A Political Affair
To be absolutely truthful, it is clearly possible for homosexuality to be promoted, whether through sexuality education programs or in other ways. The great minds of people like Dr. Thio Su Mien are certainly right to believe that homosexuality can be promoted, although this does not mean that it has been promoted through AWARE's sexuality education program. I doubt, though, if there are many people whose passion in promoting homosexuality are as intense as the passion of those who promote heterosexuality. After all, the same crusaders against the promotion of homosexuality are promoting heterosexuality and have managed to convince a number of homosexuals to become straight―or at least behave as though they are. And since heterosexuality can and has been be promoted, why should we pretend that homosexuality can't?
It is not whether homosexuality has been promoted through sexuality education in schools. I doubt even Dr. Thio (either of them―the mother or the daughter) would believe me if I were to tell her that teenagers became lesbian because AWARE told them that being lesbian was fun. What the likes of Dr. Thio are concerned about is really a group of people who are encountering uncertainty about their sexuality. They might observe their same-sex peers being interested in the opposite sex and feel that they have different inclinations for some reason. Given the way the world is today, most teenage students would know what “gay” and “lesbian” refer to. But when they find themselves possibly being described as “gay” or “lesbian” (words often used derogatorily, with the assumption that being gay and lesbian is abnormal), they are likely to begin facing self-doubt and guilt. Their psychological health is inevitably affected in some way.
Dr. Thio clearly does not simply want people to stop themselves from telling others to become lesbian. (Pardon me if I give the impression that I'm trying to use her as the avatar of bigotry. I could very well use a certain Pastor or many of his followers, but none of them has ever claimed to be a feminist mentor.) What she―and her allies―want is something more. She does not even condone neutrality. Pastor Derek Hong of Church of Our Saviour apparently believes that they cannot be neutral and that is fine. No one is obliged to be neutral. But one cannot stop others from being neutral about issues to do with homosexuality. And this is the impulse of the opponents of AWARE's sexuality education. For the sake of what they believe God wants, they righteously go out and stop people from being neutral. No, you cannot be neutral. You cannot say that I have no issues if you are lesbian. God forbid.
So homosexuality has got to remain taboo, and when it ever has the audacity to sneak into conversations, judgment has to be pronounced. Negative judgment, of course. If you do not turn homosexuality into a taboo, or if you do not condemn homosexuality (it's probably optional to claim to love homosexuals after the condemnation), you must be a promoter of homosexuality. I suppose only God can decide if these people are promoting perverse wisdom Which isn't really wisdom, of course, but we don't really have a good word for it. It's perverse but the moment it establishes itself in enough minds, it becomes conventional wisdom; it becomes irrefutable.
What about the young people going through sexuality education then? If they happen to have any inclinations towards homosexuality, they must be told by the seeming authorities that it is wrong. And the people who are judgmental might ironically think that they are not being judgmental. A fictitious conversation:
Girl: Dr. Thio, I think I'm lesbian.
Dr. Thio: Oh . . . Are you sure? What makes you think so? Maybe it's a passing phase―maybe you just admire some of your peers and and you mistake it for love? There's a chance you are not . . . you know . . .
Act non-judgmental―after judging with your heart, mind, and soul. From the fictitious conversation above, it is clear that no one has even said that homosexuality is sinful. But it is the assumption. Even if you tell someone, “I think I support the opposition over the PAP,” I doubt people will say, “Are you sure? Maybe it's a passing phase. Maybe you are really a PAP supporter like the rest of us.” To say so would be to assume that it is rather strange (if one tries not to use the word “abnormal”) to support anyone else but the PAP. And one doubts that the screwed-up but screw-loose person who might think it sinful to support the opposition would have a similar reaction if you say, “I don't do politics.”
