繁华金缕衣缤纷少年时昨日雏凤声今夕南朝诗-惆怅读商隐奈何吟牧之古城望愈远新春盼更迟
CategoryIndexes 分类目录:-Singapore Social社会 Life文化 历史History
Search:click http://search.sinazen.com - add search words to google window
Recent updates: new.sinazen.com < > News search page: news.sinazen.com
In 2003 PM Goh Chok Tong made an unexpected pronouncement about homosexuals: that because in the current social environment there is no longer any risk of closet gays being subjected to blackmail, they can be appointed to even "sensitive" positions in the pubic service. The gay community was much encouraged by this development and believed it to be part of a general processing of opening up. Since then, however, they received a series of disappointments, as a number of applications to the authorities for permits to hold gay-based functions were turned down, the most recent being a proposed photo exhibition by Mr Alex Au, a prominent gay activist (see his blog at ybsampler1.blogspot.com), of photos of gay kissing. Was this a case of lower levels of the government defying higher level policy decisions? or a hesitant government responding to pressure against change? I dont think so. I believe the community misread GCT's pronouncement on a very specific issue into something much broader.
Public service job application forms do not ask the applicant to specify his/her sexual orientation, nor are questions on the subject asked as part of a standard job interview; hence, most homosexuals who get appointments would not have to reveal their homosexuality. I do not know whether, when someone applies for a "sensitive" position, he/she gets asked "are you homosexual", but in the densely networked Singapore system, people who make such appointments would already know a lot about a proposed appointee's background and a specific question on this is probably quite unnecessary. So the scenario is not really "now this person is gay, but now we have the more open policy, so we appoint him nevertheless", but "we appointed this person a little while ago, but recently someone told me he/she is gay; you think this is a problem?" This question would have to be ultimately answered at the highest level, requiring the PM himself to take a position on the issue.
(I happen to know a foreigner appointed to a senior position in NUS for a short period, and later heard from a mutual acquaintance that he is a homosexual. Similar cases may have existed in other organizations.)
gay activism
In other words, not all the people promoting decriminalization of homosexuality are homosexuals. What is their motivation? Assuming they win this particular fight, what would they fight for next?
In other words, the very success of the gays in mobilizing support among non-gays, including foreign journalists and academics, makes the government more wary, since the same activism can be applied to various different objectives.
Anti Gay Activism
in one of the unusual displays of political activism, three (yes three) groups of people popped up with different websites calling for the retention of the criminality of homosexuality. One even called people out to demo last sunday (21/10/07) though no one actually showed up. What have they got against homosexuals?
"The majority do not want homosexuality" is not a valid reason against change: making something non-criminal does not require people to do it; it is certainly nonsense to suggest that de-criminilizing it would "impose" homosexuality on non-gays. "The majority are against homosexuality" is also not a valid argument: the majority are probably against men wearing colourful clothes, 80 year old men marrying 20 year old women (and probably even more so, 80 year old women marrying 20 year old men), etc, but do not expect these to be made illegal. Further, since the majority do not mind the fact that the law against homosexuality is not being enforced, how "against" are they?
"The majority do not approve of homosexuality" is a more meaningful argument, but this requires one to accept an "Asian" concept of law: a law is an expression of collective belief; by declaring homosexuality to be criminal, the majority is taking a moral stand, while at the same time takes a collective stand of tolerance, thus not requiring the law to be enforced.
This happens to be a sensitive moment for "family values": Singapore has a low birth problem and the government has been introducing various schemes to encourage people to have more children. It makes it all the more difficult to change the collective stance and make the majority appear to have lost its belief in family values.