Singapore’s Pragmatism is in Peril, and LGBT Rights Could Save It.

[GachiMuchi]

Singapore’s Pragmatism is in Peril, and LGBT Rights Could Save It.

 

“I think we pragmatically adjust …” 
– Lee Kuan Yew on gay rights in Singapore, CNN, 1998

Whenever I travel abroad and converse with the locals I come across, revealing my country of origin often elicits expressions that range from admiration to even outright awe.

We have generated quite the name for ourselves in the international circuit. Many Nigerians and Kenyans, in particular, often pose the perennial ‘Singapore question’: how is it that we were all impoverished polities when the British left, yet the nations of Africa, with all of their natural resources, failed to prosper and thrive in the manner that we did? These two countries were former British colonies, just like us, and we share several things in common — down to the use of English as the lingua franca and the language of education and commerce — yet our development trajectories could not have been more different.

Any analysis that discounts the convoluted melange of geographical, cultural, and colonial circumstances that lead us to this point would be overly simplistic, but amidst it all, there is one overarching political factor that stands out: A pragmatist system of governance.

Virtually all Singaporeans are cognisant of the fact that we are a ruthlessly pragmatic state. We do not do idealism in Singapore.

We adopt ideas that work, and institute them as policy, regardless of where these ideas come from, regardless of how they are perceived domestically or abroad, regardless of the contexts in which these ideas were formed. If it works, it becomes policy, it becomes law.

Singapore, simply put, is a paradox in nation-state form. Our fundamental reality as a construct—a non-nation turned unexpected nation—necessitated a steely political class, helmed by Lee Kuan Yew, that dealt not in hypotheticals, but in approaches that simply worked.

In order to keep what was then a non-nation of three disparate ethnic groups from collapsing into anarchy, with internecine spats and sectarian squabbles, the PAP, under Lee Kuan Yew, decided that an autocratic and authoritarian form of government would be the best option for a fledgling nation.

When Chinese chauvinists protested against the use of the English language as a lingua franca that would unify the disparate ethnic groups, Lee Kuan Yew chose to steamroll over them, and dismantled Nantah, the only Chinese-medium tertiary institution in Singapore.

When it came to the issue of abortion, Christian sentiments on the matter mattered not. Abortion was legalised in order to prevent single, pregnant mothers from becoming a financial burden on the state.

When it came to Islamist terrorism after 9/11, suspects were thrown into ISA dungeons underneath Sentosa — without trial. The human rights of would-be terrorists mattered not. All that mattered was the safety of the common citizen.

When it came to sexuality education in schools, the Ministry of Education gave the inclusion of preventative measures and contraceptives the greenlight, despite the fact that the vocal, pro-abstinence Christian segment opposed the curriculum.

Time and time again, the government has proven that our laws are unapologetically pragmatic, influenced not by matters of race, religion, culture, or other tangible or intangible biases, but by science, rationality, and practicality.

And for the most part, it has been an acceptable form of governance. Singapore is safe, developed, prosperous, and well-educated. We have our problems, just like any other country in the world, but from a comparative standpoint, our problems are not as wretched as those faced by our neighbouring countries.

Our staunch pragmatism and our separation of religion and state is now being covertly challenged by a very vocal Evangelical Christian minority (examples to come).

This minority, although not representative of the sensible majority of our Christian compatriots, has been involved in several high-profile incidents, all of the negative sort. In addition to disrespecting Singaporeans of other religious backgrounds, this minority has pervasively tried to police non-Christian Singaporeans across all spheres of life — be it their participation in quintessentially secular activities, like the arts, to their own personal or interpersonal choices, or to even inalienable aspects of their very being, like their sexuality or gender identity, with particularly vociferous opposition to the latter.

In an ideal situation, the government would give LGBT Singaporeans their rights based on the now-established scientific premise that diverse sexual orientations and gender identities are natural. The most Singaporean thing to do would be to rescind the archaic laws criminalising homosexuality, and to give LGBT Singaporeans the civil protections and privileges afforded to non-LGBT citizens.

In the Singapore we all remember, religious and historical viewpoints, be they against, or in favour, would not factor into the decision-making process. Every decision made would be in strict accordance with what the science says. Mythological books, written in an archaic age, would never get to dictate public policy.

It should never have come to this. The pragmatic process should have prevailed. Medical science and common sense should have prevailed. Yet, here we are.

The inevitable outcome of the ongoing Christianisation of our moral discourse will be disenfranchisement across the board—and not just amongst members of the LGBT community. Patriotism and a sense of stakeholdership are intertwined. Denying Hindus and Buddhists the right to stake out their own turf in our moral pie will have far-reaching consequences for the state of pluralistic coexistence in Singaporean society.

The vast majority of Singaporeans do not follow the Christian interpretation of morality. Homophobic and transphobic sentiment have historically been exclusive to the Abrahamic faiths and to their associate cultures. It is intrinsic to the Western Judeo-Christian and Arabo-Islamic civilisations; outside of these civilisational spheres, they are alien biases.

