Letter to the ST Forum - The key difference between homosexuality and abortion/capital punishment

6 Nov 07 - The Straits Times Forum

I REFER to the humorously written letter by Mr Peter Lee Peng Eng (Online forum, Nov 10), who commented that NMP Thio Li-Ann should also speak up equally fervently on other moral issues that the Singapore laws condoned in order not to be branded as a hypocrite.
Specifically, Mr Lee exhorted NMP Thio to speak up against abortion and capital punishment because 'Christianity does not condone killing another human being'.
To correct Mr Lee's confusion, I believe that most major religions do not condone killing of another innocent human being. Hence by logical extension, abortion is frowned upon by most religious orders.
Of course, strong emotive arguments abound between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, especially with regard to rape victims who become pregnant or when the mother's life is being threatened. On the other hand, most major religions also permit capital punishments though the conditions differ somewhat from religion to religion. As a secular society, we can certainly debate on which crimes are heinous enough to deserve capital punishment.
However, Mr Lee missed the point when he chose to lump the debate on Section 377A with that of abortion and capital punishment.
Perhaps he was too busy to read NMP Thio's parliamentary speech, so allow me to quote one section of her speech - 'It is true that not all moral wrongs, such as adultery, are criminalised; yet they retain their stigma. But adulterers know they have done wrong and do not lobby for toleration of adultery as a sexual orientation right.'
Similarly, those who had undergone abortion(s) or administered capital punishment (or committed adultery for that matter) are not thumping their chest with pride over what they had done.
In arguing for Section 377A to be repealed, the supporters in Singapore ultimately want homosexuality to be accepted by society and possibly celebrated (in future) as an alienable right, similar to race, language or religion. This is the key difference in this debate that Mr Lee should be cognisant of.

The Gloves Are Off

In Alex Au's latest post on the Yawning Bread, he has decided to up the ante by doing an expose on the identity of the sender of the hate email to Thio Li-Ann as the playwright and erstwhile relief teacher Alfian Sa'at.

I will leave readers to make their own conclusion about Alfian's actions. I want to focus on Alex Au's defence of Alfian in 2 of his posts ([1] and [2]) regarding MOE's "unfair" termination of his relief teaching position. First, let me re-post an article in CNA on the issue and Alfian's comments on his blog:

SINGAPORE : The Education Ministry receives some 3,000 applications for first time registration as relief teacher each year - and some 100, or 3 per cent, of these are rejected.

Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew gave these figures in Parliament on Monday when he replied to questions brought up by Nominated MPs Eunice Olsen and Siew Kum Hong on the recruitment criteria for relief teachers.

In particular, Mr Siew asked why playwright Alfian Sa'at' was rejected in his application for relief teaching.

Rear Admiral Lui said it was inappropriate to discuss individual cases of teachers or relief teachers in the House.

However, he said applicants could be rejected because they do not have the requisite educational qualities, do not have a passion for teaching, or perhaps they have unsuitable records or disciplinary history.

He explained : "Teachers are in a unique position of authority and have great influence over the children they teach, engaging hearts and minds and shaping their attitudes and perspectives.

"Whether permanent or relief, teachers are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which befits this role and to uphold the integrity of the profession, both in a personal and professional capacity. The values they hold are also an important consideration as they are role models for our children." - CNA/ch

***************

1) "The values they hold are also an important consideration as they are role models for our children." Does this mean PAP ministers cannot become relief teachers also because they espouse rampant materialism via their rigorous defence of their inflated salaries?

2) Freedom of Information Act, here I come.

I had thought that MOE's termination of Alfian's relief teaching position was due to his views and support for gays. Then I thought about Otto Fong and realised that Otto is still a teacher of RI. Now we can appreciate the wisdom of MOE's decision to reject Alfian's services from the email that he had sent to Thio Li-Ann. I shudder to think about the impact that Alfian would have made on the students with his values, beliefs and actions if he had been allowed to continue teaching in our schools.

Alfian made the following concluding statement in his blog*:

I am posting the 'hate mail' here, knowing full well that there will be those who will chide me for my hot-bloodedness and impulsiveness. I apologise to those who think that my 'uncivil' four-liner has somewhat sabotaged the repeal-377A cause. But I think the exposure of this woman's pettiness, tendencies towards exaggeration, as well as her wanton abuse of the legal system, far outweighs the flak I will inevitably receive.

Alfian's actions were warmly supported by Alex Au who concluded:

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. Nor from Alfian and thousands, thousands more.


*Alfian's post referred to by Alex Au is no longer at Alfian's blog. You can still read excerpts of it at Yawning Bread for now.