377A - Phantom Menace 10

Professor Simon Tay may just have the last word on 377A here.

He has written an article yesterday morning entitled “Section 377A: Moving beyond slippery slopes to a rational consensus.” The gist of it is to bridge the gap in earnest. 

In a synopsis, it is about bridging the gap between judges’ interpretation and the aim of our constitution, between legality and morality, between laws and the Ten Commandments, between decriminalisation and slippery slopes, between “reasonable precaution” and “fear mongering”, between science and public opinion, between repeal and government assurances, and between acting alone in the judges’ chambers and taking a process “that reviews social acceptance as science evolves.”

This is what Simon says (in a nutshell), “I think we would over-burden the courts to act alone on the basis of the Constitution and make our minds for us on such difficult and potentially divisive issue. I also caution against acting on suppositions of what the majority believe, driven by fear and anger and listening only to those who are vocal when controversies arise.”

And Simon says it well on that. 

After reading his article, I found that the tension is taut and tight when it comes the largely 377A’s Pandora’s box. 

Well, it seems like it is not enough to just let it be. But what the largely religious section of society (except the Buddhist Association) wants is to seal the lid of the box air-tight, throw it into the deep sea and let it never be seen again. 

But the judges’ hands are tight because of the rule of precedent. 

The 2014 case of Lim Meng Suan has already bound the highest court in the land and I foresee the recent DJ’s challenge as a foregone conclusion. 

You see, unless the judges experience a rip van wrinkle effect, waking up hundred years later to a different world of values and norms, I don’t see them overturning their decision made in 2014 that 377A is constitutional anytime soon.

And mind you, it was made with painstaking deference to our particularly social-cultural way of life that defines personal liberty as not covering the privacy of gay sex and the limited class of discrimination which excludes the gay community.

How about the Att Gen Lucien Wong? 

Well, Simon says that he has to be clear on how the discretion is to be exercised, or else the fangless section risks making a mockery of the legislative aim of penal punishment.

Here is what Simon outlines for the AGC: “Could he take a further step to state the circumstances when he would bring a case? Could the scope of “indecent acts” covered by 377A be specifically defined? Short of a parliamentary repeal, such assurance would add to the Government’s promise.”

Simon also addressed the slippery slope argument which has raised a specter of fear amongst the Christian and Islamic community. 

Will same-sex marriage be next after repeal? Will Christians be muzzled for protesting against providing commercial services which are against their belief? Will pastors, church leaders and believers be charged for discrimination?

To that, Simon says (or wrote); “This seems unlikely in Singapore’s legal system. As noted our courts have already rejected the arguments that equality of protection for persons engaging in homosexual acts should be extended on par with race and religion. This constitutional interpretation would continue even if 377A is decriminalised by Parliament.”

Alas, I trust that that would not satisfy the sentiments and fears stroked by the slippery slope argument, because who is to ensure that a secular executive/legislative branch of government in this postmodern world would not change the rules like they have done so for adultery in many industrial states?

One is tempted to ask, did criminalising adultery in the past prevent the basic building block of society (the family) from falling into disharmony and thereafter wreck society? And if so, should we also fight for the return of making adultery criminal - if that ship has not sailed off into the sunset, already?

I have a feeling it is more complicated than that, and if it takes a village to raise a kid, then it may just take a wider, deeper and sounder understanding of how things are interconnected in our society to raise the level of harmony, unity and flourish for all. 

This is the call of Simon and Simon says that there is currently no agreement on the nature of homosexuality. 

He said “science can be used selectively” - just look at how tobacco companies have been fooling us for decades. And even climate change is taken to be a hoax by President Trump. 

So, “a wider, deeper and sounder understanding” of it would have our government to commission “an independent and hard-headed look at science and homosexuality.” 

And for its social acceptance, Simon says that “Government and Parliament should put in place a process that review social acceptance as science evolves. Then - even if some never change their minds - we might decide on whether or not to repeal S377A clearly and rationally.”

Lesson? Just one.

Well, whether Simon says it or not, I guess things are settling down for the two groups in polar opposites of each other. I trust that the signatures for repeal and stay have stabilised, from a hot sizzle at the start to a slow boil and now it is simmering in a cool ember state.

Still, it is a clear win for those who petitioned for 377A to stay against those who want to repeal, despite having big guns like Tommy Koh, Walter Woon and VK Rajah on the other side (but for very different reasons of course). 

But this win is however a fraught/loaded one because while those on one side who signed up against repeal is largely fighting against the slippery slope possibility (same sex marriages and its consequent social ills once repealed), our (executive) government, who have the power to change the law, does not see it that way. 

To them, it is the democratic business as usual, and when times, culture and even trends change, and/or international pressure tightens, our government will be hard pressed to please the more conservative/religious sector of society.

God forbid that those who think that they have won by sheer numerical strength (votes) should interpret this as some theological triumphalism of sorts. We all know how theocracy has worked for the Catholic (Evangelical) Church and Constantine, Hitler and now Trump. Let’s not even talk about how ISIS are calling for the return of the Caliphate. 

I guess the only time that theocracy flourish is when the promises (of a new heaven and earth) in Revelation are fully realised and not when men promise that their rulership will bring about a new heaven on earth.

And that may just be the other slippery slope we believers are drawing towards quite unthinkingly like flies to fire. 

In the end, my point is that after a burning fever the night before, after a hangover the morning after when sobriety finally returns, it is high time for all to bridge the gap instead of widening it further.

Simon tries to bridge it via the rational process where science and social acceptance meet at some point of change. 

We believers have to do likewise, not so much on a political level because of the risk of theological dominance run by flawed human beings, but through finding common grounds amidst the differences.

We all share something in common, that is, our common humanity. It is the single thread that runs through our beliefs, creeds and cultures and stays constant throughout. We all bleed the crimson cry for understanding, compassion and love. 

Who are gays but individuals crying out for acceptance, and who are believers but individuals crying out for redemption. Both are taking this lifetime journey together to understand who they are, why they are here and what can they do to make a difference to their own lives and lives of others. 

We believers would like to think that we have all the answers, but we do not. If we look at what is the most enduring cornerstone of our belief, it has to be Calvary. But Calvary is not the place we find all our answers. It is nevertheless a place we find the strength and hope to overcome all our questions. 

Our belief or faith is not about giving answers to those crying for acceptance and redemption. Answers work in a classroom assessment, but in real life, it is about living it out, taking a life in your hand, and journeying together. 

Answers are about ticking a box, filling a blank, seeing who press the bell first (or raising their hands first), or who gets the most signatures. 

But changing a life is much more than that. It is about mutual vulnerability, mutual understanding and mutual influences. And that is why people won't care how much you know until they know how much you care, and knowing how much you care is not just an answer away, but it is about a lifetime journey together. Cheerz.