Are We Ready? (Part 2)

Firstly, I would like to apologize for the lack of a post last week. This was because I was busy with my Driving Theory lessons (2 theory lessons, 4 practice sessions, and 1 evaluation session) for my Final Theory Test. Thankfully, I passed my Final Theory Evaluation, and can book for my Final Theory Test as long as I pass my Basic Theory Test this Wednesday. 

Again, I apologize for the lack of the post as I was too busy with my lessons and the lethargy that followed afterwards. And now, here we go for this week's post!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I blogged on the Pink Dot event that happened in Singapore back in mid-July. Since then, there have been many developments on the Singapore society's acceptance of Section 377A. Of which, there have been 2 petitions, one supporting the repeal of Section 377A and the other advocating for it to be retained. Heads of religious groups, diplomats, activists, and members of the public have come out to explain their views on the matter. I have also posted my previous post on my Facebook profile to explain my views, which has caused some disagreement, and also a surge in the number of views for this blog, haha. I thank all who have engaged me in discussions on my blog post and LGBT as a whole, as well as those who have read my blog and given me encouragement to keep writing in any way. Thank you all.

I decided to write a Part 2 as I felt it is necessary to provide more insights into my views on the matter, to explain my thoughts, as well as to give my feedback on how the matter is being discussed online. I will write it in the form of a question and answer format.

Q: So what exactly are your personal view on whether Section 377A should be repealed?

A: I have mentioned before that my personal views on the matter should not affect the discussion, and I am more interested if Singapore as a whole is ready to repeal 377A and accept the LGBT community. My personal views are hence irrelevant, and are rather complicated to say the least. If the reader would really like to know, he/she can drop me a message. Otherwise, I could be against LGBT but still think Singapore is ready to repeal 377A. Similarly, I could support LGBT but think Singapore is not ready. What I think does not represent what Singapore as a whole thinks. I'd rather not mention my views as some could claim I am biased/inconsistent with my thoughts, but I am here to make a fair judgement on whether our society is ready to repeal 377A, and hence I will not let my personal thoughts get involved in my analyses.

Q: Has your position on whether Singapore is ready to repeal 377A or accept LGBT changed?

A: In short, it has not. 

One minor reason is because if we look at the number of petitions signatures for and against the repeal, the retain community outnumbers the repeal community. I recognize that this is a weak argument on its own, since numbers don't represent everything, but it does still speak about where majority Singaporeans stand (albeit since it is an online petition, the presence of foreign intervention cannot be ruled out).

A more major reason is that in the last few weeks, we have seen people from both sides of the argument come out strongly and in big numbers. Even our religious leaders and diplomats cannot seem to come to a consensus. Evidently, this issue is a very divisive issue in Singapore. Since the people cannot come to a consensus, they would look to the government to support their stand. However, the government similarly is stuck. The government is supposed to represent the people's wishes. Since this matter is so divisive, any stand the government takes will cause displeasure in the opposing camp, which may cause political loss at the next general election. 

Q: So why can't the politicians choose to do what is right? Why must they do what is "politically correct" instead of what is truly correct?

A: So who are you/me/anyone to decide whether retaining or repealing 377A is correct? We are all bound by our personal beliefs such that we think ourselves are right, and to some extent are not willing to listen to opposing opinions. 

In actuality, repeal or retain is not a right or wrong decision, it's a decision related to our morals, and does not affect many of us directly. And since morality differs from person to person, the government is unlikely to make a decision when the country is divided over the issue.

Note that BOTH the ruling PAP government and major opposition parties (Worker's Party and Singapore Democratic Party) have refrained from commenting their views in public. This is not only because of the political price they have to pay when they take a stand, but also perhaps within their own party opposing camps exist too, and hence they cannot provide an official party stand.

Even if parliament were to vote on the matter today, the PAP government has the sole decision because of the party whip. One vote by one party will decide the immediate future for the LGBT community and 377A. Surely the PAP will not take such a major risk to take a stand immediately. Staying on the fence and waiting till a clearer societal majority emerges is the more responsible thing to do for both the government and the opposition.

Q: You mentioned in your previous post that we should listen to what the religious groups in Singapore one to protect racial and religious harmony. But precisely because our pledge reads "Regardless of Race, Language, or Religion", shouldn't we rise above division via race and religion and maintain our secular state position?

A: I do agree that Singapore should definitely maintain its secular state position. We should not let religious nor racial groups dictate the law of the land. It would be foolish to do so and will compromise our social fabric if Singapore were to become a religious state. A quick look at some neighbouring countries would give you some examples on why we should remain secular.

This is not to say that we should not listen to the racial and religious groups. After all, they are still very much part of our society. Even if we disagree with them, we still have to tolerate and acknowledge their existence. A significant portion of Singaporeans are religious, and all belong to a race. If we were to just disregard the opinions of a religious group, we are disregarding a significant portion of Singaporeans. The result of this debate (repeal or retain) will affect our racial and religious groups, and hence it is important to take note of their views, though not use their views as the sole determinant in deciding.

Q: So how should Singapore solve this issue, given its complexity and divisiveness?

A: People need to start opening up on their views and sharing it with their peers, especially those who strongly want their stand to be considered. But more importantly, people need to start opening their ears to listen to others. Too many people believe they themselves are right and start shutting any opposition out. This is why this issue remains divisive, because people do not want to listen to others. We have to start opening conversations and communication in order to understand both sides of this issue.

When people start listening and the divide between the 2 camps isn't so strained, perhaps a national referendum should be held on the matter. The results of the referendum should not be binding, of course. 

We can also have an independent select committee to give their views on this issue, where they can consult academics, experts, diplomats, and members of the public on the best solution for this issue, and putting it forward to the parliament for consideration.

The results of this referendum and the views of the select committee will be then considered by parliament, who will make a decision via a vote with the party whip lifted, so that parliamentarians can vote with their hearts and what their constituents want, rather than toe a party line. 

Q: What do you think of the state of online discussions on LGBT and 377A now?

A: Honestly, it is appalling. The comment section of many related news articles have turned into war zones, with people fighting over whose views are superior and "correct". While I definitely encourage discourse on the matter, many of these arguments degenerate into petty name calling and personal insults, rather than debating the real issue. People should back up their beliefs with facts, logic, understanding, respect, and compassion, rather than hurling insults at the opposing camp with no backing claims, or "blaming the 70%" and "PAP/oppostion IBs". 

Even some of my juniors are guilty of arguing to the point of personal insults rather than intelligent discourse. I urge them not to bring dishonour to themselves and the school. It reflects badly on everyone involved.

As educated Singaporeans, we can do better.

Q: What are you going to blog on next week? A Part 3 on this matter?

A: Perhaps something related to education or mental health. A part 3, however, isn't out of the question in the future, if more developments arise.

Stay tuned to Waydespectives.