A FELLOW columnist’s amusing attempt to get to the bottom of the sodomy
issue (Thor Kah Hoong, ‘Hating the Loss of Innocence’, Malay Mail,
July 8) has, of course, a much more serious side.

A FELLOW columnist’s amusing attempt to get to the bottom of the sodomy issue (Thor Kah Hoong, ‘Hating the Loss of Innocence’, Malay Mail, July 8) has, of course, a much more serious side. The politicisation of personal morality always draws a clear line in the sand, and “we” are immediately obliged to pit ourselves against “them” as if the security of our own existence depended on it. The liberal argument “to each his, or her, own” meets the unassailable conservative response that homosexuality is an offence against the laws of God, nature, and man’s law; and the liberal view is therefore a heretical, immoral, and illegal one. The tolerant argument is also immediately hobbled by the principle it seeks to champion: If it is important that we accept and understand difference (in the case of, say, homosexuality), how then do we deal with lunatic conservatives? By our own liberal standards, they have an equal claim on our open-mindedness as any other minority group, even though they – as an article of faith – will not extend us the same courtesy. Our own logic dictates that we must yield our freedom or risk, at best, the practice of double standards – or at worse we ourselves become fanatics by fighting fire with fire (as is the case in staunchly secularist Turkey). This is the corollary of a more ancient and basic problem that appears at least as far back as Plato’s Republic: What if people, through the process of democratic elections, vote in a tyrant? “This is not a far-fetched possibility,” wrote Sir Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (from which, incidentally, this column takes its name). “It has happened a number of times; and every time it has happened, it has put in a hopeless intellectual position all those democrats who adopt, as the ultimate basis of their political creed, the principle of majority rule.” Plato’s view is that idiots like Voltaire (who disagree with you, but defend unto death your right to your views) pave the way towards tyranny, and that people, seeing as they are so very naive, should save themselves a lot of trouble by obeying the dictatorship of wise philosopher-kings. We have lived willingly under this kind of political and social absolutism for generations, and while it is convenient to blame former leaders for retarding democratic progress, our blame is as naive as praise – we switch easily from one to the other, and yesterday’s hero is today’s villain. We cheat ourselves into thinking that voting at the general elections is the exercise of a sacred duty, but really we wash our hands of further responsibility by putting the “burden” of government on the inadequate shoulders of heroes we create for the purpose. It is easy to see why: Democratic political participation is difficult work. Government demands of all of us constant vigilance, a comprehensive understanding of policy, and a generous view of irreconcilable political positions. In our own peculiar context, it demands that we break down the walls of division, rather than add more bricks to them: It is very well to say we should be united, but how united can we be if we cling so tightly to our hobby-horses of race, language, religion and political creed? Unless we are first prepared to put our own beliefs in the line of fire, we cannot expect our opponents to do so – this might demand far more than we are currently able to give, but without some common ground with conservative opinion, the divide between us will continue to widen. It is no use expecting our leaders to show the way: Quite apart from the fact that communal politics thrives on emphasising difference, depending on other people to do our thinking for us serves only to extend the totalitarian logic of absolutist government into our own heads. While the slew of bottom jokes that has followed in the wake of the sodomy controversy has been amusing, the prolonged demonising of homosexuals and the transgendered shows yet again that we aren’t yet prepared to accept the burden of democratic practice. The trap is wide open: We demand greater freedom in the abolition of politically repressive laws, and we believe firmly that we cannot develop a more mature public sphere with such legislation in place. But shouldn’t we first prove ourselves equal to the responsibility of freedom, or should we walk into Plato’s trap once again?
• U-En Ng graduated in mediaeval languages and is a journalist. He is parliamentary sketchwriter for Malay Mail.,br>

Source: Malay Mail – July 14, 2008