Straits Times
Thinking Aloud
377A debate and the rewriting of pluralism
By Janadas Devan
Of the 82 PAP MPs, only 3-1/2 expressed views that resembled mine - Mr
Charles Chong, Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Baey Yam Keng. The half was Ms
Indranee Rajah, who suggested 377A might be scrapped at some point,
only not in this century. Her citation of how long it took to end
slavery suggested we might have to wait roughly 2,500 years.
Of the nine NMPs, only one, Mr Siew Kum Hong, who presented the
citizens' petition calling for the repeal of 377A, stood up for
homosexuals. And among the three opposition MPs, none did.
Consider how she tore to shreds so many of our cherished beliefs. The
idiots that we are, we had believed 'pluralism' meant, among other
things, 'autonomy and retention of identity for individual bodies', a
'society in which the members of minority groups maintain their
independent cultural traditions', 'a system that recognises more than
one ultimate principle or kind of being', as the Oxford English
Dictionary puts it.
Yes, I must admit, Prof Thio demolished my side with astonishing ease.
First, her big guns - pluralism is not plural; secularism can be
religiously informed - left us limbless. Then, equally impressively,
the cultural warrior sliced and diced us with her rapier wit and
uncommon civility. We were finally left with our torsos tossed into
ideological ditches and our heads stuck on cultural pikes.
Prof Thio, a most learned person, must have known of the origin of this
phrase in theological controversy, and she brilliantly extended it to
the law. And if one linked this extension to the profound truths she
uncovered about public policy in a secular state, one would see how her
stigmatisation of 'chronological snobbery' can be extended further
still. All those in favour of teaching 'intelligent design' alongside
Darwin's theory of evolution in schools, raise your hands. Done!
Education Ministry, please take note.
Then there was her wit, deployed so civilly. Anal sex is like 'shoving
a straw up your nose to drink', she said. A colleague of mine googled
that and discovered it was an often cited image in American anti-gay
pamphlets. To top that, she said 377A must be kept on the books so we
can say 'Majullah Singapura', not 'Mundur Singapura'. If you did not
get the joke, here is a clue: Mundur means 'backward' in Malay, and
'backward' here alludes to that 'straw' and another orifice. See? Now,
isn't that funny?
Oh, I cried when I read that. Imagine that: The moral conservative
majority makes better vulgar jokes than the immoral liberal minority -
and in Parliament too. If the immoral minority cannot beat the moral
majority even in this department, we are really and truly kaput.
What sent me into shock was the discovery that Singapore is actually
the US. I am referring to Prof Thio's sources of inspiration. Google
'culture war' and you will discover them.
Once one understands the milieu from which this statement issues, one
would understand the origins of Prof Thio's profound understanding of
pluralism and secularism. It does not derive from the Enlightenment or
from contemporary Europe or Asia. It derives from the American
religious right. It is they who insist pluralism cannot ultimately be
plural; it is they who demand public policy be informed by religious
beliefs.
And all but a few thumped their seats when Prof Thio finished her
speech? They must have missed the radical - yes, radical and extreme -
nature of her claims. One person who did not, I think, was Prime
Minister Lee Hsien Loong. My colleague Chua Mui Hoong reported he did
not thump his seat.
That lifted my depression somewhat. I did not like one bit the upshot
of the Prime Minister's speech - that 377A will stay because the
majority, especially Christians and Muslims, are opposed to its
scrubbing. But I was proud of what he had to say, and how he said it.
For the rest - well, we will have to wait, but hopefully, not for 2,500
years.
janadas@sph.com.sg