In the Insight article ("A Fiery NMP gets her baptism of fire") on Friday Nov 2, the ST journalist wrote the following:
Homosexuality is immoral, she (NMP Thio Li Ann) asserted. "Repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties!" she said in a speech in Parliament last Monday that was widely disseminated and dissected, both in the mainstream media and the internet.
The words in bold (emphasis my own) grabbed my attention when I was reading the article. Yes, the rather convoluted speech that Prof Thio made in Parliament was widely disseminated. But while it was also widely dissected in the internet, I can't say for sure that it was the same case for the mainstream media. This ST journalist, however, conveniently associated the mainstream media and the internet in the same vein, as if the arguments made by Prof Thio had indeed been dissected to the same degree on both sides.
I am not convinced. As far as I know, only the ST had published an article by its senior writer Janadas Devan that can somewhat be qualified as having 'dissected' the speech by Prof Thio, so to speak. (His article can be read here:
377A debate and the rewriting of pluralism.)
To my understanding, dissecting a piece of writing or speech would mean analysing the arguments being made, including the premises and supporting evidence. Dissecting a speech is certainly not the same as making mention of it, no matter how infrequent or often (in terms of number of articles, for example) the speech was being referred to, in parts or in its entirety.
Many ST journalists would have enough sense to see through some of the, to put it mildly, unconvincing arguments made by Prof Thio. But they face institutional constraints which prevent them from 'dissecting' her speech in print. (For instance, they can't deviate from the government's line; and as the
mainstream media, they have a responsibility not to inflame public sentiments; it's time to move on (as the signal from the government goes), and editors have to make a conscious choice not to publish further commentary on the issue, nor be seen as standing for or against either side.)
Predictably therefore, the mainstream media avoids critical commentary that
truly dissects the speech by Prof Thio. Besides saying how both sides of 377A camps have intractable views, or that the majority of Singaporeans actually aren't bothered by 377A so society on the whole should live and let live, they have little else to offer in terms of substance. After all, the mainstream media wasn't the one which led the debate right from the start. They found themselves having to jump into the fold - and quickly at that - because the debate on 377A and homosexuality had moved into the mainstream almost suddenly.
On the other hand, bloggers aren't restrained by editors, nor are they compelled to tow a certain line. They are free to make comments, and indeed many have 'dissected' Prof Thio's speech, tearing apart her fallacious arguments. (If anything, Prof Thio’s credibility has suffered greatly from this episode.) Once again, the mainstream media pales in comparison to the blogosphere and shows itself incapable of providing quality analyses on a contentious issue, even if it is a particular speech that is the focus here.
(One should note that dissecting Prof Thio’s speech ought not to be equated with pro-gay or opposing her per se; it merely examines the arguments made by her, whether they hold water or not.)
Most Singaporeans may indeed not be bothered by the 377A issue. But for those who do - many of whom are well-educated members of the public, net savvy and whom desire quality and alternative commentaries on social issues - they once again have to turn to the internet. Actually, most of the times they
already rely on the internet for socio-political commentary.
Repealing 377A Episode - After Thoughts
Many people have commented that not since the casino (Intergrated Resort) issue has there been such a lively and contentious debate taking place both in Parliament and in the public.
But there is an important difference.
Whereas the casino issue was one which pitted the government against the people, so to speak, the entire 377A issue took on a rather different trajectory. When a petition was being put up to Parliament, it could have been a case of the PAP government vs the pro-repeal camp. But the outcome turned out to be otherwise.
In the case of the casino debate, it was the PAP government that was at the frontline, taking pains to explain to the public the necessity of bringing casinos to the island’s shore. When the debate came to a close, some Singaporeans were disgruntled, not only with the decision that was made, but also with what was perceived as the PAP government’s having already decided on the outcome despite public consultation.
Nobody seriously doubted that 377A will be retained. But quite likely they would have expected the government to be at the forefront in making the case for its retention. However, in making the now-infamous speech, NMP Thio Li Ann had somewhat hijacked the agenda and made herself the most visible opposition to the pro-repeal camp. She stole the thunder from the government, making the latter’s job more of making conciliation rather than defending the retention of 377A. It wasn’t the PAP government that stuck out this time round, nor were they symbolically linked to the retention of 377A. Instead, it was a NMP.
With nary a vociferous protest against the PAP government heard, both homosexuals and the pro-repeal camp (which includes straights) suddenly found themselves a new enemy: one who is even more vigorous and outspoken against homosexuality than any hitherto representatives from the government or anti-gay camp. As the aforementioned ST journalist noted in the same article: 'It is almost a certainty that Prof Thio will henceforth be largely defined by the public as the “anti-gay” NMP.'
Just as importantly, three PAP MPs had risen to speak about the illogic and discriminatory nature of keeping 377A. This is in addition to - I dare say - the open knowledge that 377A is retained not because the government is dogmatically opposed and discriminatory towards homosexuals, but because they decided that, politically and socially, the best option they had is status quo. The result is that the government escaped somewhat unscathed, in the sense that the wrath of the pro-repeal camp (and homosexuals who aren't part of the movement) did not fall on them.
Gays and homosexuals never expected the government to cave in to a petition. But they found themselves a new arch enemy who overnight drew their energies (and perhaps resentment) away from the government. They found, too, new allies in straight Singaporeans, both those who were hitherto neutral and those who are for non-discrimination and fairness, who felt incensed enough by Prof Thio’s speech to now want to make a stand on what they perceive as fair and right.
Given also that MM and PM had both, I believe, openly expressed or hinted that they believed homosexuality to be genetic (with even the MM saying that the law would eventually go when the tide of change is upon society), gays and homosexuals would already have less grievance (relatively speaking) against the government to begin with, even as they were prepared for the continued retention of 377A.
This further explains why Prof Thio rose spectacularly to become the symbolic representative of the anti-homosexual camp: for even as the elder Lee and PM have somewhat conceded ground to homosexuals, Prof Thio, in representing neither the ruling party nor the opposition, had indubitably - and perhaps unwittingly - put herself as the relentless head of the anti-gay camp.
Arguably, the government suffered less political fallout this time round - because a nominated member of parliament's vehement opposition had overshadowed the retention of 377A and deflected attention away from the bill that would be passed into law.
This was the important difference.
Some articles/commentary worth reading:
Section 377A is inconsistent: PAP MP Hri Kumar
ST's Janadas Devan exposes Li-Ann's Thiology by Cherian George
Hiding Behind Rhetoric: A rebuttal of Thio Li Ann
Dr Thio Li Ann's infamous Speech by Mr Wang
Repeal: a well fought campaign with huge gains by Alex Au
377A - To prevent what harm? by Prof Michael Hor
When a glass of beer costs just US$1, it is criminal not to drink lots and lots of it. So it seemed we turned criminals for those few nights that we were in Cambodia, where cheap beer and liquor is available at just about every place that sells it.
