Cherian George
As someone who straddles the worlds of Singaporean journalism and academia but has never felt totally at ease in either, I have to say that, today, I am prouder to call myself a journalist than an academic. Singapore is not known for its investigative journalism; one international ranking places our press in the same league as Third World dictatorships. On the other hand, our universities do Singapore proud: while some of the international rankings are suspect, there are certainly pockets of excellence on Singapore’s campuses.
This week, both vocations were tested. Singapore society needed the best from them, to guide it through the extraordinarily difficult and contentious 377A debate. Although the bean counters in both journalism and academia tend increasingly to apply irrelevant key performance indicators, pressmen and professors in the end share the same social purpose: to contribute to the world of ideas and help society to deal with its problems wisely and rationally.
For this reason – and despite having signed the repeal petition that reached Parliament – I was mainly interested in this week’s debate as a test case for Singapore’s level of public debate. That 377A would stay in the books was a foregone conclusion. The real issue to me was whether such deeply held convictions could be deliberated openly in a civilized manner, and how journalists and academics would perform.
Therefore, more distressing than the final result of the debate was the retrogressive speech by the high-flying legal scholar Thio Li-Ann. Her convoluted, caricatured rendering of political philosophy and comparative politics needed to be corrected by good political science, but she got away with it in Parliament. Her theories about what constitutes a minority could have been debunked by any graduate student of sociology or anthropology, but this did not stop her.
Then there was Thio’s tasteless digs at homosexual sex, which some of her comrades considered witty, but really deserved no place in the highest forum in the land. Thio has been celebrated for supposedly speaking up for the silent majority. This is an insult to the majority, most of whom have the basic decency to know the difference between what should be uttered in public and what should be confined to close friends or private blogs.
Thio also did a disservice to the majority of God-fearing Singaporeans – we who would like to believe that our faiths are ultimately about compassion, not the hateful, hurtful cheap shots that Thio felt compelled to deliver on our behalf. How I wished a theology professor or other religious scholar would have stepped into the debate at that point, to show how it might be possible to express a faith-based objection to homosexuality – minus the hate speech.
But, no, for a whole week, Thio has remained – by default – the standard bearer of what Singapore intellectuals and our world-class universities have to offer to public discourse.*
Thank goodness for Straits Times journalist Janadas Devan. His column in Saturday’s Insight pages is worth the paper’s 80 cents cover price (which is good, since it’s not available free online). Its contribution to the 377A debate: priceless. Singapore doesn’t have a tradition of investigative journalism, but Janadas’ dogged, disciplined dissection of Thio’s speech has exposed it for the diatribe that it really was. There is hope yet for rationality and reason.
- The blogosphere, of course, had numerous articles challenging Thio, including one by a first year law student.
October 28th, 2007 at 12:46 am
I am neither from the academia nor journalist realms. But just a reader in search of good writings to read from both of these worlds. Just simply to say, its a good piece. Regards.
October 28th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Lacked the brotherhood coup de grace, they would have given it to her. He lacked the firepower and wit. Just my opinion, lets see whether it gets to see the light of day.
October 28th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Personally I think Janadas did a fair to average job of taking her apart – I still feel, his write up should have been less personal and focussed more on the contextual issues, such as legal point.
October 28th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
We need to understand if he (Janadas) is critical of Dr Thio in only his own personal capacity, or his views are representative of the newspaper or the government (as we know how the ST functions) or the party.
Only then, we can see which angle he is coming from.
October 28th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Don't u think, it is funny that we even have to guess?
What happened to straight line talking brotherhood style i.e you are shit and I tell you, you are shit and I even know who you are.
Something is definitely wrong, when we EVEN have to speculate, what is what? No?
October 29th, 2007 at 1:56 am
black september: Janadas Devan? Represent the ST's stance? I seriously doubt it.
I wish I had but a quarter of Mr Janadas' writing ability and learning.
The lack of debate in the places where we would expect it — Parliament, major newspapers — is the result of decades of preferring managerial ability over critical thinking in almost every political and educational institution in this country.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
I am not so certain God is against "homosexuality" (all quotes from the bible that support the view is ambiguous once you look at the context). But I am pretty certain "hate" is not a Christ-like action.
I also cling when I read her speech. The logical fallacies, the twisting of definitions of words, and asserts of assumptions as truth makes me wonder how she become a law professor in the first place.
October 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
haha let's just say i'd get thio to defend me anytime if i'm sexually harrassed with a straw by a gay person…sure win
November 7th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Hi Cherian
I take your point about theology and I can show you that Thio Li-Ann's interpretation of "morailty" on homosexuality accordint to the bible, may or may not be correct, as much as she thinks it is.
