Singaporeans don’t seem to have much better to do than to discuss homosexuality these days (I suppose by this post I would be guilty of this), and today’s papers carried reports about how National University of Singapore law academic and former Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li Ann had decided to withdraw from her upcoming stint to teach Human Rights Law and Constitutionalism in Asia, at the New York University (NYU) School of Law.

Prof Thio is notorious in Singapore for her speech in Parliament comparing anal sex to shoving a straw up the nose, and for her views against homosexuality.  Not unexpectedly, when pro-gay students received news of Prof Thio’s visiting appointing at NYU, they circulated information about her anti-gay views so that students could make "informed decisions regarding class registration".  According to the Office of the Dean, a number of "members of the community" (I assume this includes NYU academics) had even written directly to Prof Thio to object to her appointment as visiting professor.

Vigorous opposition to Prof Thio’s appointment can be seen in online articles / debates at Singapore’s The Online Citizen and the US legal tabloid Above the Law.  In the case of the latter, see the Online Petition, NYU Professor not a Fan of Gay Rights, Thio Li Ann : All about Her Mother, and Much Ado About Nothing, amongst many others.  (OK, so the Americans also seem to spend about as much time as Singaporeans discussing homosexuality).

Prof Thio’s two classes were severely unsubscribed (roughly only 25% enrolment), and she withdrew at least partly because of this.

Pro-gay camp, 1.

But wait !  Just a couple of weeks ago, it was announced that former Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong, who is pro-gay, would not be appointed for a second term.  It would be naive to think that the opposition by the anti-gay camp in Singapore to his reappointment was not taken into consideration by the Select Committee.  So there we go.

Anti-gay camp, 1.

And the losers are both camps and everyone else.  By collectively opposing the appointment and reappointment of Prof Thio Li Ann as visiting professor and Siew Kum Hong as Nominated Member of Parliament respectively based on their pro or anti-gay views, the pro and anti-gay camps have cut off from themselves and from others the contributions (in addition to their pro / anti-gay views) which these individuals can bring to the quality of learning and to parliamentary debate.

Are there many other academics as qualified as Thio Li Ann to teach about human rights in Asia ?  Has any NMP spoken as extensively and as intelligently as Siew Kum Hong in Parliament ?  I don’t necessarily agree with all of the views of both, but I think that we are a little poorer without them.

Finally, a word of sympathy for what Thio Li Ann is going through.  Many Internet forumers in Singapore have called her a coward (and worse things) for withdrawing from NYU.  I don’t think this is fair.  Given how vocal the Americans are compared to us Asians, I imagine the opposition that she would have to confront for her views would be several times more intense than anything anyone would experience in Singapore.  The US is not like sanitised Singapore, where debates are polite, protests / demonstrations unheard of, and personal safety generally a given.  Here Siew Kum Hong mentions his wife’s fear that he would be manhandled by security guards, and jeering "where were you", both at the AWARE EOGM, and we Singaporeans recoil at the indignity of the proceedings.

Some of us might not agree with Thio Li Ann’s anti-gay views.  Some of us might think that Thio Li Ann deserves a very public opposition to her anti-gay views.  But she is, like all of us gay or straight, human, and I would empathise and think that any person in the same circumstances as Thio Li Ann would feel the same pressure to retreat.

And the above I think is one of the problems with the pro / anti-gay debate in Singapore.  The parties in both camps have stopped seeing each other as human, "fearfully and wonderfully made", and seen it fit to hurl all sorts of invective as well as death threats and fake (thankfully) anthrax powder at each other.  (Well, the latter two were received by the anti-gay camp courtesy of anonymous persons from the pro-gay camp, but the favour was not returned).

A doctor friend today asked for my thoughts on the disciplinary process for lawyers in comparision to the proposed changes to the disciplinary process for doctors (see Ministry of Health summary on proposed amendments to the Medical Registration Act).  In particular, she asked for my thoughts on the issue of bias in self-regulation, which the proposed amendment seeks to mitigate by making possible the appointment of a senior legal or judicial officer (instead of a doctor) to chair disciplinary inquiries against doctors.

Apart from the technical details on the mechanics of the disciplinary processes, I offered a personal opinion on doctors vs lawyers and (I think) came out (in some way) in favour of doctors :

… as a passing observation, lawyers are trained to be adversarial in outlook, ie. they will always try and find fault with the other party.  Doctors on the other hand have a greater sense of camaraderie and are (I think) more tolerant of faults.  For this reason, the Law Society disciplinary process is more likely to mete out harsh penalties [ against lawyers ], leading to the perception that it is (generally) not biased in favour of lawyers.

Whatever the failings of doctors may be when it comes to disciplining their own kind, the professional camaraderie thing is something I really admire.  Or at least I would say that since I’m not a doctor and subject to the politics of your learned profession, there seems to be more of a professional camaraderie thing going for doctors compared to lawyers.

(None of the above, of course, excuses what I believe to have been a mismanagement of my mother-in-law’s condition.)

For lack of anything better to blog about, I’m going to write about the proposed changes to the constitution of my favourite charity, AWARE.  According to the Straits Times (7 July 2009), AWARE has submitted / is submitting changes to its constitution to the Registrar of Societies and Commissioner of Charities for approval.  The two changes, intended to prevent another unexpected leadership takeover, are :

(a)  Requirement for not less than two years’ of membership before a member is eligible to be voted into the Executive Committee; and

(b)  Right of the Executive Committee to expel any "member who acts against ths group’s interest" (quote from ST).

My questions are :

(1)  What are AWARE’s interests ?  Is this set out exhaustively in the Constitution ?  Or is this determined (in part or in whole) by the EXCO ?

(2)  If AWARE’s interests are set out exhaustively in its Constitution, would a member be considered to be acting against its interest if she attempts to gather support to amend the Constitution, against the wishes of another large group (though possibly not the majority) of the members and / or the Exco ?

(3)  If AWARE’s interests are partly or entirely determined by the Exco, would a member be considered to be acting againsts its interests if she attempts to gather support for an extraordinary general meeting and a vote of no confidence against the Exco leadership ?

(And as a philosophical point — how does expelling a member fit in with AWARE’s philosophy of accommodating diverse views and interests in its membership and its work ?)

What are the checks and balances to guard against the abuse of this new power which is concentrated in the Exco ?  Assuming there are none, the next time a "rogue" Exco assumes power will also be the last time AWARE survives a surprise leadership takeover.

In Singapore, the state may preventively detain a person without trial if it believes he is a threat to national security.  There are checks, by no means satisfactory according to critics, to the exercise of such a power though.  Such as the requirement for reviews by the Minister and President at regular intervals.  The person who is preventively detained may also seek a judicial review of the legality of his detention.

The foregoing concerns personal liberty, which as a fundamental right in the constitution may not be deprived except in accordance with law.  I don’t think it is reasonable to expect the AWARE constitution to be anywhere as comprehensive.  At the same time, assuming the ST report had comprehensively covered the proposed AWARE constitutional amendments, it would be naive to think that those amendments are sufficient to safeguard the interests of its members and / or cannot be abused.