Note: This is a reply to a piece from a reply that I got after my piece "tolerance vs acceptance" was posted in a local mailing list.
Dear Mr Gascoigne
Thanks for taking the time and effort to personally reply to my letters to The Optical and SG Daily.
I have read your reply and understand where you are coming from. I am writing this letter to defend my piece and myself:
You said that Mrs Chua “makes it clear that Singapore's need for diversity is broader than economics alone, and goes beyond the gay segment of society.” Yet, no where in her comments actually support your quote.
You quote her “Can Singapore open up enough to allow UNORTHODOX people their space, both physically and psychically, while not eroding the conservative values held dear by some?” Perhaps “unorthodox” might seem a neutral word to you but let us rephrase the question, “Are gay people “unorthodox?” Is there any basis to her comments? These words reinforce the impression that the majority of Singaporeans have of gay people – that their lifestyle is unacceptable.
You mentioned that “There are a couple of hypothesies on which a thoughful rebuttal could be based. E.g. Recognition of basic human rights should not require economic justification.”
This is in my comment. I mention about the lack of human rights in Singapore and how it ties in with us as a nation, that if we do not even have the basic foundations of recognising the rights of every citizen to lead a decent happy meaningful life, we can forget about looking at the welfare of the gay segment of the population.
In her article, she disputes the fact that gay people have their rights. Her closing statement is, “Remember, this is not about gay rights. This is about economic competitiveness.”
You mentioned that there is “no great deal of importance” between the usage of words, “tolerance” or “acceptance”. I am going to be audacious and post you a question.
What would a minority race in Singapore population think and feel if one day our Singapore government says that they are to “tolerated” and not “accepted” just because they are a minority. Think of the possible PR disasters and repercussions. More importantly, think of how gay people in Singapore feel towards that statement. In fact, that is the point in my letter.
One can argue that this is irrelevant to gays in Singapore because they have always been “invisible” and hence “tolerance” is better than nothing or “acceptance”. By implicitly not mentioning the existence of gays is a form of “tolerance” in itself. By stating their existence and saying they have to be “tolerated” is another. But “tolerance” implies an action of “discrimination” because it implies unacceptable behaviour on the party that has been tolerated and the magnanimity of the party that tolerates. Is that the kind of society Singapore wants to create? What happens when people run out of tolerance?
Your view is of that people will learn to “tolerate”, before gradually progressing to “acceptance”. That relationship is however something which has not been proven to exist.
You said I attacked Mrs Chua personally and I agree that my statement might sound a bit “harsh” but I make those comments because they were justified.
She is a “mouthpiece” because she simply reiterated the stance of our Prime Minister’s statement – that gays have to be tolerated for economic reasons. She has contributed nothing whatsoever to allow people to understand the issue further except to quote from the Carnagie Mellon research which “strengthens” our Prime Minister statements.
You said she is not responsible for the headlines. Yet, one cannot dispute the fact that it is a misleading headline. As a senior correspondent of the paper, I am sure she could have raised the issue of using an inappropriate headline.
I also said that her “commentary is a no-brainer –meaning “might has well not have said it”; and “she dumbs down on us buzz words” which is construed to some as “personal”. I am not attacking her personally but her article for “simplifying” the issue and using “buzz” words. Personal attacks would be words like She is (&T%^**) for (*((&^^%%). I cannot help it if people choose to read my comments as personal attacks.
Notice in my article, I mention “the article stirs the pot, and acts as a propaganda support”. I am saying the article is a “propaganda support”, not that she supports all official propaganda. There is nothing personal about the statement.
When I say “well-researched” and then go on to say “(depends on how you define research)”; I am saying that people should decide for themselves whether they should trust what they read. Because news articles and some commentaries (I am not finger pointing) tend to gloss over issues, we need to be skeptical of what is being said here. I am saying that the basis of her article is based on research findings in addition to some of her personal comments which are in line with our PM’s statement. I am saying that we have to look deeper, and not be caught up in the whirlpool of writing a commentary just for the sake of writing one, without contributing to the real essence of the debate.