It is prudent to establish morality based on the bible itself. The bible to me, is the word of God but human interpretation can be fallible. The basis of Thio's belief is that homosexuality is categorically a sin, perverse, deviant etc.
However, after a thorough examination of the bible, I’m not too sure if it is really sin and we need to re-examine our intepretation.
We can see how morality has evolved within the bible itself.
1) After the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen19), Lot and his daughters commit incest to perpetuate reproduction when Lev 18 and 20 clearly prohibit it. (Gen 19:31). Eventually, this incestuous relation spawned a tribe of Moabites (Ruth). From Ruth’s union together with Boaz (son of the prostitute Rahab) came David and later Jesus.
2) Women were regarded as chattels/property as evidenced in several of God’s laws in the Old testament. Eg when a woman was raped, the rapist had to marry her after paying a sum of money to her father. Women were also regarded as vessels of reproduction. (There was a law in which a widow who had no son had to marry the second son in line to sire a male.) Many of the men in the Old Testament had several wives, Abraham, Issac etc again for the purposes of reproducton. It was only when Jesus came that adulterty was sanctioned and the status of women was elevated.
3) Slavery was allowed in the olden times but it is now clearly “abominable” and “criminal” as is incest and rape.
When the bible is read, it has to be intepreted within its proper context which includes the following:-
a) the point in time in which the book is written; b) the history, literature and philosophy employed by the writer; c) the audience that the writer is addressing etc.
In my view, there is a distinction between absolute morality and contextual morality ie you cannot simply superimpose what is infinite onto what is finite.
Most Christians assume that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah represents God’s wrath against homosexuality. Unfortunately it is not so.
Ezekial 16: 49 reads: Look this was the inquity of your sister Sodom. She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idlenes; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy, and they were haughty and committed abominations..and so I took them away as I saw fit.
Zephaniah 2:8-11: I’ve hear the reproach of Moab…. With which they have reproached my pple, & made arrogant threats against their borders. …..Surely Moah shall be like Sodom, & the people of Ammon like Gomorrah…..because they have reproached & made arrogant threats against the people of the Lord of Hosts” (pride, arrogance and inhospitality but not homosexuality)
Matt 10:11-15: “Now whatever city/town you enter, inquire who is in it is worthy & stay there till you go out & whoever will not receive your words, when you depart that house/city shake off the dust from your feet….Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the Land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!” (Jesus’ words of inhospitality but not homosexuality, see also Mark:6-11, Luke 10:10-12, Luke 17: 26-29, Lamentations 4:3-6,Isiah 13: 11-19 etc)
There are a total of 29 verses pertaining to Sodom and Gomorrah and nowhere is homosexuality mentioned. Hence, christians who maintained that it does have according to the bible, gotten the Gospel wrong.
Interestly is the parallel story in Judges.(Read Judges: 19:11-30)(Gen 19:29). There, the men in Gibeah similarly demanded sex from a travelling Levite who took refuge in an old man’s house. In Gibeah, the men too were offered women which they first spurned but later raped & killed . The offering of women by Lot and the old man was obviously a diversionary tactic and if the men were really gay, then it makes no sense to offer women to them just for them to spurn it. The difference between the two stories is that the travellers in Sodom were angels who blinded them while the Levite in Gibeah was only an ordinary man. Otherwise the men in Sodom would have raped Lot’s daughters. The Levite in Gibeah subsequently chopped up his raped and dead concubine into pieces and distributed them to other people. (This again emphasizes how low the status of women was in that society). Later, the Levite, with the help of the Israelites and God, too destroy the city.
The sin in Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. In the olden times, the ancient code of hospitality was sancrosant ie, when a foreigner seeks refuge in your home, you cannot let anything happen to him and this stems from Jesus’ second commandent of loving thy neighbour as thyself. It is repeated several times in the Old Testament:
And, if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you……you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God” (Lev 19: 33-34, See also Ex 22:21, Deut 14:29, 24:14-22, Rom 12:6-15 etc)
In the olden times, there were dangerous places in various lands & wars and the winner often raped the defeated male enemy for to treat them as women would make them feel inferior. Lot & the old man in Gibeah were merely abiding by the ancient code of hospitality by extending a roof over the angels and Levite (travellers seeking refuge in a foreign land)
Christians who assume that the sin in Sodom was homosexuality have equated the homosexual act/ rape with homosexuality. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two; one is merely an act while the other is a sexual orientation/preference/inclination (whether biological/psycological). As in heterosexual unions, it is not the sex that governs the relationship but the mind and emotions of gay people that governs it. The question is whether the writers at that time had a concept of sexual preference when they penned down God’s word.
