mollymeek (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mollymeek) wrote,@ 2007-09-12 00:52:00 |
|
Casualties of a Progress that Isn't
Many readers would, by now, have heard of the case of Otto Fong, the teacher from Raffles Institution who came out as a homosexual in a now-deleted blog entry. Mr. Wang even calls him a hero.
In my previous entry, I highlighted how MOE's statement regarding its attitude towards homosexual teachers is uncannily similar to Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew's "reply" to demand for an explanation regarding the rejection of Alfian Sa'at's application for a relief teaching position.
Some people are speculating that Fong would eventually be sacked. But it perhaps does not matter whether Fong is sacked or not. If he is sacked, it will become a signal to gays (particularly gay teachers) that they are not accepted and it will a signal to anti-gay people that their views are still respected. There will simply be societal regression. On the other hand, if Fong is not sacked, this case will probably be used as a great example that gays are actually "tolerated" or even accepted in this society. "Look, you are not at risk just because you are gay." Which simply is not true.
And MM Lee's words will reverberate chillingly. ""[W]e take an ambiguous position. We say, O.K., leave them alone, but let's leave the law as it is for the time being and let's have no gay parades." (International Herald Tribune)
This ambiguity is arguably far more violent than an outrightly discriminatory policy. It ensures that the state can always pay lip service to some form of acceptance (just as it pays lip service to openness and other things people are demanding for) without having to commit to being non-discriminatory. We don't hang gays. Well, we can't really accept them. But gays are not persecuted. No, we have to respect the conservatives.
If you are MM Lee, you have the discursive capital to be open. Or to sound as though you are open. You can say that you wouldn't have banned Martyn See's Singapore Rebel if you were asked to choose, but then you are no longer in charge.
You can say that you actually believe that homosexuality is genetic, not acquired.
You can say that it is only a matter of time before the laws have to change.
How progressive.
Indeed, many have quoted MM Lee, including Alex Au (see his article, ""It's a matter of time," says Lee Kuan Yew") and Otto Fong himself: "In April this year, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew - one of [Raffles Institution's] greatest alumni - called homosexuality a "genetic variation," questioning the validity of criminalising gay sex."
Yes, so what?
Not everyone can afford to be progressive.
Perhaps Otto Fong is indeed a hero. But many real-life heroes are also casualties. (Only Superheroes aren't.) He need not be sacked - not immediately anyway. Perhaps some time later he would be sacked due to unsatisfactory performance. Perhaps he would never even be sacked, but would this automatically mean that gay teachers would never be sacked and gays applying to teach will never be rejected because of their sexuality?
Respond to any pleasing promise to be more open, to let a hundred flowers bloom (like they did during the Cultural Revolution?), to be cosmopolitan. Be prepared to be a casualty.
There's no free lunch in this country. The Progress Meal can be very costly unless perhaps you hold a VIP card.
Meanwhile MM Lee can continue to exercise his discursive capital. I bet he can even claim to be homosexual and get still not be forced to retire or retract his claim. (I am by no means suggesting that he is homosexual. I am just saying that I think that he will not face significant backlash even if he claims to be one.) He can continue saying that Singapore has to move with the times. That he would not ban Martyn See's films. That . . .
Of course. But doesn't he also believe in creating a system that would persist even if he dies, a system that would persist even if the PAP has disappeared (my own paraphrase, of course)?
Perhaps he has succeeded.
As for others like Otto Fong, be prepared to delete your words. You have no discursive capital.
Wait for concerned parents to voice their objections and send their sons for HIV tests and psychiatric counseling.
Wait for politicians to claim that they must respect conservative people.
Balderdash.
Since when did God say that you have to insist on sending gays to jail or have them caned? Perhaps some verses in the bible do suggest that God objects to homosexuality. (But not everyone interprets them the same way.) But I don't think God ever said, "Go forth and insist on having a law that can send gays to jail even if you do not put it to use."
Since when did God say that homosexuals lead "homosexual lifestyles" and have "homosexual values"? Homosexuality is homosexuality is homosexuality. Gay sex is gay sex is gay sex.
As I said before, there may be quite a number of homophobic people out there. Some people might be really uncomfortable with gays. But how many of these people actually think that just because gays have gay sex, gays need to go to jail or need to be sacked from their jobs?
Being a cat, Molly is not very comfortable with dogs, but does this mean that she wants dogs to be locked up or put to sleep?
Using the slippery slope type of argument that homophobes are so fond of, perhaps I can say that the next thing they are going to do is to insist that we put those who engage in premarital sex behind bars. I know of a prominent blogger who might have to go to jail.
If I know of an unmarried teacher happens to be having sex with his girlfriend, perhaps I should write a complaint to MOE and say that he is in a unique position of authority and a role model of students, so we cannot condone his acts. And you had better act upon my complaint. Because I'm conservative.
But it's not the fault of the so-called conservatives, really.
It's really the fault of those who implanted in them the idea that gay sex can be and has to be criminalized. And who did that? Who are responsible for creating a monstrous system that even they themselves cannot change? (Reminds of that the paradox of God creating a rock so heavy that even He can't carry it Himself.)
*This citizen does not condone any open espousal of homophobic values or lifestyles or any direct or indirect refusal to commit to non-discrimination on the part of political leaders as political leaders are in a unique position of authority and are often seen as role models by the citizens.
Bah. Of course there isn't such a thing as a homophobic lifestyle or a set of homophobic values though there are indeed people who make it their life mission to see that gays do not have it easy.
"My son can sleep with girls before he gets married. But, in the name of God, if he even thinks of loving another man, I will not hesitate to send him to jail, to cane him to his senses! (Well, because . . . because the law has never made it illegal to have premarital sex.)"
