AsiaYouthMedia 亚青传媒 sinazen.com

Coming Out

The singapore press has devoted some space to a school teacher who declared himself to be gay. The would seem to be a trivial event in most parts of the world, but caused a stir here. Why is Singapore different?

Religious fundamentalism is not a significant factor; with the government maintaining tight control and setting the social agenda, the influence of religious leaders is limited, and in any case none of the main religious institutions have shown more than mild concern about homosexuality. Traditional moral standards are similarly in substantial; even when lip services are paid, it was done in the most feeble manner. Family values do play a part: the country has a low birth problem and heterosexual relations need to be promoted as socially positive; however, this has been done relatively uninstrusively, with carrot not stick. So why the negative attitude towards homosexuality?

I believe this is largely an issue of social control. Precisely because the government sets the agenda, off agenda issues are not easily accommodated. Gays are not part of the social template, and gays that openly declare themselves to be gay are, in addition, announcing themselves to be not trying to fit the template. It makes such declarations confrontational to the system. 

 

Singapore gays: hope and disappointment 

 

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.) 

another brief comment:

with the gays achieving the rare feat of mobilizing a sort of "mass" (by singapore standards) movement, supported by foreign journalists and academics, the government had no choice but to engage in a debate, a small one as far as the government's part is concerned (unless you assume it was behind all the anti-gay expressions we saw, but I see no evidence of this)

the debate was unusually big in politically placid Singapore, because the gays were encouraged by GCT's public statement that gays could now be appointed to sensitive posts in the public sector because they are no longer security risks; they were then incensed by repeated rejections when they applied for permits to organize major international gay activities; without this background, I doubt the matter would have blown up to the same extent

I believe GCT's statement was meant to be a narrow one, in answer to specific questions about some gay individuals who got appointed; it was however taken to be a broad change of attitude towards homosexuality, even a general opening up on all social and political issues; the refusal to repeal was just the message to tell people there was a serious misunderstanding

gay activism

Abortion is known as the litmas test issue dividing the political "left" and "right" in America: those in favour are known as "pro-choice" - a woman's freedom to decide what to do with the fetus in her body - those against known as "pro-life" - with religious overtones. Confirmation by congress to judiciary appointments is particularly dependent on this test because of the possibility of constitutional challenges to current abortion laws.

Decriminalizing homosexuality is currently taking on the status of a litmas test in Singapore, between those who are pro-change and those who are pro-status quo. Because the laws crimininalizing homosexuality are not actually enforced, and because gays do not get bashed in public places by troubleseekers like they do in some western societies, the significance of the decriminalization is more political than legal. Especially among western journalists, the issue is taken as an indicator of "is Singapore really opening up?"; now that it has allowed both foreign universities and gambling casinos to be set up, what next?

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.