The Discreet Charm of the Self - Justified Moralists
Written by Charles Tan
When Straits Times published on 15 July two letters to the ST forum voicing displeasure over government’s decision to employ gay people in civil service sector, I am appalled by its decision to publish the letters.
The letters reveal its authors to possess bigoted and parochial views on sexuality. While such symptoms are common among the uninformed population. it is distressing that The Straits Times has chosen to publish the letters despite of its ill - informed nature. It is one thing to give voice to a certain segment of the population but another to spread the message of “hate” and misinformation.
In this situation, Straits Times, as a respectable leading regional news paper should have the moral courage, like our leaders, to stand up to messages spreading “hatred”.
The letter by Mr George Lim Cheng Hye is an impressive oracle. He asserts proudly his sexuality, asserts that he is married with kids and implies he is a good moralistic parent. The more discerning reader might suspect his intention to tell us upfront of his sexuality. He was perhaps trying to “tell” us by example.
The letter is succinct and upon a well-oiled introduction, Mr Lim launches into a tirade of unsubstantiated accusations. What is however apprehensively disturbing is the way Mr Lim goes on about them.
Mr Lim proclaims he believes in God; as such we have to believe that he must be of a certain Christian denomination. He goes on to say that God loves both the heterosexual and the gay but that He hates the sin of immorality.
In a nutshell, he is saying that being gay is immoral and an impediment to coming closer to God. I’m not sure how he knows God thinks its immoral but to give him the benefit of the doubt, he could be referring to various well-known accounts in the Bible – new and old testament of how homosexuality is viewed as a sin.
As much as Christians should follow the teachings of Bible, one should also know that the Bible does have interpretation subject to school of thoughts and individuals. Scholars have argued for years whether The Bible actually views homosexuality as a sin but still the debate goes on.
Mr Lim’s guiding principle of “hating the sin and not the sinner” might come across as benevolent or compassionate to some but it is merely a facade for spreading pompous hatred. There is no difference between a gay men and his “gayness”. A gay men is gay because of what he does in bed primarily (even though being gay is now expanded to mean lifestyle behaviour) Sexuality which is very much an inherent part of everyone’s self-consciousness and well-being is needed in most normal individuals. How can a gay man choose to love himself but hates a part of him that he likes to do, and which gives him pleasure and perhaps a reason to live. You can deprive a person of his sexual needs as much as you cannot prevent him from breathing or eating or carrying out the usual bodily functions.
The twisted logic of hating the sin and not the sinner is in effect spreading “hate”. Teaching the gay man to hate a part of himself and because that is an important part of himself, his self-esteem and himself basically.
If Mr Lim advocates the true meaning of “hate the sin and not the sinner”, then he would have to love the sinner” to prove his point that his love for the sinner is greater than his sin. Yet, in no part of the letter did he mention that he is willing to love the sinner. One hence wonders about the statement he makes. He makes no explanation of how he is going to practise what he preaches. Instead, he is insistent on not associating with gays. Why, he didn’t even want them in the workplace.
The logic of “hate the sinner and not the sin” extends to some people who actually try to practise what they preach by trying conversion. Converting gays to become straight. Again, there is no conclusive evidence to support their cause.
From his letter, Mr Lim seems to be a well-thought person who uses jarring absolutes to impress the reader. He says, ”There is no greyness between white and black. White is white, and black is black. There is no relativity in morality. Morality is absolute. Yet the guiding principle is love.”
Perhaps Mr Lim has been living in a perfect world where he manages to do everything his way, hence his ability to speak such profound statements but what exactly is the colour between black and white, if not grey?”
He says there is no relativity in morality and that morality is absolute. Yet, in making such a general statement, he is unable to back it up. The irony is not lost on the fact despite his reiteration that “the guiding principle is love”, he is in effect, spreading a message about hatred.
Mr Lim is also a clairvoyant. He says that “A government that does not appease the wishes of its people may not last long”. By that statement, I suppose he believes he is speaking for everyone. His audacity and belief that he is speaking for the majority when there are no conclusive evidence to support his claims makes me wonder where he derives that from. Somehow, that statement seems more appropriate when discussing about “democracy” and “rights” rather than this controversial topic; which to our knowledge, has never ever toppled a government. A government has never been toppled because it decides to hire gays.
When he says that the people expect the government to take sound and responsible decision to “to protect young citizens from the corrupting influence of immoral behaviour” We know that Mr Lim is trying to present both sides of the coin. Just in case, Mr Lim is unaware of recent social/ political happenings, his idea of our government is precisely the kind of image that our government is shrugging off. Our PAP government is now ready to embrace diversity and talent. Our government does not want us to depend on them too much or act as our nannies.
