Oct 24th, 2007
What the heck is the meaning of “conservative”?
Email This Post
Print This Post
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”?
Loading ...
I wonder how many people who support repealing 377A will also support homosexual marriage?
While those support repealing 377A today are upset with the “conservatives” who want to keep it, 10 to 20 years from now, another group of people who support homosexual marriage will show the same kind of upset over those “conservatives” who are willing to support repealing 377A but not homosexual marriage.
Yesterday’s liberals are today’s conservatives.
Today’s liberals are tomorrow’s conservatives.
Sarek,
I’ll take this question head on.
I will support civil union for homosexuals but not marriage. My reason is because marriage is historically an institution rooted in the union of the male and the female. I am for keeping this historical institution of marriage but at the same time, I do not want to deny two homosexuals the chance of official recognition of their union.
Conservative.
Let us use the principle of the conservation of energy. Energy in a closed system cannot be created or destroyed. It can only change form.
In Singapore context, we have a conservation of morality. The total morality of our society if possible to be quantified (with some GhostBuster ectoplasm sniffing device except for moral energies) will show that the amount in the system will alway stay the same.
As more people become extremely liberal with dressing by wearing what is commonly termed derogatory as CRM (’come rape me’) clothes, you will have more people becoming extremely uptight about dressing.
As we allow the casinos in Singapore, we need to balance it by suppressing other forms of ‘immorality’ and be more vocal about that suppression if not proactive in suppressing.
As we allow more prostitutes to stand in Geylang, we need to balance that out by allowing males to rape their wives who are feigning headache so that they will commit the less immoral sin of committing adultery by visiting prostitutes so they do not need to self-service with Kleenex.
Just wanted to share that a female friend working in a government organization was brought for a discussion when it was discovered she was a homosexual.
Conservative = resistance to change.
Conservative = religious.
Aaron,
The main reasons opposing the repeal of 377A are:
1. Most Singaporeans want 377A.
2. 377A is only the beginning - gays want more and will ask for more like right to adopt + right to get married.
3. Repealing 377A sends the wrong that homosexuality is endorsed.
I’m not gay. I believe people are shaped by their surroundings …if they are born into a society where gays are despised, they will despise gays. If they grow up in San Francisco, they will find them acceptable.
It is difficult to change people’s values which is shaped by the way they are brought up.
I think there no absolutes in this debate. It is all relative to how the world is changing and relative to our life experiences.
I think it is sad that this debate has not resulted in greater understand but more misunderstanding. The gays accuse their opponents of being homophobic and the majority accuse the gays of having a hidden agenda.
Are the people homophobic and simply want to repress gay people? I believe many are. They view homosexuality as a sin & something disgusting and want it repressed so they want this law around.
Do the gays have a expanded agenda? I believe this is also true. 377A is only the first step. Gay marriages, rights of gays to adopt is the next.
Because both groups have their own agenda and are suspicious of each other, whenever one side push the other side will push harder. Because there are more people opposing homosexuality - gays are at the losing end. It is easier for their opponents to keep the status quo, then the gays to shift the balance.
On this issue of 377A. I believe the PAP govt made a politically shrewd decision of keeping the status quo. They had nothing to gain by shifting the balance. They offended many with the casino thing and certainly do not want to be seen as being too liberal by repealing 377A.
I myself don’t thing 377A makes sense and should be repealed. I believe if people have problems with gay marriages & other rights then the debate should shift to these. Keeping a door wedge on the issue of gay people by having them defined as criminals in our society just doesn’t make sense. If we don’t accept these people, we should simply let them go to where they will be accepted. If we accept them & believe they have a place in our society then we shouldn’t criminalise them. Holding their status in a “grey area” simply makes no sense. If I were gay, I would definitely leave a society that has 377A. It simply contradicts what the govt say that they have a place & yet criminalise them. There are many societies more open to gay people, if we want to have gay people around and expect them to repress their inclinationby criminalising, we are telling them to leave.
Hi Aaron,
That answer may one day earn you the conservative label.
As I said:
Yesterday’s liberals are today’s conservatives.
Today’s liberals are tomorrow’s conservatives.
my “conservative” is more conservative than your “conservative”. my morality is more moral than your morality. monkey A told monkey B that monkey B’s penis is smaller and monkey A’s penis, thus monkey A is more superior.
[...] aside I must say that as my learned friend Aaron has said, I am confused as to the idea of the “conservative” majority. In fact I must [...]
[...] Mega Post on a Mega Topic I - The Online Citizen: Deconstructing the Majority - Hear ye! Hear ye!: What the heck is the meaning of “conservative”? - All and Sundry: Are You Sure Gays Are Not Harassed? - Loveless Summer: Singaporeans are scared [...]
Can anyone attempt to explain the difference in anal sex between man/man and man/woman? Why is it criminal in one instance, and legal in another?
hi jonathan, i think the law likes to punish penises. the more penises they see, the more they want to punish. there is embedded a feeling and perception that women in singapore are weaker and hence are in need of protection. there is also embedded in the law an idea that women are less sexual than men and are not capable of committing sexually deviant acts, so no policing is needed to control women. while men, being more superior and highly sexed, are in need of policing.
The meaning of ‘conservative’ : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
Read especially the section on Edmund Burke :
Burke argued that tradition is a much sounder foundation than ‘metaphysical abstractions.’ Tradition draws on the wisdom of many generations and the tests of time, while “reason” may be a mask for the preferences of one man, and at best represents only the untested wisdom of one generation. Any existing value or institution has undergone the correcting influence of past experience and ought to be respected. Also, Burke claims that man is unable to understand the many ways in which inherited behaviours influence their thinking, so trying to judge society objectively is futile.