Dharmic religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, hold views on LGBT people that are diametrically opposed to the Abrahamic standpoint.
 

To make matters worse, the Western political schism has polluted Singaporean discourse relating to matters of sexuality and gender identity. The terms ‘conservative’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, and ‘right-wing’ are often thrown around with reckless abandon to describe people on opposing ends of the LGBT rights debate.

 

These are reductionist, overly idealistic Americanisms that belong to the realm of Western socio-political thought. These socio-political theories are non-exportable to matters of morality in the Southeast Asian civilisational context, and they have eroded the sense of pragmatism that formerly defined our discourse. These catchphrases serve no purpose other than to derail legitimate conversations about our LGBT citizenry.

Instead of parroting these simplistic viewpoints, our discourse should shift towards accounting for ancient and contemporary attitudes towards LGBT people in our own civilisations, because drawing from our historical moral frameworks is now the only plausible way to effect change for Singapore’s LGBT citizens. In the Singaporean context, we need to study Confucian, Taoist, Hindu, Buddhist, and pre-Islamic Malay viewpoints towards a varied range of sexual orientations and gender identities.

This series of articles focuses on Hindu, and by extension, Buddhist viewpoints towards LGBT people. The viewpoints of Dharmic religions have long been neglected in the fight for LGBT rights in Singapore.

Hindu and Buddhist Singaporeans need to leverage their collective demographic strength, and bring their own moral narrative to the table. We need fresh narratives to create a bulwark against the increasingly hegemonic Evangelical moral narrative, which has occupied so much space in our national psyche, that there is little room for alternative views.

 

“Churchmen, lay preachers, priests, monks, Muslim theologians, all those who claim divine sanctions of holy insights, take off your clerical robes before you take on anything economic or political. Take it off. Come out as a citizen or join a political party and it is your right to belabour the Government. But if you use a church or a religion and your pulpit for these purposes, there will be serious repercussions.”

— Lee Kuan Yew, National Day Rally, 1987

 

Christian Homophobia: A Tool of Western Imperialism

 

In 2017, Taiwan made the monumental move to become the first country in Asia to unequivocally legalise same-sex marriage. Vehemently opposed to it, Taiwanese Christian fundamentalists wasted no time in mobilising against the high court’s ruling. The most curious thing about these protests was the fact that white men were seen mingling with the protesters.

A Taiwanese media outlet investigated this curious happening, and came to the disturbing conclusion that these men were the foot soldiers of an American Christian theo-fascist group called MassResistance. The organisation, designated as a ‘hate group’ by several U.S.-based nonprofits, continues to fund Evangelical fundamentalist movements in Taiwan in the hopes of thwarting the dreams and aspirations of Taiwan’s LGBT community.

 

As alarming as it sounds, this kind of neo-imperialist meddling in the politics of foreign countries, under the guise of Christianity, is nothing new. The British first perfected it in colonial India.

For the most tragic example of what happens when imported Evangelical Christianity gets wedded to populist politics, look to Uganda in East Africa.

[[Read the rest of the article in the link as the formatting is casing problem with the flow of the text.]]]

 

http://ricemedia.co/singapore-pragmatism-peril-lgbt-rights-pink-dot/

Edited July 17, 2018 by GachiMuchi

[Guest Away]

F those religious idiots away! Be gone! 

[Guest pragmatic?]

Near to 3 years later with plenty of developments in the LGBT rights in the world, Singapore still stands at the same starting point.

 

Opponents to the equality of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals actually don't have any arguments and simply crawl into religious backgrounds which were created centuries along when the survival of human mankind was still an issue or the last of the three "Abrahamic" religions, the survival of the religion itself was paramount.

 

The members of parliament don't even want to listen to LKY any longer -

 

“Churchmen, lay preachers, priests, monks, Muslim theologians, all those who claim divine sanctions of holy insights, take off your clerical robes before you take on anything economic or political. Take it off. Come out as a citizen or join a political party and it is your right to belabour the Government. But if you use a church or a religion and your pulpit for these purposes, there will be serious repercussions.”

— Lee Kuan Yew, National Day Rally, 1987

 

- because if they had, the parliament would have voted for the deletion of S377A from the Penal Code of Singapore and surely had not allowed religions to cover the issue so broadly.

 

The party in power again has a vast majority in parliament, but nobody wants to take up the hot potato and just get over continuing discrimination and prefers to stick to a law which manifestly seems outdated and out-placed. In the past years the law even seems more illogical as it is enshrined to the penal code but shall not be enforced?

Is it still there to put it back into operation one day when you need it or?

 

What are the dangers of homosexuality to modern society?

Will there be less homosexuals if homosexual acts are criminalised?

Will the country be more traditional if it has such a law?

Is there any harm to the society by homosexuals to justify the law?

 

For me the issue seems more a thing of a last battle just to have something in the store to argue about.

 

But I fail to see any "pragmatism" in handling the issue by Government and Parliament.

 

One day it will come to the point, when it will be relevant again. But, then any liberalisation may cause more harm and wounds then if the country had got rid of this topic a long time ago...