Aside from the latest repartee to the HDB Pet Rules debate, this article, “Gay Debate Crying Out For The Majority Voice” (*) caught my eye too. A lot has been said about the brouhaha, from both camps, but what about the-ones-in-the-between – the big fat 90++ percent middle layer squashed between the two vocal camps?
Isn’t the official view most concerned with preserving the status quo according to the wishes of the sandwiched hordes who slog as nameless cogs in the economic machine, who are called uopn to contribute to the country through all the different taxes, and exhorted to vote correctly every 5 years?
But what do they really think? Are the vocal minority against repealing S377A really representative of the establishment? Do they really have the majority mandate to speak for the sandwiched class? I rather doubt so.
How about the other camp calling for S377A to be repealed? They’ve certainly not exploited the shield called “the Silent Majority”, but are they right to assert their rights to the right of intimacy in privacy without having the thought they are legally committing a crime in doing so? Is the clarion call for non-discrimination such an abomination that both leaders and the self-appointed majority-representation resist the comtemplation of its merits?
For to be sure, a part of the contrarian irony that is S377A is that sex betweeen gay men is a crime, but nothing is said of sex between women!
Where does the opinion or sympathy of “the Silent Majority” lie? Only they can answer that, and their thoughts certainly aren’t in the crystal ball or ouiji boards of the vocal minority calling themselves the majority, nor the government and leaders who are taking this minority as their bellweather and agreeing it SEEMS the majority wants the status quo.
Why am I so interested in this debate? I feel keenly the parallelism between the Gay Debate and the Pet/Homeless Animal Debate. Just as what happens in privacy between two consenting adults is nobody else’s business, what pets or how many a person choose to have is nobody’s concern, unless there is a question of welfare, or real nuisance, or criminal offense (as in keeping endnagered animals).
ranted discussed, Singapore is as illogical and bungling over gay debate as cat issues when discussing the commentary, “Why Close One Eye?“. To demonstrate the cosmic wonder of these two debates’ parallelism, I even spoofed the commentary, and with simple substitution showed just how the shoddy treatment of one is reflected in the other.
We can all talk til we’re blue in the face but the question remains: Will the real majority voice please stand up? Or should the question be: does the majority care at all?
For those needing a quick primer on the outcome of the S377A debate:
- TODAY 20071023: A rare petition and a spirited debate.
- TODAY 20071024: When ambiguity works, let it be. PM Lee on keeping Section 377A, even as homosexuals must have a place in society
- TODAY 20071025: Gay debate takes ugly turn. But a few black sheep in cyberspace do not mean S’poreans can’t hold a mature dialogue: Analysts
- The great tragedy of Section 377A
- Deconstructing the Majority
- Dr Thio Li Ann’s Infamous Speech (epilogue, or maybe closure on THAT hate email: Will NMP sue poet for defamation?)
- ST: 377A debate and the rewriting of pluralism
* To read “Gay Debate Crying Out For The Majority Voice”… is a bit complicated: it is not available in the text version of today’s TODAY, but is on pdf. To access it, click here, select Singapore News – under the “Today Section Headlines” heading – scroll down for the thumbnail and click on it to enlarge.)