377A: Hell Hath No Fury than a self-righteous NMP out to persecute

You guys in Singapore probably know this noble champion of moral values, since from my brief literature survey, I gather the debate has captured the nation's attention similar to how IntegratedResortGate did a couple of years ago. Reading the transcript of what must have been an impassioned, righteous parliamentary speech of hers defending 377A, I found myself getting chills: that even the greatest of educations (A quick check on her CV shows Oxford, Harvard, Cambridge) cannot overcome deep-rooted religious fundamentalism. And make no mistake, in spite of her standing as a legal expert, her arguments are rooted in religion, not the law.

See this post, in which a blogger talks about attending a 2003 seminar organised by US-based fundamentalist evangelical group, Focus on the Family (Wikipedia the group to learn more) where Thio spoke. Here are some of the author's thoughts on Thio's presentation.

"Dr Thio Li-Ann's presentation was that the gay community has an organized agenda. She implied that our newspapers were populated by biased liberals, who through unfair reporting paint the conservative Christians as homophobic fundamentalists, while lauding the pro-gay camp as progressive. She argued that progressiveness is not relative to time, and something that's old and archaic does not necessary mean that it is backward. True; but old and archaic does not also automatically “good.” The point was superfluous at best.

She was quick to lump homosexuality with bestiality, pedophilia, and incest , and she did it several times. Homosexuality has no unique link to bestiality, pedophilia and incest. And for goodness sakes the pornography on bestiality that I know about (from all the spam – “XXX girl with farm animals” ad nauseum - I get) is heterosexual porn. She may as well have said that carrots, bananas, apples and oranges are in the same section in the supermarket, so carrots must be fruits.

Her presentation attempted to build up a straw man and then tried to burn it down. Fortunately or unfortunately, due to lack of time, she was unable to present many of her points – some that were flashed that caught my eye were some references to what homosexual men do in bed, and there were some graphic references to “fisting”. Does she even realise that the sexual practices she flashed on the screen are practiced by heterosexuals too? The use of the fear and shock tactic to garner support was quite unbecoming of an academic of her standing.

Instead of reason, she relied heavily on emotion – something I found strange coming from a law professor. She was biased, and while she found it unfair being labeled a homophobic fundamentalist bigot, I found it difficult not to see her as one. She definitely did not need the assistance of “biased liberal reporters” to perpetuate this image of her. There was scarce reasoning behind her crusade. To be honest, I wonder what drives her and her mother, Dr Thio Su-Mien, to champion against homosexuality so fervently. The level of emotionalism involved at times came across to me at least, as deeply personal."

Yes, Thio Li-Ann must have gotten her obsession with homosexuality from her mother, Thio Su-Mien, who, from more than one account, is equally homophobic. Here's a TODAY letter she sent in last year questioning the biological origins of homosexuality. I questioned whether taking the low road would result in a loss of credibility, but at some point, you just gotta wonder: Did they get spurned by some gays they had crushes on in primary school or something?

Better minds than I have picked apart (See here, here, here, here & here, among many others. And I hope you do take the time to do so.) her arguments (not that difficult to do though), so I shan't offer my own rebuttals.

But I do want to highlight something: If you had read or seen her speech, you would know she said she was inundated with threatening emails after taking her stance which so distressed her that she went to the police. Well, from my digging, it turns out it was ONE person who sent the "threatening" email. And that was Alfian Sa'at.

I got this from here:
In the press, Thio Li-Ann has spoken about one hate mail she has received, regarding someone who wanted to 'defile her grave'.

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

From her Parliamentary Speech:

"This August, I had my own experience with this sort of hysterical attack. I received an email from someone I never met, full of vile and obscene invective which I shall not repeat, accusing me of
hatemongering. It cursed me and expressed the wish to defile my grave on the day 377A was repealed.

I believe in free debate but this oversteps the line. I was distressed, disgusted, upset enough to file a police report. Does a normal person go up to a stranger to express such irrational hatred?"

From The New Paper:

'I have already been insulted and received hate mail, even harassment.

'But should we be a nation of cowed individuals, subjugated by fear of being called hateful names?

[...]

Since her speech on Monday, she has been called terms like 'homophobic', 'unenlightened' and 'prejudiced' on the Internet. Some called her a 'fundamentalist'.

Many other profanies, vulgarities and four-letter words were hurled at her because of her stand.

Prof Thio said: 'One person expressed the wish to defile my grave on the day 377A was repealed. And I am conveying the sense of it in the most polite way I know how.

'I don't believe in repeating obscenities.'

From TODAY:

Professor Thio herself was "shell-shocked" and made a police report after receiving an abusive email in August from an unnamed stranger who threatened to defile her grave on the day Section 377A was repealed.

"If it was just a rude letter, I'd let it slip. But this really overstepped things," the law lecturer told Today.

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

Some of you might be curious to know what was this mail that was "full of vile and obscene invective", with "obscenities" she could not repeat, that she had to censor by "conveying the sense of it in the most polite way I know how".

I reproduce it here for you. I know what that email is because I wrote it. And contrary to the TODAY report that said it was by 'an unnamed stranger', I actually signed off with my name, and sent it
from my yahoo email account (the one I'm using here). This is the email. It consists of four lines:

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

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2007 05:03 +0800 (CST)
From: "Alfian Bin Sa'at"
Subject: a valentine
To: lawtla@nus.edu.sg
Sunday, Aug 12, 5.03am

Subject: a valentine

Dear Dr Thio,

This is a personal note to you.

I think you are absolutely fucked up.

As long as you exist, with your hatemongering and your vicious crusades against sexual minorities, I will never leave Singapore. I hope I outlive you long enough to see the repeal of 377A and on that day I will piss on your grave.

With love,
Alfian.

