Friday, November 2, 2007
Yvonne Lee Slapped with a Gigantic Trout.

NUS Assistant Professor Yvonne Lee, who wrote an article of May 4, 2007 on why "decriminalizing homosexual acts would be an error", had her thesis zapped into fine powder by bloggers. Her mentor, Ms Thio Li-Ann, suffered the same fate when her parliamentary speech drew rounds of condemnation from cyberspace. This is the article Yvonne Lee has wrote (in bold below) to the Straits Times in response to Janadas Devan's satire of Ms Thio Li-Ann's speech, along with my response.

I REFER to Mr Janadas Devan's article, '377A debate and the rewriting of pluralism' (ST, Oct 27).

It is unfortunate that Mr Janadas Devan was 'exceedingly' depressed by the parliamentary debate on S377A of the Penal Code. However, one's personal feelings and sentiments such as 'was left looking stupid, speechless, confused, sour-faced and uncivil' is neither a rational nor relevant argument.

Ms Lee - once again you have dictated your air of superiority over us on what should be termed as rational or relevant. What is so irrational about feeling and 'looking stupid and confused'? So it is perfectly alright to use religion in an argument but it is not ok to use one's personal feelings and sentiments?

The use of expressions such as 'she tore to shreds so many of our cherished beliefs' obfuscates real concerns of what such beliefs may be and whether they ought to be so cherished in the first place. This emotional appeal insidiously draws attention away from the validity of opposing arguments.

Now you're telling me I should not cherish my own beliefs because they are 'drawing attention away' from the 'real' arguments? And what exactly do you mean by 'real concerns'? That we do not share the same values and beliefs as yourself and Ms Thio? Ms Thio during her parliamentary speech has been equally, if not more emotionally charged. Does that consider drawing attention away from the validity of her arguments?

What are your beliefs then? And why should I be concerned that your beliefs be cherished? Are you not, in your own brilliant sense, slapping your own face with a gigantic trout because you believed in something when you wrote this letter?

Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann validly used the phrase 'chronological snobbery' in her parliamentary speech to counter the argument that S377A was 'archaic' and therefore should be repealed. Mr Devan's observation that 'chronological snobbery' was first coined by Owen Barfield and C.S. Lewis, is irrelevant. First, his observation fails to justify the 'labelling' of S377A as 'archaic'. Second, parliamentarians do not assert originality in their speeches, but instead seek to express views relevant to law and policy making.

Oh. I see. Now parliamentarians are allowed to quote from other sources without giving credit to them. By that count, it is perfectly okay to lift off an entire speech from Plato, Martin Luther King or MM Lee without citing my sources. But then you may argue - 'but, but, 'chronological snobbery' is two words! How can you compare two words to an entire speech?'. Ah, Ms Lee - two words too, for people like you on your favourite, most oft-used phrase - 'slippery slope'. Slap!

Further, Mr Devan was just asserting the fact that the term was coined by Owen Barfield, and he makes no further attempt at accusing Ms Thio of 'borrowing' words for her 'fiery and passionate' speech (first coined by your good sister, Ms Jenica Chua). Why are you acting all so defensive about it? Did Ms Thio give you a word-limit to meet?

If you are suggesting that Mr Devan has not justified how 'archaic' the S377A is, then perhaps the responsibility now rests on your broad, padded shoulders that why is S377A un-archaic. And is it part of your cherished beliefs that S377A is not archaic? If so, please, please, please (!!!) - refrain from expressing your views otherwise you'll be slapping yourself with a huge trout again (refer to paragraph 3 of your lovely letter).

Mr Devan alluded to Professor Thio's use of uncivil and unkind phrases such as 'shoving a straw up your nose to drink' and 'Mundur Singapura' ('backward' in Malay).

He observed that the first phrase has been used in 'American anti-gay pamphlets'. A cursory sweep of gay activists' propaganda will reveal the convenient labelling of all contrary viewpoints including reasoned arguments, as 'anti-gay'. Such labelling avoids a substantive debate of the real concerns.