Another salient point is that Jesus said nothing on homosexuality. Jesus had plenty to say about adultery but mentioned nothing on homosexuality. If it is really that evil, perverse or dangerous, then it is odd that he said nothing about it. Christians who take that stand have to address this point.
In Matt 19:11-12 Jesus makes the following remark:
All cannot accept this saying but only those to whom it has been given..For there are enunchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, & there are enunchs who were made enunchs by men……He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.
In the old testament, enunchs were mentioned several times in Esther & Isaiah. (The prophet Daniel too was a enunch). The king in olden times used to get enunchs to look after his concubines. These men were either castrated ones or born enunchs who were the homosexuals….(Others though, take the view that born enunchs are men without testicles). Whatever Jesus meant, it is unclear. However in Isaiah 56:4-8, it is prophesized
To the eunuchs who keep my covenants…I will give in my house…a name, better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be taken away.
There were apparently also intimations of homosexual relationships in the bible.
See 1 Sam Chap 18-20, 2 Sam I:26 for the relationship between Jonathan and David:
“…the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, & Jonathan loved him as his own soul…” (1 Sam 18:1)
” Now Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he loved him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul” (1 Sam 19:17)
“I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me; Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women” (2 Sam:1:26).
Depending on the version used (the one I quoted above is NKJV), the depth of the relationship differs– the NIV version claims that it was a relationship between best friends. Whichever it is, it begs the question of what exactly about same-sex relationship is prohibited.
I have heard different intepretations of Lev and Romans but will not propose to address them here. Contrary to what anti-christians may think, the bible is actually a moving account of love, compassion, inclusiveness and humanity. The underlying theme from the Old Testament to the New Testament is encapsulated in Jesus’ words:
Matt 22:36-40: Teacher what is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul & with all your mind This is the first & great commandment. And the second is like ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these 2 commandments hang all the law & the Prophets. (Both christians, non-christians, aethists or agnostics may refer to the bible and see if all that I’ve said is true).
I think that before we stand up what what is right and just, as what Thio believes in, we have to establish that what we stand up for is indeed the truth. I am not saying that the above is the truth but in the light of so many questionable points, it is really impossible to make a clear stand on this matter.
Finally in Rom 12:9-21 of the behaviour of a christian is stated thus: “…Be kindly and affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honour giving preference to one another…Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion…If it is possible, live peaceably with all men…Do not be overcome with evil but overcome evil with good.”
It would thus be useful to forward these discrepancies to Thio Li Ann and see if she can give a convincing and unequivocal theological explanation for all that I've mentioned about.
Anyone who reads this may forward it to anyone else. In Christ’s love Amen
November 8th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Dear Christianity revisited.
I would like to refer you and all those citing an re-interpretation of the Bible on the homosexuality issue to consider Dr Robert Gagnon's excellent research on this subject. I think he might have reasonable answers to many of your queries. He's been very kind to respond to any questions addressed to him too on this issue.
Moreover, his website http://www.robertgagnon.com contains links of his debates with academics of various fields. Of special interest to you, he debated or reviewed the theological source of much of the re-interpretation you mentioned above.
I am glad that you are approaching this with Christ's love, and I trust you would also do likewise to Gagnon's.
Btw, I was taught that Biblical love exists in the context of Scriptural truth. Love without truth is sentimental feel-good. Conversely, truth without love is harsh and mean-spirited. In this respect, God would be only a 'sentimental fool' (to say the least) to love anyone without dealing in the truth of the judgment of sin. He did through Christ, and that's why loving others without the context of truth is un-befitting of the model of divine love.
For my part, i am saddened that many have lamblasted Thio for her speech, whilst not applying the same rule of civility and courtesy. 2 Wrongs don't make 1 Right. I think many are reacting to her not so much to her content than to her presentation. Given that she was rigorous but I think you and I (or anyone else) standing before a crowd would have gotten excited and caught up in the moment. Our demeanor could have been easily misunderstood. So I would be 'kind' and 'understanding' enough to excuse her. Wouldn't you?
Finally, I can't help but detect a personal overtone/ agenda to many negative or sarcastic responses rather than objective one. Those aren't very civil either. Devans included. Thanks.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
sorry to all. the right link is http://www.robgagnon.net. Btw, pardon the misspelling…was in a rush. Thanks for the patience and understanding.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Dear 0.5 cents worth,
Thanks for your info and website you recommended. I have read arguments on both sides and they are both equally impressive. I've also read different interpretations on controversial verses such as "I'm the way the truth and the life" as well as "anyone who does not hate his father or mother is not worthy of me" which seems to be out of line with the commandment of "Honour your father and mother".
