minorities” in a previous letter. thio also continued to hantam people like me who use the term. quite scary.
“sexual minorities”. *whack*
we must understand that thio’s position is unequivocal. she’s christian and she stands for some beliefs. i wonder what’s her take on islamic law in singapore and polygamy. should we do anything about polygamy then?
what does the “conservative majority”, with their “asian values” and correct “family units”, think of polygamy?
about 4 years ago
Anyone ever notice that Thio Li Ann is also a sexual minority? An old virgin. Of course, she may be a major minority.
about 4 years ago
what’s the use of all her years of education? she don’t even talk like one, she talks like some vulgar vagrant. she is even a woman? her language is so unlady-like, no wonder she is still single at 40, 40yr old virgin haha!
dude she’s not a politician, she is someone the government appointed to parliament to rubber stamp their decisions.
and why is NUS employing her? she is a disgrace, some more constitutional law, i wonder if she knew the contents of the supreme law?
about 4 years ago
I don’t like Thio any more than you guys do, but I don’t see any reason to make the attack on her misogynistic. The reason why she is objectionable is because she is trying to promote hateful beliefs that cause suffering for gay people. I find it disgusting and ironic that you should use her womanhood (and your equally hateful beliefs about women, i.e. if you don’t like them you attack their sexuality) against her. The ridiculous notion that it matters whether or not she is “ladylike”, or her private sexual behaviour, is beside the point.
You (rightly) vilify her for not giving any space to gays – please give women the same space. Attack the failings in her human reason and compassion; not her failure to live up to your notions of womanhood.
about 4 years ago
Distasteful as it seems at first sight, Prof Thio’s possible virginity is nevertheless not entirely irrelevant to this debate, because it may help explain her certain attitudes implicit in her speech.
Prof Thio is admittedly of the opinion that it is fitting and proportionate to expect gays to live their lives either bereft or sex or with the vague threat of criminal punishment over their heads, in order to massage the apparently tender and delicate moral sensibilities of the Singaporean public. In her own words, she thinks sex is not an important interest, and that there are many more important things in life than that sordid stuff.
In saying that we cannot ever evolve a constitutional or human right to sexuality, she shows a lack of imagination and empathy which, I must confess, I shared in when I was still virgin. The world, to Prof Thio is a bleak and uninviting place where physical intimacy is a privilege that is bestowed upon subjects by Leviathan. The State decides who you are allowed to love, if at all. She appears to have little or no conception of the urgency of love to the human soul, or of the deep spiritual need human beings have for companionship.
We should contrast this with her very moving account of Malaysian Lina Joy’s attempts to convert out of Islam into Christianity. The article she wrote on the matter, although avowedly an academic work, reads much more than just a technical account of the status of human rights law in Malaysia. It reads like the work of a human being.
I have always been fascinated at how great intelligence (as evidenced by her degrees and publications) often co-exists very comfortability with astonishing stupidity (as is evidenced by her speech in Parliament). The only sort of explanation I can offer for this is that the experiences in life leave us with countless neuroses, irrationalities and idiosyncracies. Prof. Thio’s particular misfortune, appears to be that certain areas of her imagination have been stunted by having stewed in sour virginity for too long.