Silenced by a cautious media and with the lack of any 'activist' judges, Singaporeans - and the GLBT community - are denied an opportunity to assess its standards of public and private morality and to resolve such issues for themselves. Fridae's new political columnist, Paul Tan, highlights the importance for the GLBT community to be politically active.

There is nothing conservative about denying homosexuals, transsexuals and transvestites equal benefits and equal protection of the law. And there is nothing liberal in advocating that we receive the same privileges as any other normal human being in society. It is about recognising that the state's legitimacy derives from its people, that homosexuals are people, and that what we do in private, or as an assertion of our conscientious beliefs, are not subject to majoritarian bully.

But of course it is much easier to stick a label - "liberals", "left-winger", "special interest", "unnatural", " them" - on the GLBT community because that means you don't have to look at the substantive merits of our claim for the precise reason that you cannot deal with them, or you won't.

So it was totally expected that when People Like Us (PLU) in late January wrote to Singapore's Members of Parliament urging them to consider dropping the ban against oral sex between consenting homosexual adults (nothing even very extreme), the immediate response was, "Please, respect our space." No, respect our space.

The fact is, that despite Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's protestations at the Harvard Club of Singapore Anniversary Dinner, which I attended, that the government will "stop being all things to all people" and allow a civil society to flourish, the signs are that this is more talk than action. After all, if part of allowing a civil society to grow involves devolving freedom so that individuals may speak, associate and engage in rigorous debate, the last thing any politician should be doing is to preempt that discussion by saying they are "unconvinced."

Clearly there are problems in the way public discourse takes place (or doesn't) and I thought it would be a good way to start this column by looking at what some of these are.

Generally speaking, two recurring problems plague the way in which discussion on gay rights takes place. The first is simple intolerance. Debate cannot take place if the only argument the opponents of gay rights have is that "society is not ready." Let's admit it: the majority will never be ready to change as long as they continue to hold on to irrational stereotypes. No amount of discussion is going to change their mind. The only way to disprove those stereotypes is to actually make them confront the reality that their paranoia is based on false premises. The dominant whites would never have accepted interracial marriages or integrated public spaces were it not for the United States Supreme Court handing down decisions saying that such practices were not legal.

Hopefully, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's uber-heroism will make opponents of gay marriage see that homosexuals loving each other do not cause heterosexual marriages to break up. And that stable homosexual relationships don't lead to bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia and space missions going bad.

Perhaps more frustrating, though, is the sheer intellectual dishonesty that pervades discussion. Take for instance Assistant Professor Tan Seow Hon's response to my article, "Oral Sex Law Demeans the Individual" (The Straits Times commentary, Nov 11, 2003). She spent considerable effort explaining (wrongly) the philosophies of several legal scholars while completely leaving unanswered my central argument that private choices should remain outside the ambit of the law. Often, arguments about "tradition" are also couched in secular terms when, in truth, they are a disguise for religious ideology. It's not that religious tradition is not an important consideration, but if are to have an open discussion, the least we can do is to be honest. To abuse our intellect in an attempt to obfuscate is a great disservice to the discourse of civil rights and is downright insulting to its participants.

The way in which public discussion takes place, however, is only half the problem. The other half is who takes part in it.

The thing that worries me is that - more often than not - arguments advocating GLBT rights seem to come only from the community itself. But that makes it much easier to demonise the argument: "You're gay - of course you would ask for rights." It makes it easier when it's only the PLU who's doing anything because you can paint them as a renegade, no-good, emotive bunch.

No civil rights movement has ever succeeded without the help of those outside the discriminated class. It is much more powerful when a heterosexual says that he believes in according respect and dignity to gays. This explains part of why Newsom's initiative is that much more poignant.

It says a lot about any majority that prefers to keep silent than to try and involve themselves in the fight. How the state treats an individual should be of concern to all of us. When the state abuses its power against the weak, it should matter to all of us.

History has taught us that a government who believes its people to be pliant will soon extend its power against anyone who dissents. In the antebellum period in the United States, not only were blacks enslaved, but even whites had their freedoms taken away: no one could speak, no one could associate. For long periods, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had to fight to keep their membership list secret because even the whites themselves were afraid of reprisal.

Singaporeans complain everyday that the government is not listening to them. You know why? Because the government has no interest in being interested unless you are. If the government thinks it can get away with superficial improvements it will do just that. What is the connection between this and minority rights? Well, a failure to deal with any issue is a manifestation of the government's underlying chronic unwillingness to cede autonomy to individuals and to respect the intelligence of society.

But it's also a question of how important you see yourself as being. If you believe that you're an individual who thinks, reflects and formulates positions, you would want the government to recognise your right to conscientious belief. People who say rights don't matter imply that they don't matter.

Those who think that this is just about gay people getting it on with each other totally misconceive what is at stake. It is about the state regulating who you can form intimate relations with, and how you express yourself in those relationships.

The good fight has yet to be won, and in some senses, it has yet to start. When it does, we should all approach it with open and honest minds.

Often labeled a left-winger, Paul Tan looks forward to a career that involves, at various stages, litigating constitutional and criminal cases, teaching, politics and being a restaurateur. He can be reached at tanpaul@hotmail.com.