Gay debate takes ugly turn
But a few black sheep in cyberspace do not mean SÂ’poreans canÂ’t hold a mature dialogue: Analysts
ANSLEY NG
[email protected]THE Parliamentary debate on the law against
gay sex will be remembered for its fiery,
heart-felt spirit. But outside the House, passions
— among both supporters and opponents
of Section 377A — have, at times, degenerated
into spite.
There were threatening, expletive-laced
emails. One parliamentarian had his sexuality
questioned. Another academic was flamed in
blogs and had her phone number circulated.
And the employer of one gay professional
was questioned about their hiring him.
The ugly turn of events, some may say,
is only to be expected given the emotional
nature of the subject matter — one that Prime
Minister Lee Hsien Loong had warned on
Tuesday could polarise society.
But a bigger question being asked is:
What do such instances say of SingaporeansÂ’
ability to debate issues maturely, and
without hostility?
In Parliament on Monday, Nominated MP
Thio Li-ann recounted how a colleague received
threatening emails following the publication
of an article in The Straits Times in May,
after reforms to the Penal Code were mooted.
Assistant Professor Yvonne Lee had
commented that it was wrong to decriminalise
homosexual acts. For a month after,
people, including young lawyers and students,
wrote to the dean criticising her.
Her photo was posted on blogs and her
phone number circulated. She received
emails — “80 per cent of them abusive” — asking
if she was a “fundamentalist” who would
discriminate against homosexual students.
“It was a professional attack, intimidation
and harassment,” Asst Prof Lee told TODAY.
Professor Thio herself was “shell-shocked”
and made a police report after receiving an
abusive email in August from an unnamed
stranger who threatened to defile her grave
on the day Section 377A was repealed.
“If it was just a rude letter, I’d let it
slip. But this really overstepped things,” the
law lecturer told TODAY.
In the opposing camp, fellow NMP Siew
Kum Hong, who presented a public petition
to scrap the law against gay sex, had his
sexuality questioned.
“When you are a public figure taking a position
on a public issue, you have to accept that
some people will not be mature enough to refrain
from such things,” said Mr Siew, a lawyer.
“It bothers me but I just got past it and carried
on. I don’t want to dignify their comments.”
The organisers of the Repeal377A.com
campaign — who, in a statement yesterday,
said they were “deeply disappointed” by the
decision to keep the law — told TODAY that
hate messages were posted on their website.
“That’s what the gay community experiences
as part of their lives — derogatory
slurs,” a spokesman said.
Indeed, one employee at a large government-
linked company learnt, a few months
ago, that an anonymous letter had been sent
to senior management, asking why they employed
a gay person.
“I was really shocked. I’m not a closet
gay but I donÂ’t show off my sexuality at work.
IÂ’m there to work, not advocate gay rights;
I’m a professional. Honestly, I felt very violated,”
he said.
To him, the incident suggests there is “a
lot of fear” that legalising consensual gay sex
would cause societal disintegration. “When
there is fear, it can lead to viciousness.”
MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC Baey Yam
Keng, however, said that while some were not
pleased at his speaking up for homosexuals,
no one had been outright abusive so far.
One email sender vowed not to vote for
him in the next election. Another asked if he
was “naive or blind”.
Said Mr Baey: “For these kind of
emotional issues, there will be skewed
positions taken. But itÂ’s healthy to
have these two opposing views — albeit
some being extreme about it —
rather than not talk about the issue.”
He feels such debates raise awareness
among the uninformed, which
leads to a more robust discussion.
But Prof Thio asked: “Can we
promise ourselves that we will not
resort to deception or shouting at
each other, but focus on facts and
issue? Even if we disagreed, can we
disagree in a civil fashion?”
On Monday, TODAY reported how
Senior Minister of State Dr Balaji
Sadasivan had called for tolerance of
differences.
The challenge, he had warned,
was in preventing diversity from descending
into “divisive antagonism”,
as it has in the United States.
Such polarisation was unlikely to
happen in Singapore, said Dr Terence
Chong, a fellow at the Institute
of South-east Asian Studies.
Citizens by and large have shown
that they are capable of civil and
passionate debate — both in and outside
of Parliament — despite the actions
of a few anonymous “black
sheep” in cyberspace, he noted.
“The overall tone of the debate
has been civil. It would be naïve
for anyone to want passionate debate
without any name-calling at
all. And it would be very unfair to
point to a small group of people
who send hate mail and say we are
not capable of a mature debate,”
said Dr Chong.