You mentioned that you would be more receptive towards “an article of praise for long-needed progress, and suggestions for making even more advancements.” That is what I am raising in my article. That “tolerance” is not the solution; but “acceptance” is. Notice how that contrasts with Mr Chuah’s commentary in which she ends with something that is still restricted to “economic” issues.
I hope my lengthened letter will not be construed as “personal” this time around. I am merely explaining, to the best of my abilities, my views and how some people might have reacted towards it.
I sent this same opinion piece to other mailing lists and political websites in Singapore. So far, only Optical has chosen to publish this piece in full. I have agreed to re-edit my letter for SG Daily because of the “harsh” nature of my article. I fully appreciate and am glad that both mailing lists have agreed to publish my letters.
I notice that I cannot help saying “you” in many statements but they are not personal. I am merely explaining my point of view. More importantly, I hope that you will see the side of my argument as well.
Feedback to my article:
I first saw your commentary on The Optical. Not having your email from that, I sent the following to The Optical. Now that I have your email address, let me do the courteous thing and reply to you directly.
I think that you missed the mark. The thrust of Chufa's article was that cities with cultural diversity grow better economically. However, she also makes it clear that Singapore's need for diversity is broader than economics alone, and goes beyond the gay segment of society..
To quote: "...we remain intolerant and parochial in our social mores." and "Can Singapore open up enough to allow unorthodox people their space".
There are a couple of hypothesies on which a thoughful rebuttal could be based. E.g. Recognition of basic human rights should not require economic justification.
The Carnagie Mellon research of Dr. Florida, from which the economic justification theory is drawn, has suspect data and conclusions, and has been criticized by responsible peer reviews.
I think that you attacked Ms Chuah so strongly that it appeared that you were going after her personally, and not the ideas in her article. As well, I don't think that there is a great deal of importance in her choice of the word "tolerance". In fact, that is the term most often used in Florida's report.
You write well, and I hope to see more of your commentaries. But I think they would be more effective in educating or persuading if they were not sullied by ad hominem attacks and semantic nit-picking.
I'll sign off now, but here is what I sent to The Optical.
======================
Mr Tan takes Ms Chua Mui Hoong to task regarding her article "It's not about gay rights - it's survival" in the July 9 2003 Straits Times. Good for him for speaking up, but I would like to appeal for a focus on ideas, rather than personalities, and to employ reason, rather than ranting.
The rebuttal uses ad hominem attacks on Ms Chua, and stress on a somewhat inconsequential semantic definition.
His personal references to her include "She dumbs on us ", characterizes her article as a "no-brainer", and accuses her of being a government "propaganda support" tool who "is merely a mouthpiece", among several other demeaning and derogatory comments. He puts purported quotations in her mouth, claims implications that I cannot find in her comments, and sneers at
her "well-researched" article -- which she nowhere claimed. By the way, headlines are usually written by a headline copywriter, not the author, so the "screaming ... deliberate sensational and misleading headline." may not have been hers at all.
In fact, he might better use his readers' limited time, and patience, by focusing on his major point.
Which is...? Well, he says the 'crux of my argument and sorest point with Chua's definition of how gay people should be treated. It is objectionable that she chooses to use the word "tolerate".' Come, come Mr. Tan – surely you can find something more substantial to object to. And perhaps gays might be willing to settle for being "tolerated" for today, and strive for
"acceptance" tomorrow. I am not sure Singapore is yet ready to see a "Have you hugged a gay friend today?" poster in the MRT.
He is also upset with her article's support of tolerance as making good economic sense. In the end, it is still support, and still progress, so why pick on the politically correct justification (without which the article may not have made it into print)?
I would have been more receptive to an article of praise for long-needed progress, and suggestions for making even more advancements.
Dick Gascoigne
Straits Times JULY 9, 2003
Our Columnist
It's not about gay rights - it's survival
By Chua Mui Hoong
SO SINGAPORE is, discreetly, laying out the red carpet for talented people who happen to be gay.
It is quietly hiring self-declared homosexuals, even in sensitive jobs in the civil service, as the Prime Minister revealed in an interview with Time magazine recently.
When a Cabinet made up of conservative Buddhists, Christians, Muslims and Hindus liberalises rules its members know many of their constituents will not agree with, you know there is more than just values at stake.
