Why ask when there is no need to
The recent debate sparked over our Prime Minister’s statement on “homosexuals” has caught the imagination of the media by fire. The New Paper printed an article about the story of an anonymous gay couple. Straits Times followed it up this Sunday with a “coming out” story – a no holds barred interview with a out and proud gay man, his picture plastered in the front pages. To act as the advocate devil’s and to propose valid counter arguments, I wrote a rebuttal on the paper’s senior editorial, Ms Chua Muai Hoong’s, commentary on how her piece and our PM’s opinion actually denigrates and pushes back gay community advancement.
Amidst all these proliferation and spectrum of yes and no, Today published an interesting commentary by reporter, Ms Janice Lee, where she questions the need for gays to come clean to their prospective superiors. Her answer is a crisp “no” as she likens it to possible abuse of information and discrimination.
She has good reasons to believe so; and I agree with her that companies should avoid asking the question (sexual preferences are unlikely to affect a person’s working capability). Such questions leads us to nowhere.
As much as I think our PM has publicly declared that “homosexuals can now work in even sensitive positions”, the government has not solved the issue of looking at decriminalizing “homosexual” acts. My argument is not new and the basic premise of removal of the criminal code are just reiterations of what others have done.
Activists have argued time and again that the only way to remove the stigma of being gay in any country is to decriminalize the act wherever it exists. In Singapore, even though the penal code is hardly enforced, decriminalization is necessary because the existence of the law still poses a technical loophole if the government were to overlook and “tolerate” the gay population.
In essence, if we were to take our PM words literally, what he is saying is that, gay men need not fear of being discriminated or persecuted or even blackmail if they declare their sexuality to the government.
While the move is applauded, I’m not sure how helpful coming out to the government is.
Consider this scenario. A man who indulges in homosexual acts and holds a sensitive position in the civil service is caught and blackmailed by another competing candidate for a more senior position.
The question hence, “How is the threatened individual going to deal with this problem? Can he complain to his superior without the possibility of losing his promotion and job considering that he has committed a crime?”
How can the government or corporations protect the gay individual if the law that still exists makes a criminal out of him? If we respect and uphold the judiciary system, we have to prosecute the homosexual. Hence, the conflict.
Stated clearly, how do we resolve the differences in the government’s stand and the possible direct confrontation with the law?
If the government is sincere in achieving equality for people despite their sexual preferences (and I believe they have, with the assurance from our PM’s statement), then the cabinet has to scrape the archaic “sodomy” laws that has been passed down from our colonial masters, one which has not been enforced, and has no reason to exist anymore.
The reasoning ties in closely with Janice’s argument. I’m going one step ahead of her by asking, “Why do we need to ask in the first place if we can remove the need to ask?”
If decriminalization occurs, companies will have no need to ask the question because it is of no importance. Companies and departments of civil service need not worry anymore about hiring criminals. The annihilation of the law effectively removes second guessing on all parties and unnecessary official work stigma.
I remember watching a British film recently entitled, “Victim” which had a similar predicament to ours. In the movie, Dirk Bogarde who plays a gay barrister, has to ponder over bringing a group of gay blackmailing ring to justice or staying quiet because in representing the case, his “homosexual lifestyle “ will be revealed; which will spell the end of his career and a jail sentence.