I used to be in favour of supporting the repeal of 377A. But after reading PM Lee’s speech, as well as about the flak received by both NMPs on this issue, I think the current stand is the way to go; to keep 377A, yet publicly state that it will not be actively enforced. It makes a mockery of the law, as those in the pro-repeal camp would argue (and the main reason why I supported repeal in the first place). But it preserves peace and stability in this country, which is what ultimately the ‘conservative majority’ is yearning for.
I dunno what is the meaning of conservative, but I know that my friend knows some ppl who know very well. Her name is Dotty.
http://dotseng.wordpress.com/about/
I agree with Lucky Tan’s views that the PAP government does not want to risk offending more ‘conservatives’ by repealing the law. They definitely have made many of them upset with the push for casinos. Casinos bring in loads of money. If homosexuals can create a niche market to bring in loads of money too, the government will repeal the law no matter how this group of conservatives protest.
Lucky Tan: If I were gay, I would definitely leave a society that has 377A. It simply contradicts what the govt say that they have a place & yet criminalise them.
Those can might probably do so, unfortunately many cannot because they are not able and their heart and love ones are in Singapore. They had lived their life with ‘the gun’ at their heads so long that so many gays wouldn’t ‘dare’ to be themselves and are conditioned that many marry a ‘girl’ to conform to the majority. Who lose out in the marriage? ALL but my pity goes to the girl and the kids.
The women has won and got their ‘rights’ to the extents of Ms Thio wanting the same old discrimination done to the man.
The ‘conservative’ shouldn’t have granted the rights to woman when they demanded rights to their agendas after agendas? Ofcourse NOT! it’s humanly right to let the right moral stands.
unlike what sarek_home is trying to do. Keep377a(keep the gun) at the gays head and put them to jail for making ‘disgusting’ love in private because as she said…
Sarek_home: I wonder how many people who support repealing 377A will also support homosexual marriage?
[...] blog on this matter. He criticised the government on this matter in a humorous manner and then wrote about it again regarding conservative. Though not many Singaporeans are agreeable with repealing this piece of legislation, I am sure [...]
The label, “conservative”, generally functions in 2 ways I think. First, it translates as, “These are my convictions, and I refuse to yield to any sort of reasons or arguments, no matter how sound and persuasive.”
A second function is as a form of taichi — the average person who invokes the term “conservative”, rarely professes to be a “conservative” himself or herself. It’s usually ‘other people’ who are conservative… and so, one is again relieved from justifying one’s own convictions. It’s what called an ‘information cascade’ — people decide based on what others think. The result is that the status quo is self-perpetuating, no matter how irrational it might be.
[...] I’ve pointed out in the previous entry, the term conservative is extremely loaded. So is the term morality. One man’s meat is [...]
I agrees with what Lucky Tan had said (# Lucky Tan on 24 Oct 2007 at 7:22 pm). You must understand that even if the govt is very open, they must understand what most of their citizens are thinking. How much they can accept.
I am not totally conservative. Although I am a half westernize guy, I am still an Asian, a Chinese. The level of tolerance that I can accept new things is still at the minimum. Regarding this issue, I believe that over doing a certain thing (by abolishing s337A) might cause nuisance to the society. The tricky thing is how much I can accept. I don’t discriminate gays. I respect them of what they are. However, I find it hard to accept their concept; and even harder to accept a gay environment. This incident is very similar to the casino project(have already pissed me off). I don’t want my son to live in a gambling den. (To have a casino is likely to “create” more gamblers). Obviously, I would not want my son to live either kind of environment.
Thus, I don’t think it is fair to grade the government as “conservative”, they are still open. They are merely representing the view of the majority on this issue. This affects many people, you and me and our future generation. I opt for status quo.
Good post.
As is already so clear, there is no gun at all. The law is just a symbol that society in general does not accept homosexuality. Muslims don’t. And the vast majority of Christians and Catholics don’t either.
First people say let there be real democracy. Now when there is very likely a majority of people who want the law kept, just as a symbol, there are protests that this is also not right. Come on.
We can argue till the cows come home, but basically this is an issue of ethics, morality and spiritual judgement. Those who think that homosexuality is wrong and wants the law preserved as a symbol, and those who think that homosexuality is part of a person’s right to choose and that choice would not cause a negative impact on society.
A very simple question and answer. I think just about all parents now, young and old, would be heartbroken if their child is homosexual. Any figures one asks? None, I admit, just a gut feeling. And you would have to agree that I am very likely correct on this.
“Conservative = resistance to change.
Conservative = religious.”
Sigh.
You sorry liberals, you really don’t get us conservatives do you? Two words: SOCIAL CONSERVATISM. That is all you have been describing. Yup, after all that yakkety yak about half-westernization or ‘moral conservation’ or some other sockheaded liberal phraseology, you haven’t even begun to address the real culprits like me who cheer on for laws like 377A. You got so stuck by the label ‘conservative’ that you fail to realize conservatism is more than an attitude, its an ideology. The conservatives of today were never yesterday’s liberals and they will still be the conservatives of tomorrow. Contrary to what you think, ‘reason’ is not the exclusive preserve of liberals like yourselves.
Back in the United States we never forgave the liberals for not taking us seriously, and have made them pay dearly for it. Get out of your cozy effeminate university domiciles and try defending the repeal of 377A over here. If you liberals in singapore are not careful you will make the same mistake that your brethren did.
die la like dat!
Why don’t people see this in the perspective of love? Instead of genders? Love doesn’t only exist between opposite sex, isn’t it? Friends, families, loved ones.. Anyone on earth basically.. So how can you say it’s wrong? Or deny love’s existence between homos?
If love is a sin, then I guess I have nothing to say..