Michael Petraeus, aka Critical Spectator, is a Polish expat who lives in Singapore.
He loves the country. He loves the balance of rule of law and liberty which enables everyone in the country to have ample enough space for themselves, but the liberty is curtailed in such a fashion that the rights of others are not trampled.
Moreover, the press for communitarian standards is prevalent in Singapore, as well. The Red Dot nestled at the very botton of the Malaysian peninsula doesn't promote individual liberty as the final goal of government. Free speech is strictly limited. Individuals can face fines and even jail time for writing incendiary comments about religion or race. Groups must seek permits to display points of view in public. Rallies can only take place in Hong Lim Park. No parades are permitted in the city state.
Recently, they passed a "Fake News" law which cracks down on news which the government deems to be false or misleading. Anyone from a much freer free speech culture (the United States) would blanch at such restrictions.
The penalties for drug use and drug dealing are quite high, as well. Individuals can be arrested or sorely fined for littering. One American commented that Singapore's political and legal culture is quite "paternalistic."
At any rate, the city state prizes community harmony, not just individual liberty, and endeavors to strike a balance which considers the well-being of the whole. There is plenty of good and bad which people can comment on regarding this legal culture.
At any rate, Petraeus has an elitist and a globalist streak, of course.
He thinks that Singapore should import more foreign workers to take local jobs. This policy pushes aside the natural born or naturalized citizens of the country. This is fundamentally unfair, and it undermines the civic order of a country. Why bring in foreigners to do the jobs which the locals can do themselves? A country is more than an economy.
He also believes that the United States' high violence/homicide rate is a direct result of the Second Amendment, aka the right to keep and bear arms. This elitist dismissal of a fundamental human right is quite troubling. Sure, in Singapore he feels safe and sound walking the streets at night because of the harsh laws which rightfully punish potential assailants and criminals. However, the Second Amendment was never enacted to protect Americans' desire to hunt or to protect their homes from burglars. The fundamental reason for the Second Amendment was to arm and equip the citizenry against the government should it grow expansive and then tyrannical. This calculation was essential to the passage of the United States Constitution since the American colonists had to take on and ultimately took down the greatest Empire in the World at the Time, the British Empire, and they were keen at the outset on taking away the colonists' firearms.
Singapore's origins are quite different. They were expelled from the Malaysian confederation. The United States was forged out of Thirteen Colonies which expected to be treated with the same dignity and accorded the same rights as other Englishmen throughout the British Empire–and the British Government refused to accommodate that basic expectation.
Furthermore, the gross gun violence which has become all too prevalent in the United States is not because of the large number of firearms. The breakdown in rule of law in liberal enclaves, coupled with the unfounded gun control policies which disarm law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to stop violent criminals and street gangs, have contributed to the disturbing rise of gun violence in my country. If one were to remove the gun deaths which take place in top ten largest urban areas in the country, one would find that the rates of gun violence are considerably lower than in other countries.
Perhaps even lower than in Singapore?
At any rate, I wanted to establish at the outset that Mr. Critical Spectator has a globalist and an elitist veneer about his writings and view of the world. In addition, Petraeus tends to side with the Singapore government as much as possible, and denounce citizen uprisings at the outset. His critique of the Hong Kong protests make sense from the perspective of "What is the End Game?" However, the desire for any people, for any region of the world to be free of Communist tyranny, those sentiments are commendable, not deplorable.
So, with all of this outlined about Mr. Petraeus' view of politics and governance, it was quite surprising and even refreshing to find that he agrees with the Singapore Government's decision to maintain Section 377a, the statute in Singapore's legal code which criminalizes homosexual acts between men.
![]("https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YA9H0x209iA/YNaR4GJnztI/AAAAAAACPkY/1BLaY3DJVjUOea8_GiEzeLONhIdju8F_ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1456/Critical%2BSpectator%2BLGBT%2BPage.jpeg")
He begins his comments on this very contentious matter as follows:
precisely because it may be considered controversial is why I believe it is
important to publish it. So, let’s begin with a both baffling and bold
statement:
are both right.
general theory of relativity, explaining gravity and, consequently, the
behavior of large objects. About a decade later Niels Bohr and Werner
Heisenberg gave the world their interpretation of quantum mechanics, which
serves to describe the physical behavior of subatomic particles.
link – in other words, what works for large objects doesn’t seem to work at a
single subatomic particle level – and vice versa.
that extend from the interests of an individual to the interests of the society
– clashing with them violently – with people on both sides of the front
exchanging arguments, completely missing the simple fact that they are speaking
from entirely different perspectives.
they are both correct, while being in conflict with each other.
against a communitarian view. The former – arguably more visible these days –
suggests that individual freedom is of paramount importance and that people
should have the liberty to do what they want even if it meets disapproval of
the majority. Communitarianism preaches superiority of the common interest over
individual rights.