They want to give the people a voice to rebuild Singapore and make it a place for them to stay. In doing so, they cannot choose to impose what is considered “morality” unto everyone. Because unlike Mr Lim’s definition of “morality” which is black and white and absolute, it differs from person to person in today’s world. Some people consider it moral to abort a child if the mother is unwed whereas certain people believe that it is immoral regardless of the circumstances. Some quarters think it is immoral for woman to participate in beauty pageants though the general consensus nowadays is that it is acceptable to do so.
In trying to highlight the gravity of the situation – which is not wholly too serious in the first place, but blown out of proportions by media and certain quarters, Mr Lim stresses the seriousness of the situation by prophesizing again how hiring gays in the civil sector will lead to gay marriages and gay adoptions.
He believes that this is the first step to immorality and because of that small step, will generally lead to our “children” being “corrupted” and prevented from making sensible decisions about their lifestyle and sexuality.
While we might applaud that as a courageous act of his to decry against everything that he believes in, Mr Lim is unable to show the relationship between a more open society (where gays are open about their sexuality, are married to a same sex partner and adopts children in a gay household), and how it corrupts straight people and make them gay.
Denmark and Netherlands which are the first two countries to legalise same sex marriage have not yet become “gay colonies”. Mr Lim and many others are unable to prove that the gay lifestyle is more attractive than the gay one. And even if it does, and if we are talking about an open climate where gays are accepted openly, why would a straight person want to convert to homosexuality? Perhaps he might be referring to the sexually undecided or confused individuals who might teeter over whether to turn gay or straight. Yet again, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest whatever way he or she would choose.
Mr Lim continues to inflict low blows on the worldwide gay community. He attributes homosexuality as a result of I quote “negative influences in their lives”. He mentions sexual abuse and lack of father figure which are the usual arguments that leads to homosexuality. Such assumptions are however never verified. he like Ms Chua conveniently neglects the fact that many people who are sexually abused never turned out to be gay; and that some who becomes gay are raised in strict and normal families.. I am extremely taken back when he mentions that reading pornography in an early age leads to becoming gay. I wonder how he comes to that conclusion. I thought the reverse should be true unless our reader is reading gay porn.
He goes on to blame religious groups for not taking a stand. I suspect unlike Mr Lim, religious groups are more well-informed. They have chosen not to speak up because religious groups, like individuals, are caught up in the influx of information and progress. They know that it is hard to find a position on a topic of which nothing is stated in black and white.
Again he prophesizes towards the end of his letter. He makes a daring proposition.
“I would like to appeal to the Government to reverse its decision to hire gays for key jobs. History has shown time and again that great empires fell because of failing human values and shaky moral principles. Does the phrase 'the chain is as strong as the weakest link' sound familiar?”
His resounding statement rings so much falsity and petty pretentiousness. He likens homosexuality as a virus by comparing it to the SARS outbreak
But amidst the cluttering of his views, his entire argument is predisposed on the knowledge that he knows everything and rightly claims his moral high ground when in fact, he knows nothing at all. He speaks about a topic of which he has no knowledge of. He does not know anyone who is gay, haven’t read or quote a book about homosexuality; but dares to lecture us how we should heed his advice. What audacity.
PHIROZE ABDUL RAHMAN ‘s letter is seemingly short but blunt as well. He calls for gays to return to normal and what is destined for them. Of course, he offers no viable choice. he then goes on to say that they should not be blinded by what others are doing in other parts of the world; by which I assume, referring to more open and western societies where homosexuality is more open.
I’m not sure though what he means by “people’s maturity” or “the evolution of a country” when he says we should not jump into the bandwagon. I’m afraid a more open society comes about not through evolution, but because people become more aware of issues and decides to discuss them openly.
The fact that ST chooses to openly publish their letter might seem as an indication of the proliferation of diverse views regarding homosexuality and the hiring of gays in civil sector in particular. Yet, it also reveals the paper lack of discretion, intelligence to publish letters which are merely individual tirades of separatist and “hatred” nature which has no basis at all.
I am appalled not because Mr Lim and Mr Rahman has such views. After all, they know nothing about the topic and hence renders them incapable of talking about the topic; but ST, which is supposed to at least armed with some basic facts and knowledge, has chosen to allow them to spread their ignominious views. Such shocking views would not have passed in any respectable newspaper unchallenged.
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.