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

Thio Li-Ann has filed a police report, accusing me of 'Intentional Harassment'. On 26 October, I sat for a two-hour investigation at the Tanglin Division Police Station at Kampong Java Road. The
Invesigating Officer was a very friendly and helpful man. Those of you with uniform fantasies, please restrain from asking me if he was attractive, because I will not entertain that query. Anyway, he wasn't in uniform. In my statement, I reported the following.

1) The mail was shot off one night after clubbing with friends (hence the time). Before that, on the cab ride home, I had been told that Thio was the 'member of the public' who called the police, resulting in the cancellation of the 'Pink Picnic'. The officer asked me how I felt when I wrote that letter and I said 'aggrieved, wounded and helpless'. And then taking a cue from her Parliamentary speech, I added, 'distressed, disgusted and upset'.

2) I had sent only that one email to her, which I did not think satisfies the criteria of repetition and persistence that would constitute 'harassment'.

3) The phrase 'fucked up', to my understanding, meant 'dysfunctional'. I said I did not consider the term abusive.

4) I had not threatened her with bodily harm.

5) In fact I had not made any threats to her at all, unless she thinks being a fellow citizen with me in Singapore constitutes a threat.

6) As for 'cursing' her with death by talking about outliving her, I said I was merely pointing out the obvious fact of her mortality. I also said that since I was younger than her, I would naturally expect her to die earlier, barring any misfortune. The sympathetic policeman offered to change the word 'die' to 'pass on' in my statement.

7) On the part about pissing on her grave, I said that gesture was meant to celebrate the repeal of 377A. I also said that a few lawyers had told me it was not illegal to piss on graves.

As the interview went on, the incredulity of it all I think struck the policeman. I told him that if what I sent her constituted harassment, then it would set an impossible precedent. Anyone who has
received any message through whatever form of communication causing 'emotional distress' can file a police report alleging 'intentional harassment'.

I asked the policeman why he was even acting on her complaint, and whether he had more urgent cases to attend to. I told him she was wasting taxpayers' money and state resources. I said this was precisely the kind of 'bully-boy tactics' that she spoke of in her Parliamentary speech. I also said I considered her calling the authorities about the 'Pink Picnic' to be an example of harassment, and that I felt harassed listening to her Parliamentary speech.

I ended the statement by saying that I hoped she was aware that many of her actions have affected and hurt other people. I said I did not discount the possibility of her receiving other hate mail, but acting on me specifically as I was a strategic target, having written plays with gay themes.

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 outweights the flak I will inevitably receive.

Alfian. : )

Ok, I can't resist pulling out some choice quotes from Thio's rant.
"However, I have noted a disturbing phenomenon over the 377A debate– the argument by insult. Instead of reasoning, some have resorted to name-calling to intimidate and silence their opponents ... When you shout, full of sound and fury, and call your opponents nasty names, this terminates public debate ... Let us also speak with civility, which cannot be legislated, but draws deep from our character and upbringing."

Alright, Ms. Thio, let's see what sorta rhetoric YOU choose to employ, shall we?
"We want to be able to say, Majullah Singapura, not Mundur Singapura!" (Mundur means backward) Such meaningful, mature, metaphors in a parliamentary speech from a, again, OxfordHarvardCambridge-trained legal eagle.

"Anal-penetrative sex is inherently damaging to the body and a misuse of organs, like shoving a straw up your nose to drink. The anus is designed to expel waste; when something is forcibly inserted into it, the muscles contract and cause tearing; fecal waste, viruses carried by sperm and blood thus congregate, with adverse health implications like ‘gay bowel syndrome’, anal cancer." Good to know Ms. Thio is well-educated about the intricacy of buggery and felt the need to describe it in all its wonder to the House. Oh, fuck this. This is just hilarious. She gets her insults from School of Infantile Jibes, doesn't she? First, mundur, then, straw up your nose.

More choice civil quotes: "license for perversity", "I speak, at the risk of being burned at the stake by militant activists" Such a matyr for her cause she is.

The best part: Her speech invokes a Her World article. HER WORLD!!! "This social decline will provoke more headlines like a 2004 Her World article called: “Gay guy confesses: I slept with 100 men…one of them could be your hubby.” What about the broken-hearts involved?" HAHAHAHAHA. Me thinks she probably did a million and one of those "Is your boyfriend actually gay? 5 signs that could spell trouble" quizzes.
Fuck man, we should have quoted 8 Days or LIME for our Mass Comm papers, at least it's relevant!

OK I know I said earlier I wouldn't write much on her speech, but I just can't resist! Her hypocrisy just beggars belief!

On one hand, she says, "You cannot base sound public philosophy on poor politicized pseudo ‘science’.". And in the very next paragraph? "Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder." OxfordHarvardCambridge, people!

Seriously though, such displays of blind bigotry and homophobia from academics remind me of how the dangerous terrorists are always the intelligent ones who attend college in the US, learn important engineering skills like making bombs and such before heading back to radicalise the masses. And the scary thing is that people like Thio spout their hate from a platform of authority and respect, which gives an appearance of credibility. Also, Thio is a professor, an educator of young (and I have faith, independent, rational, logical minds) at the esteemed Law faculty in NUS , teaching among others, human rights. The joke writes itself. Alas, it would be funnier if it weren't so frightening.

Rather than the slippery slope down condoning of gay sex, incest, paedophlia, etc., I think the slippery slope we're in danger of rapidly sliding down unnoticed, like the proverbial frog in boiling water, is the one where the Christian right, learning from successful examples from its bigger, stronger brethren in the US, is seeking to influence and commandeer politics and public policy. The homosexual agenda will not be able to make you or your child gay/lesbian, but the fundamentalist agenda will most certainly want to decide for you what's best for you and what to and what not to do.