Haha.
Many readers would, by now, have heard of the case of Otto Fong, the teacher from Raffles Institution who came out as a homosexual in a now-deleted blog entry. Mr. Wang even calls him a hero.
In my previous entry, I highlighted how MOE's statement regarding its attitude towards homosexual teachers is uncannily similar to Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew's "reply" to demand for an explanation regarding the rejection of Alfian Sa'at's application for a relief teaching position.
Some people are speculating that Fong would eventually be sacked. But it perhaps does not matter whether Fong is sacked or not. If he is sacked, it will become a signal to gays (particularly gay teachers) that they are not accepted and it will a signal to anti-gay people that their views are still respected. There will simply be societal regression. On the other hand, if Fong is not sacked, this case will probably be used as a great example that gays are actually "tolerated" or even accepted in this society. "Look, you are not at risk just because you are gay." Which simply is not true.
And MM Lee's words will reverberate chillingly. ""[W]e take an ambiguous position. We say, O.K., leave them alone, but let's leave the law as it is for the time being and let's have no gay parades." (International Herald Tribune)
This ambiguity is arguably far more violent than an outrightly discriminatory policy. It ensures that the state can always pay lip service to some form of acceptance (just as it pays lip service to openness and other things people are demanding for) without having to commit to being non-discriminatory. We don't hang gays. Well, we can't really accept them. But gays are not persecuted. No, we have to respect the conservatives.
If you are MM Lee, you have the discursive capital to be open. Or to sound as though you are open. You can say that you wouldn't have banned Martyn See's Singapore Rebel if you were asked to choose, but then you are no longer in charge.
You can say that you actually believe that homosexuality is genetic, not acquired.
You can say that it is only a matter of time before the laws have to change.
How progressive.
Indeed, many have quoted MM Lee, including Alex Au (see his article, ""It's a matter of time," says Lee Kuan Yew") and Otto Fong himself: "In April this year, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew - one of [Raffles Institution's] greatest alumni - called homosexuality a "genetic variation," questioning the validity of criminalising gay sex."
Yes, so what?
Not everyone can afford to be progressive.
Perhaps Otto Fong is indeed a hero. But many real-life heroes are also casualties. (Only Superheroes aren't.) He need not be sacked - not immediately anyway. Perhaps some time later he would be sacked due to unsatisfactory performance. Perhaps he would never even be sacked, but would this automatically mean that gay teachers would never be sacked and gays applying to teach will never be rejected because of their sexuality?
Respond to any pleasing promise to be more open, to let a hundred flowers bloom (like they did during the Cultural Revolution?), to be cosmopolitan. Be prepared to be a casualty.
There's no free lunch in this country. The Progress Meal can be very costly unless perhaps you hold a VIP card.
Meanwhile MM Lee can continue to exercise his discursive capital. I bet he can even claim to be homosexual and get still not be forced to retire or retract his claim. (I am by no means suggesting that he is homosexual. I am just saying that I think that he will not face significant backlash even if he claims to be one.) He can continue saying that Singapore has to move with the times. That he would not ban Martyn See's films. That . . .
Of course. But doesn't he also believe in creating a system that would persist even if he dies, a system that would persist even if the PAP has disappeared (my own paraphrase, of course)?
Perhaps he has succeeded.
As for others like Otto Fong, be prepared to delete your words. You have no discursive capital.
Wait for concerned parents to voice their objections and send their sons for HIV tests and psychiatric counseling.
Wait for politicians to claim that they must respect conservative people.
Balderdash.
Since when did God say that you have to insist on sending gays to jail or have them caned? Perhaps some verses in the bible do suggest that God objects to homosexuality. (But not everyone interprets them the same way.) But I don't think God ever said, "Go forth and insist on having a law that can send gays to jail even if you do not put it to use."
Since when did God say that homosexuals lead "homosexual lifestyles" and have "homosexual values"? Homosexuality is homosexuality is homosexuality. Gay sex is gay sex is gay sex.
As I said before, there may be quite a number of homophobic people out there. Some people might be really uncomfortable with gays. But how many of these people actually think that just because gays have gay sex, gays need to go to jail or need to be sacked from their jobs?
Being a cat, Molly is not very comfortable with dogs, but does this mean that she wants dogs to be locked up or put to sleep?
Using the slippery slope type of argument that homophobes are so fond of, perhaps I can say that the next thing they are going to do is to insist that we put those who engage in premarital sex behind bars. I know of a prominent blogger who might have to go to jail.
If I know of an unmarried teacher happens to be having sex with his girlfriend, perhaps I should write a complaint to MOE and say that he is in a unique position of authority and a role model of students, so we cannot condone his acts. And you had better act upon my complaint. Because I'm conservative.
But it's not the fault of the so-called conservatives, really.
It's really the fault of those who implanted in them the idea that gay sex can be and has to be criminalized. And who did that? Who are responsible for creating a monstrous system that even they themselves cannot change? (Reminds of that the paradox of God creating a rock so heavy that even He can't carry it Himself.)
*This citizen does not condone any open espousal of homophobic values or lifestyles or any direct or indirect refusal to commit to non-discrimination on the part of political leaders as political leaders are in a unique position of authority and are often seen as role models by the citizens.
Bah. Of course there isn't such a thing as a homophobic lifestyle or a set of homophobic values though there are indeed people who make it their life mission to see that gays do not have it easy.
"My son can sleep with girls before he gets married. But, in the name of God, if he even thinks of loving another man, I will not hesitate to send him to jail, to cane him to his senses! (Well, because . . . because the law has never made it illegal to have premarital sex.)"
Haha.