Of course. And these labelling on gays doesn't 'avoid a substantive debate of the real concerns'?

"...bewitched by the empty rhetoric and emotional sloganeering employed by many radical liberals..."
"...homosexuality contrary to biological design and immoral…"
"...dishonoured humanity…"
"...activists often try to infiltrate and hijack human rights initiatives to serve their political agenda, discrediting an otherwise noble cause to protect the weak and poor beguiling but fallacious association…"
"...deceptive political ploy…"
"...gender identity disorder…"

Just in case you're wondering, they are devised by your dear Ms Thio (actually I think you'd have memorized it by now). If Ms Thio can label gay people as having a 'deceptive political ploy', then I perfectly understand why others are not allowed to use labels on well-meaning folks like her. You're allowed to scream but we're not allowed to even whisper. Perfect recipe for a civil discussion, eh?

Oh alright, we shouldn't call you 'anti-gay', let's think of something else then. What about 'religious-propaganda drivers'? 'Deceptive political ploy plotters'? 'Tolerence-disorder individuals'? So by describing anal sex as a straw up a nose, it's a reasoned, justified and civil argument? Logic, Ms Lee, logic. Apparently your beliefs has suspended all forms of logic (including your fashion sense, may I add).

S377A prohibits acts of gross indecency between two male adults. Any argument for or against its retention must necessarily consider the repugnancy of anal sex or sodomy justifying its classification as 'gross indecency'.

You're surprisingly quiet about the law allowing heterosexuals to engage in sodomy. Well, maybe it's a male straw and a female nose, so I guess that's ok.

He further observed that 'Mundur means 'backward' in Malay, and 'backward' here alludes to that 'straw' and another orifice'. If Mr Devan had read Professor Thio's speech carefully, he would have noticed that the phrase 'Mundur Singapura' was spoken in the context of not allowing our society to 'regress' to early civilizations where indiscriminate sex was prevalent and there was no laws governing sexual behaviour. This is hardly uncivil or unkind. It is inappropriate and unconscionable for anyone to suggest otherwise.

Oh Ms Lee, Ms Lee. Which part of "bad humour" did you not get? We know Ms. Thio is trying to drive home a pun and you very well know that she's referring to anal sex by mentioning 'Mundur Singapura', even though you/she claims that it's talking about the regression of our society. Have you heard of something called 'association'? Like 'party' = 'fun and drinks', law professors = 'staid and stern' and poker cards = 'gambling and IRs'? It is indeed laughable when you protested against the intended pun when you could have gone to the streets, asked a hundred people, and they would have gave you the same answer that 'yes, Ms Thio is alluding 'Mundur Singapura' to anal sex'.

The key word, ironically, Ms Lee, is context. If Ms Thio used this phrase in another speech (say - Why Older Women are Staying Single), no one would have thought about anal sex. So if I as a bystander, am able to associate the phrase "Mundur Singapura' to anal sex, can I deem this phrase as uncivil or unkind? You understand law, Ms Lee, your livelihood depends on it - have you heard of something called the 'rule of thumb'? Go to the streets and ask if people think Ms Thio's usage of colloquial language was appropriate. I'm not looking because you'll get a slap on your face again.

It's like asking you the question "Ms Lee, do you like straws? Do you know how it feels like to have my huge, thick and veiny straw up your tiny nose?" Oh don't get mad - I'm just talking about real plastic straws and human noses. No one's going to allude that to anal sex!

Parliamentarians speak to the population at large. To use colloquial language at times to illustrate a point is perfectly permissible.

For Mr Devan to declare and wax lyrical about his depression, is at best highly self-indulgent.

Now Ms Lee, don't get me started on self-indulgence - Ms Thio's comment that "the arguments to retain 377A are overwhelmingly compelling" couldn't be anymore self-indulgent. And not to mention her singing praises about your previous article as being 'well-researched' and 'cogent' (which was unfortunately torn into shreds by many others). Being your predecessor and (I highly suspect) mentor, it is quite funny to see Ms Thio indirectly praising her own self.

Self-indulgence, really. Now pass me the trout.