This discussion does deserve more attention. Often, advocates of limited government and democratic values will say: "People should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they don't harm anybody." The framework which makes such a government possible, however, must abide by a number of cultural norms. Furthemore, a government which exists to ensure the protection of rights must ensure that those rights are not transgressed, whether in the short term or the long term. Regarding freedom of speech, for example, people cannot falsely shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, which would lead to stampedes, harm, and even death. Defamation carries long-standing consequences against those harms by deliberate falsehoods spoken or published, and those harms undermine the rights of those victims.
Rights cannot exist unless they are accorded to everyone, and rights must be recognized as innate and essential to each person.
will clash if they stray outside of the area they make sense in. On an individual level there is nothing wrong
with anybody choosing to live with and loving any other person regardless of
their gender (and as long as the relationship is consensual). There is really
no reason to deny two consenting adults the ability to live (and sleep) with
each other.
Yes, and no.
In a superficial sense, yes there is no direct harm which follows when two men insist on abusing their bodies and call it "sex." Then again, the decline in human capital, the health care costs, and the general moral decline which follows when such acts are permitted do cost all of us. The consequences which ensuse from a culture that permits such behaviors does harm all of us.
for the society at large.
an individual is defined by the person’s subjective interests and feelings. The
value of relationships to the society is defined by their functional roles.
therefore not equal to a heterosexual relationship (for the society), even
though on an individual level they are both the same – i.e. are expressions of
mutual love between two people.
communitarian expectation of a heterosexual relationship on a homosexual person
is pointless for the society and harmful for the individual. It is therefore
preferable that individuals retain their liberty in choosing whom to spend
their lives with.
surrogacy or adoption but that’s just trying to find a detour to reach a
predetermined ideological goal, while ignoring broader implications,
consequences of which we don’t know yet – and this uncertainty warrants prudent
behavior.
taking all Western ideas wholesale, evaluating each of them for its usefulness
instead or observing how they play out elsewhere before making a decision.
only by the parents but also the society, as social stigma can impede good
upbringing, even if both parents are perfect in their roles. Prevailing social
norms have to be accounted for when enacting laws that address issues of a
small minority. And while there is little scientific evidence of directly
adverse effects, the samples used in research supporting same-sex parenting are
neither randomized nor big enough – and possibly impacted by ideological bias.
gateway for promotion of other ideological goals, which are even more
questionable. One of them visible in the West today is an attempt at
normalization of transsexualism and the queer theory, supporting the idea of
gender fluidity.
with courts ruling that children as young as 3 or 4 years old can undergo
gender transitioning, with parents finding it fashionable to have or raise a
transgender child – including celebrities like Charlize Theron, who is
transitioning her 7 year old son into a daughter. Or with informal initiatives
which grow in popularity, like the “Drag Queen Story Hour“, featuring men
dressed up as women reading stories to children in schools and libraries around
America and in a few cities abroad already as well.
reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and bookstores. DQSH
captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives
kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models. In spaces like
this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and
imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real.”
talking about what two people do in their bedroom but what millions of children
are being taught in schools at an especially important and fragile time in
their approaching adolescence.
least two of the men have turned out to be past sex-offenders. This is
tantamount to a bait and switch scheme, and certainly does not inspire trust
about the entire community – nor about the consequences of supporting LGBTQ
causes only to be duped into letting both terrible people and terrible ideas
dictate the new standards.
– even though it may sound counter-intuitive in this case. Section 377A, which
(technically) criminalizes sexual relations between men is a remnant of
colonial legislation, most of which was repealed in 2007. It is not applied in
practice and the government has long declared it would not be enforced.
appear it is common sense to just get rid of it. But sometimes the most
reasonable thing is to defend the status quo.
largely conservative sentiments of the Singaporean society. Secondly – and
crucially – it focuses attention of the pro-LGBT activists, who cannot progress
beyond this obstacle with any other ideas.
If it falls, one day, then it is safe to assume that Pink Dot will not dissolve
– much like it never happened with activism in the West – but, instead, is
going to turn to promoting other ideas, opening Pandora’s box for the government.
unenviable task of balancing the interests of the country (both its society and
well-being of its citizens, as well as its global brand as a modern, supremely
developed city-state) with the need to retain support from individuals across
various age groups and beliefs.
repeal, proving that the government’s reluctance to remove it is not unfounded.
live in Singapore today – free from any persecution and arguably being the
safest and most prosperous in the entire region.
because political and ideological agendas are too valuable, leveraging this
meaningless section as a symbol to rally support behind.
discrimination – even if many people who join in may idealistically believe it
does. It’s about exerting ideological influence on the country and political
one on the government that leads it. But the authorities cannot yield, in no
small part because the pressure on them would only intensify to give protesters
even more later.
leave it there to prevent more ambitious pursuits of even more dubious aims.
All of that while waiting to see where these ideas lead in the Western
countries, respecting the will of the majority while leaving the door open for
a safe and comfortable life to the minorities.
you’ll witness anywhere in the world.