- Singapore recently lifted a ban on sex between men
- Morality which is not grounded in the unquestionable legislation of Allah is always vulnerable to change
Singapore – an idyllic urban utopia, according to some, is a tiny city-state that sits at the southern tip of Malaysia. It is renowned worldwide for its wealthy and affluent population, impressively low crime rates, immaculate streets and racial and social harmony.
Since it gained independence in 1965, Singapore has been the subject of one of the most remarkable transformation stories in modern history. From its start as an impoverished developing nation, it has established itself as a world leader in many areas of socio-economic development. A glimmering cityscape of glassy skyscrapers and serene waterfronts, its GDP per capita is now $72,794; slightly higher than that of the US. This safe and highly ordered society is maintained, in part, by the grip of an uncompromising and authoritarian government. It is colloquially known as the ‘Fine City’ – a play on words, as it is both beautiful but is also known for the many fines it charges its citizens for offences that may seem minor to those unfamiliar with them. Chewing gum in the country? Fine. Eating on trains? Fine. Spitting in public? Fine.
Whether or not you agree with the practices of the so-called ‘nanny state,’ there is no doubt that such a level of discipline has been instrumental in Singapore’s success its residents’ high quality of life. Hand in hand with this, the government has also traditionally preserved conservative values in society. Walking naked inside your own house is illegal if neighbours are able to see you through your windows. The crime of ‘outrage of modesty’ can carry a punishment of caning, and the government has a zero-tolerance policy for drug trafficking, which is attached to the death penalty.
Singaporean society has also frowned upon homosexuality, and until recently, it was illegal under Section 377A, a colonial-era law put in place under British rule, and preserved by Singapore’s ruling Lee family.
However, the lifting of the ban on sex between men in November 2022 is a marker of changing attitudes in Singapore, and perhaps of further reform in the future. Former Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, had previously asked the question, “If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual — because that’s the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes — you can’t help it. So why should we criminalise it?”
While much of Singaporean society is yet to accept the LGBTQ movement, it is clear that attitudes among younger residents are influencing change. It has become more common to see more overt displays of LGBTQ behaviour in public, such as crossdressing, and an increased presence of drag shows. The annual pro-LGBTQ rally, Pink Dot, has drawn large crowds this weekend.
The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore, which reflects Singapore’s ~15% Muslim population (most of whom are Malay, though Indians, Arabs and other ethnicities also comprise this demographic), was reported by Reuters as encouraging people to “address socio-religious issues, including LGBT issues, with wisdom, kindness, compassion and mercy.”
This is an ambiguous statement, and perhaps deliberately so – not actively condoning the LGBTQ movement, while also discouraging ill behaviour towards them. As Muslims, we would no doubt hope for a stronger statement from a representative organisation, though it should be noted that Singapore is not Europe or America – the freedom to speak out against government decisions is, perhaps, one which needs to be considered more cautiously.
The question we must ask ourselves, however, it why does a conservative society suddenly decide to follow the pro-LGBTQ trend?
Undoubtedly, attitudes among younger Singaporeans have accounted for a change in society’s overall attitude towards homosexuality – and this is the crux of the matter. Since religion was abandoned in the early modern era as the primary source of legal and moral guidance, Liberal ideology has passed judgement on societal laws and norms through the scope of subjective morality.
Unlike objective morality, the ethos of subjective morality does not hold the position that any action can be ‘intrinsically’ wrong. The acceptance or happiness of people is the only parameter subjective morality seeks to fill to deem something as socially acceptable. Modern society labels this as ‘freedom’ – perhaps a better term would be ‘degeneracy.’ The problem with this worldview is that potentially any manner of heinous indecencies could be deemed ‘acceptable,’ if people decide so. If a significant enough proportion of the population supports bestiality, should this be legalised?
Subjective morality has plagued western society throughout the modern era and particularly post-WWI. The trend is clear – premarital sex, once frowned upon, is now accepted and even celebrated. Immodest dressing, especially among women, is no longer an issue to society. TV shows have become increasingly raunchy, with many dramas from networks, such as HBO, bordering on softcore pornography. Today, extramarital affairs are perfectly legal and an unquestionable right, but the fundamental nature of gender itself is now doubtful. As long as people have no objection to these issues, Liberals see no problem with them.
When morality is not grounded in clear, unmoving principles – in legislation sent down by Allah – it is free to move wherever it wills, to slide ever further with the whims and base desires of humans. Allah describes this phenomenon and warns us against it;
“Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire?”
Surah Al-Furqan:43]
This decline into immorality and an obsession with gender follows a worrying historical trend of societal collapse. The last days of Rome before it succumbed to political corruption, division and invasion of the Germanic tribes, were known to be characterised by decadence, wild partying, orgies and sexual deviancy. Sound familiar?
The Islamic thinker, Ibn Khaldun, noted a pattern of societies becoming victims of their own success – of pursuing decadence and base desires, before collapsing and being conquered by stronger, traditionally-minded, external forces.
Camille Paglia, Professor at the University of Arts, Philadelphia, similarly notes the historical pattern of the attack on masculinity and obsession with the concept of gender predicting imminent societal destruction:
“This movement towards androgyny occurs in in the late phase of culture, as a civilisation is starting to unravel… You find it again and again and again through history… all of a sudden there’s a kind of, you know, the sculptures of handsome nude young men, athletes, that used to be very robust in the archaic period, suddenly start to seem like wet noodles… whether it’s the Hellenistic era, whether it’s the Roman Empire, whether it’s the Mauve decade of Oscar Wilde in the 1890s, whether it’s Weimar Germany, people who live in such times… feel that they’re very sophisticated, they’re very cosmopolitan – homosexuality, heterosexuality, so what? Anything goes… it’s a culture that no longer believes in itself.”
Subjective morality may be painted as a gateway to freedom, but in reality, it is enslavement – to the whims and desires of people chained to their own desires, and what a terrifyingly hopeless and nihilistic outlook to have on life – to believe that nothing is intrinsically wrong or right, that nothing holds moral value in and of itself, except what people determine for themselves. History has taught us that adoption of such ways of thinking signal the beginning of the end, and with grounded, conservative societies, such as Singapore, falling victim to the same phenomenon, it is clear that the world order is changing – and as Muslims, we will cling to Allah’s rope as always, if He wills, though the winds of change may rage around us.