You know there's an economic consideration somewhere. And, more likely than not, that this is about survival, that arch motif of Singapore's history, again.
The link may seem far-fetched at first. What have gays got to do with the economy? And how can being more tolerant towards them be good for the economy?
The answer lies in recent thinking about the roots of creative cities.
Just what is it that gives a city like San Francisco or Boston, or Manchester, its buzz, its edge, its life?
No, it isn't about putting up massive buildings like one-north or Fusionpolis.
It isn't about economic planning, or industrial policy, or spotting and wooing growth industries.
The new tools of cool lie in the three Ts: technology, talent and tolerance.
Technology and talent are totally obvious tools of competitiveness.
But tolerance?
Yes, says Carnegie Mellon University academic Richard Florida in last year's The Rise Of The Creative Class and earlier works like The Geography Of Bohemia.
The idea is simple: Tolerance creates an open, diverse society that welcomes everybody, whether mavericks or buttoned-down conservatives. This milieu attracts the kind of innovative, creative talent critical to economic growth.
Tolerance comes in many forms but is basically an openness to differences of all sorts, whether in race, gender, ideology, values or sexual orientation.
Professor Florida singles out gay-friendliness as an indicator of tolerance. 'To some extent, homosexuality represents the last frontier of diversity in our society and, thus, a place that welcomes the gay community welcomes all kinds of people.'
Just as industries should have low entry barriers to allow new companies to enter and compete, so cities should have low entry barriers to people, so newcomers of all stripes are accepted quickly into social and economic arrangements.
'Openness to the gay community is a good indicator of the low entry barriers to human capital that are so important to spurring creativity and generating high-tech growth.'
Prof Florida did not start off with that insight. He was studying what made regions prosper, and others lag behind, and had developed a list of America's hot spots.
A colleague was doing a study on American cities that had the highest concentrations of gay couples.
Prof Florida found that the two lists overlapped and had a high level of correlation.
He delved into the issue and became convinced the defining competitive edge was tolerance. Cities with racial, sexual and cultural diversity have a milieu attractive to the creative class which drives economic growth.
He told the Scottish Sunday Herald last month: 'Without diversity, without weirdness, without difference, a city will die. Cities don't need shopping malls and convention centres to be economically successful, they need eccentric and creative people.'
If Prof Florida is right, Singapore could do with a hard look at itself.
Tolerance, unlike technology or even talent, cannot be centrally planned or attracted with tax-incentives.
It has to be practised not by economic planners, but by all and sundry. It requires changing not the hardware, but the software of mindsets.
When the whole social climate of a place counts, each of us is in the race.
How does Singapore rank as a tolerant city?
We do well in ethnic diversity and tolerance. The arts and entertainment scene is lively. But we remain intolerant and parochial in our social mores. And our top-down, authoritarian political system does not help either.
Can Singapore open up enough to allow unorthodox people their space, both physically and psychically, while not eroding the conservative values held dear by some?
Maybe the question has to be rephrased: Can it afford not to?
Just as the perception of government influence handicapped government-linked companies' forays overseas, so the perception of social conservatism dulls Singapore's lustre as a talent capital.
In Boston last year, over dinner one night with a neurosurgeon, I did my bit for Singapore and said we were developing into a regional medical hub, and why didn't he consider working there?
'Singapore may be a fine place to work, but why would I want to live there?' was the rejoinder, with remarks about a rigid society with an authoritarian regime.
Among my graduating class at Harvard last year were a few openly gay people. A woman introduced herself thus in a leadership class: 'I'm a lesbian and a leader.' She was a city council leader. Her sexual orientation was no bar to public leader- ship.
Another classmate and his gay partner adopted a baby girl this year. His sexual orientation was no bar to family life.
Of course they are Americans. In Singapore, we will negotiate our own balance.
But why would talented people, gay or not, want to live in a socially intolerant place that does not allow them to maximise their potential?
The move to hire gay people, even in sensitive public sector positions, is one small step in the right direction.
If Singapore is serious about attracting smart, talented people, whether gay or not, many more bigger steps towards greater tolerance - and not just towards gays - must be made.
Remember, this is not about gay rights. This is about economic competitiveness.