I digress. I agree with you that we love others in the context of spiritual truth. But the reason why I take issue with Prof Thio's position (I wasn't at the gallery when she made her speech not did I even see her on TV; I only read her speech on paper and on the net)is because she has sought to merge morality(based on religion or her interpretation of the bible) with the law.
I believe that law and morality should be separate and the law should ensure the minimal survival of mankind (even on this everyone is arguing about it, what more if you want to impose an objective truth based on your religion only).
I think that sin to God is black and white; there is no such thing as a 'big' sin or 'small' sin or that I'm 'less of a sinner than you are'. I feel that there is an over-emphasis of speaking the truth only in terms of "sexual morality" ie homo, fornication, adultery. I don't know if you agree, but I think that "immorality" and "unrighteousness" is not limited to just these, sins such as pride, selfishness, backstabbing, gossiping, using cuss words etc are just as "immoral" and "unrighteous". The reason why there is so much debate and division over "sexual morality" is because sins like adultery, fornication, prostitution are sins that can be "seen" by our naked eye wheras the other latter sins as I have listed above cannot be "seen" and people who do not know us or live with us will never know except God. Human beings tend to look at what is 'outside' but not what is 'inside' but I think God looks at both. Unfortunately, the law can and never will be able to regulate sins 'inside'. It is impossible.
If we want to love others in the context of spirtual truth and use the law to regulate 'morality' then this must apply to all sins and not just 'sexual immorality' and to me, this is impossible.
I believe that when we return to our Lord, we will each be accountable for our own sins and trangressions. The best is to let God be the judge. Hope you now understand where I'm coming from. Thanks and take care!
November 9th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Thanks for depreciating or appreciating my value (it's perspective right? $0.5=50 cents or 0.5Cents could be construed as an insult to my worth? haha!). In the case of the Homosexual issue, it is equally a question on perspective.
Anyway, I did write in response to your latest comments but decided not to publish it. I'll subscribe to your concluding statement…"we will each be accountable for our own sins and trangressions. The best is to let God be the judge…".
November 12th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Hey 5 cents worth, so sorry about it.. I made a mistake…it wasn't intentional
November 13th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Dear Christianity Revisited,
Hey! It's alright…i added a 'haha' to it. My point was that we need to cool down and work on perspectives. Too much emotional diatribe has been hurled around on the web concerning Thio and the 377A issue. A graduate from NUS actually branded Thio as a 'true sexual minority' because she was a virgin! I feel sad and shameful for him.
Finally, let's stand back a little for a while longer, and let the whole episode settle, before making any sweeping statements. Btw, i do sincerely hope that you would read Gagnon's website. I think Christians down the ages did not derive at such interpretations of key passages without being scholarly and considering the cultural context of the Bible. It's ironic that a revisionist movement in global education has also impacted our view of Scriptures.
Final finally, I am not Pro-Gay or Anti-Gay, I'm Pro-Pro-God! haha. Thanks.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Contrary to Cherian George's lauding of Janadas Devan but condemnation of Dr Thio Li-Ann, I am one of the many in the mainstream who is 100% in support and praise of Dr Thio's enlightening speech in Parliament. And I am not even Christian to begin with.
Dr Thio's speech won overwhelming support from PAP and oppostion MPs alike, as witnessed by the thunderous seat thumping by the MPs a la Parliament style as a show of strong agreement and praise.
"Christianity revisited"'s view that morality and law should be separate and that the law should be used only to ensure minimal survival is retrogression. Such a view is convenient for homosexuals so that their sexual perversion will escape prohibition or condemnation by the law. It is not in the interest of humankind to have amoral laws but that is just what homosexuals like Christianity revisited wants.
Gay men have the disgusting and retrogressive practice of anal intercourse while lesbians use their fingers and dildos as pitiful substitutes as they are deprived of the male sex organ. That is the morbid truth of their sexuality. That is the reason why mainstream society views them with the same, if not more, abhorrence that they reserve for lepers.
It is sad that both Cherian George and Janadas Devan cannot see beyond their liberal, pro-diversity stance. They think that to ensure Singapore stays racially tolerant for the minority Indians (of whom both writers belong to), they have to champion any minority cause, even if in this case, it is the homosexual cause.
Thus one is treated to a spectacle of incredulity as both men put their writing prowess penning high prose, in service of a sexuality that cannot rise above the sewers.