Two for Thio

What a relief that Dr. Thio Li-Ann has cancelled her plans to teach a course on human rights in Asia at New York University's law school. The drawn out brouhaha would have been to Singapore's lasting embarrassment.

I find it remarkable that Dr. Thio, like many others in Singapore opposed to rescinding the law criminalizing homosexual acts, invokes the argument that the views of the majority within a society must prevail. The argument is so unsound, so demonstrably flawed, it is astounding that anyone would be brave enough to use it. A couple of examples:

1. In neighbouring Malaysia, the majority would consider the "bumiputra" policy, which gives preference to Malays over their fellow citizens of Chinese and Indian descent, to be justified. How many Singaporeans would consider the policy to be morally defensible, despite the views of a majority of Malaysians?

2. In 1861 in the Southern United States, a majority within society approved of the practice of slavery. That same year saw the outbreak of a terrible civil war between the forces of the Confederacy and those of the Union over this issue. History now judges harshly that majority of Confederate society that sought to maintain slavery.

Dr. Thio and her society might like to consider on which side of history they will come down.