Thio Li-Ann: A (partial) Defence and a Call for Civility

Thio Li-Ann: A (partial) Defence and a Call for Civility

The last two weeks in particular have seen some of the most heated exchanges in Parliament and the press in recent years. The cause of it all: the 377A debate. NUS Law Professor, Thio Li-Ann last week delivered a fiery speech in Parliament that drew the ire of the pro-repeal camp. Needless to say, she has become the subject of much criticism and furore on the internet.

Her more outspoken detractors include people like Alex Au, Cherian George, Janandas Devan, Alfian Sa’at and somewhat refreshingly, a year 1 law student at NUS. They have, so they claim, taken to pieces the argument that Professor Thio put forth in Parliament. Cherian George called her speech a diatribe whilst the year 1 law student who remains unnamed claims that Professor Thio makes fanciful leaps of logic and makes highly rhetorical statements.

The debate will never cease. But over the past few days, I have seen how this whole episode is becoming a rather childish fracas. Emotions understandably run high on both sides, but this begets the question: is there no room for civil debate for all?

I have become a firm believer of civil discussion. From my days of yonder when I was a hot headed debater that sought to do nothing else but put the other side down unglamorously, I now see that arguments can be put forth more impressively without personal attacks.

Let’s analyse excerpts from a few speeches (I don’t have time to go into more detail), beginning with Professor Thio’s.

Let’s face it, Professor Thio made some highly insensitive remarks in Parliament that perhaps should never have been made. She likened anal sex to shoving a straw up your nose and drinking from it. She called homosexuality an abomination and a threat to society. Some bloggers online stated that she engaged in insults and name-calling of gays in society.

Alfian Sa’at then joined the fray, sending Professor Thio an email telling her that she was “fucked up” and that he would “piss on her grave” the day that 377A is repealed as revenge for her “hatemongering.”

Cherian George then states that her speech was a diatribe and then takes a potshot at her by sarcastically likening her to the “standard bearer of what Singapore intellectuals and our world-class universities have to offer to public discourse”, and implicitly stating that she lacked any sort of rationality or reason.

A year 1 law student too blogged about this. She began well by stating that Professor Thio engaged in senseless rhetoric and fanciful leaps of logic. But one read of her post exposes the reader to an endless piece that is dripping with sarcastic venom and indirect personal attacks.
And of course, who can leave out prominent activist Alex Au from this whole debate? Au posted a copy of Alfian’s email on his website coupled with his comments. He took a rather adverse stand: “When the Religious Right (and this includes Thio) are out to bludgeon me psychologically, socially and politically, they don't deserve respect or civility from me.”

A Call for Civility

One hallmark trait underlines all the above excerpts: they either lack civility or promote a lack of civility. Personal insults are hurled from both sides, each seeking to hurt each other more. I don’t agree with such a stance

I’ve always been a firm believer of separating the message from the messenger. Conflating the two always leads to roused emotions and needless attacks on the other. For example a scenario where I claim that Saddam Hussein was a great and benevolent leader. A criticism that separates the message from the messenger would merely state that Saddam was not a great and benevolent leader and that he killed his own people. But if the message and messenger are conflated, then a criticism would say that “Shangjun’s statement merely highlights the extent of his ignorance.” Engaging in the latter kind of argument, I submit, would most often lead to more productive debates.

Professor Thio was wrong to make such insensitive remarks. But I believe that for the pro-repeal camp to reply with even more scathing attacks on Professor Thio makes them no better than her. If a friend of mine is murdered, it would not be doing justice for me to kill the murderer in return. It would result in me being considered no better than a murderer myself. In other words, I submit that the more admirable technique of criticism is to respond with cogent, well thought-out arguments that hit at the core of the issue. Bringing in emotive responses only serves to cloud the mind and blows a haze over the debate.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case here, nor has this been the case in the evolution-intelligent design controversy that I am following with utmost interest as well. But having read many pieces from intelligent design advocates and from conversations with friends like Choo Zheng Xi (www.theonlinecitizen.com), I am convinced that it is completely possible to put forth a top-notch argument in a civil manner.

A Diatribe?: A (partial) defence for Professor Thio

Cherian George claims that Professor Thio’s speech was a diatribe. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a diatribe as “a bitter and abusive speech or writing” or “ironic or satirical criticism.”

As much as there were some portions of the speech that could be considered a diatribe, I think that to label her entire speech as such just fuzzes the issue. It brings across the sense that Professor Thio’s entire speech was devoted to abusing gays and insulting them – it was not.

Whittled down to the core and taking away her offensive remarks, I see it as a well-thought out argument. It covered a lot of ground and most importantly, it rebutted MP Siew Kum Hong’s arguments. Like a lawyer worth her salt, she made impressive distinctions – most recently reflected in her op/ed piece in the Straits Times yesterday where she distinguished between religion’s influence in politics and religion’s influence in public debates.

What I see as the strongest points of her argument was this: she was arguing against giving the gays a free hand to forever change the landscape of Singapore. She argued that the gay lobby was out to push for full recognition of gay rights which would eventually cumulate in allowing same-sex marriages. She argued that “[Gays] adopt a ‘step by step’ approach to hide how radical the agenda is. Liberals never ask: what happens next if you repeal 377A. Responsible legislators must see the Big Picture. She then stated the 5 steps that gay activism would take which included, inter alia, legislating an age of consent for gay sex and finally the legalisation of marriage and same-sex family adoption.

To put it in easier language, she was arguing for the protection of the status of the heterosexual family. She was pandering to the majority of Singaporeans who had already stated in an NTU survey that they would like to see 377A kept for reasons similar to hers. She engaged in populist arguments – protect the institution of marriage! Keep the family unit heterosexual! Protect public morality! These may be arguable and contentious points, but they were points that people (and the MPs) could identify with. And as much as it could have been motivated by religious influences, it is arguably a secular one as well. From my own (admittedly selfish) point of view, I would not like to see a Singapore where people of the same sex can marry.

The final decision as stated by PM Lee Hsien Loong was, I argue, exactly what Professor Thio had argued. I read it as a situation in which the NTU survey was the final nail in the coffin. Professor Thio’s argument worked.

I stand on the “Keep 377A” side as a silent majority. I do it not for religious reasons but because I am one of the Singaporeans who sees the ideal family unit as consisting of a mother, a father and children – just like what PM Lee said. I do not have great legal arguments against the repeal of 377A and in fact I think that the legal arguments are slanting (though not overwhelmingly) towards repeal. But I also believe that keeping 377A just keeps the door stopper there in preventing the advancement of the gay purpose. As the government stated: the law is in an uncomfortable state, albeit dangerous state (see Michael Hor’s recent comments on how keeping 377A is a perilous path). I want to see the family unit kept heterosexual. As a result, the gay lobby will take longer to push for the legislation of same-sex marriages although I think it is just a matter of time.

In closing, I’d wish to make a call for civil debate. Let us thrash this issue out. In time, I believe 377A will be repealed. But until then, let’s keep things civil and constructive. Voltaire once said: “I disagree with what you say, but I’d defend to death your right to say it.” I’ll defend yours, and I’ll defend mine as well.