So what? Don't people have a right to be homophobic? Sure, they do. As much as I have the right to use Dr. Thio as the avatar of bigotry, she has the right to do the same to, say, Alex Au. But the concern is really what sorts of effects there are on those affected by sexuality programs. Dr. Thio may or may not know this, but what she wants is for those having issues with their sexualities to feel obliged to change, to feel abnormal until they do something to convert, to feel rejected despite having the supposedly unconditional love of Dr. Thio, her pastor and her mentees. Never mind if these students don't believe in God and are going to hell anyway, according a much less debated Christian concept.
And beyond the relatively small number of people affected by the issue of homosexuality, there might be those who engage in premarital sex. It is very strange, but I have no idea why no one is saying that the premarital-sexualites promote a premarital-sexual lifestyle or have some kind of premarital-sexual agenda to prevent righteous laws banning premarital sex from being implemented. (Hey, if the Public Order Act can be implemented in Singapore, is there anything that can't?)
In the world of the passionate conservatives (otherwise known as fundies, but I prefer to be neutral and I hope no one has issues with my neutrality), it is probably wrong to teach people about the various methods of contraception―even if they are not against contraception, they would probably see no reason to teach teenagers about contraception when they are not supposed to be having sex until after they get married many years later. Surely to talk about contraception is to promote premarital sex. And to talk about abortion is surely to promote murder―the murdersexuals must be promoting a murderous lifestyle and have some sinister murdersexual agenda and must be stopped.
What do the passionate conservatives eventually want then? Lots of miserable people. People who feel miserable for having homosexual inclinations, people who feel dirty for having had sex before marriage (don't ask me how much sense it makes to insist that atheists have sex only after they get themselves legally married despite not believing in any god that would make the marriage sacred). People who are constantly haunted by selective specters of Sin. And what might they get? People who simply stop having faith, disenchanted people for whom there is no negotiation or discourse. If they get what they want, our society might get what it doesn't want.
According to more optimistic bloggers than Molly, the recent AWARE saga is an indication of how mature Singaporeans have become and how civil society has developed. But it is actually a purely political process that is located outside of the realm of politics proper. Against the conservative takeover of AWARE, the only discourse we seem to have recourse to is that of neutrality. To make matters worse, the mainstream media was clearly not in support of what they called a coup―not because they are not conservative, but because their politics is the politics of the PAP. In other words, the politics of claiming tolerance, harmony and neutrality. The results of the AWARE EOGM that had Josie Lau and her conservative team losing to those they ousted became a triumph of neutrality and tolerance in Singapore. It could very well have been seen in terms of confrontation rather than tolerance. What we need is not imposed neutrality and enforced tolerance. What we need is for everyone to have the equal freedom to be non-neutral and confrontational, though this might make Molly sound somewhat too subversive for her own good. But confrontation is not anarchy and it certainly does not preclude peace. What has happened after the EOGM? AWARE politely stated that it would review its sexuality education program. And people have managed to manipulate the Ministry of Education into suspending the program―simply by complaining and complaining passionately.
What we are now left with is the unequal freedom to be non-neutral. When you are seen as “mainstream”, you have more power to make noise about the sexuality program. I cannot say for sure, but I really doubt that the MOE would suspend a sexuality education program if lots of gays and lesbians start complaining that despite claiming to be neutral, it is actually discriminatory towards homosexuality and there is a need for tolerance.
Singapore has not changed. It is exactly the same before and after the AWARE saga, though it provided for the usual dose of entertainment during the prolonged ennui of staying in Singapore. (Now move on to Mas Selamat.) Dark clouds gathered, but they were blown away before a storm could be brewed. Black or white, everyone is in the same set of chess with less than two players. Perhaps your game is a programed computer demo. Sure, the AWARE coup was a travesty. But it wasn't disallowed in the script. It was not as if an ingenious hacker had changed the program to allow for possibilities it offers. Your apparent agency is never your own. Well, admittedly it is more exciting if you don't think too much. Forget yourself and not be aware and you might find fulfillment even without dignity.