Singapore sex on the straight and
narrow By Alex Au
SINGAPORE - Singapore will host its first
Formula One motor race in 2008, following the
signing of a recent agreement in London between
Formula One Management and well-known Singapore
tycoon Ong Beng Seng. But is the Singaporean
government true to its recent stated drive to
allow for a racier, more liberal society?
For decades, it was accepted wisdom in the
city-state that car racing was one of the
degenerate activities that the former Lee Kuan
Yew-led government had swept away, never to
return. There had been an annual Grand Prix from
1962 to 1972, but closing
roads
and ensuring safety for the race was then not
considered economically rational, and that
glamorizing speed could have negative social
effects.
In 2005, Lee, now Minister Mentor
in his son Lee Hsien Loong's cabinet, reversed
that sentiment when he said he regretted that
Singapore didn't host an F1 race. He might not
have spelt it out, but everyone knew that
Malaysia's tourism receipts from its Sepang race
were on his mind. Immediately, government
officials began to take a serious interest in the
idea, participating in discussions that led up to
the recent signing.
So does this represent
another step in Singapore's gradual
liberalization? On the surface, it does: part of
Lee junior's drive to make the city state a more
exciting place in which to work and live is a move
toward engendering in the population what he
once referred to as the "X factor".
Like the earlier decision to allow for the
construction of two new mega-casinos, however, the
justification was primarily economic rather than a
genuine social loosening. And like the casino
question, it took some public musings by the
Minister Mentor Lee to uncork the stifled public
debate.
Now there is a third instance of
the senior Lee musing aloud, which if followed up
by government would represent a genuine opening of
Singapore's highly repressed society. Last month,
the Mentor Minister Lee told Reuters that
"eventually" the law against homosexual sex would
have to be repealed. "If this is the way the world
is going and Singapore is part of that
interconnected world - and I think it is - then I
see no option for Singapore but to be part of it,"
Lee said.
Currently, Singapore has two
laws criminalizing homosexuality. Section 377 of
the Penal Code makes "carnal intercourse against
the order of nature" - usually interpreted to mean
oral sex and anal sex - a crime punishable with up
to life imprisonment. The law makes no distinction
as to whether the parties are heterosexual or
homosexual, or whether the act takes place in
public or in private. Section 377A, meanwhile,
makes undefined acts of so-called "gross
indecency" between two consenting men - whether in
public or in private - an offence punishable with
up to two years in jail. By its wording, it
targets only gay males, not females.
While
the government has not actively enforced the
draconian laws for over a decade, the legislation
has created a climate that allows for
discriminatory practices in employment and other
areas. Singapore has seen a steady brain-drain of
gay professionals to more welcoming foreign
destinations in the West, and more recently the
climate of intolerance has complicated the
government's drive to attract more foreign talent.
Conservative backlash The
government proposed last November to repeal
Section 377, which if done would legalize sodomy
for heterosexuals. However it has also said it
intends for now to leave 377A on the law books,
thus keeping gay male sex of any kind a criminal
offence.
This has stirred a vigorous
public debate pitching progressive and
conservative forces. This year, the Law Society
came out in favor of repealing Section 377A as
well. Leading the defense of the status quo of
criminalizing homosexuality among men has been the
National Council of Churches, which has recently
urged the government to extend the law to
criminalize lesbian sex as well.
For
instance, law lecturer Yvoone Lee recently wrote a
commentary piece in the government-affiliated
Straits Times newspaper that provided legal
reasoning for continued criminalization of
homosexuality. She associated gay sexual
orientation with sexual diseases and pedophilia
and warned the legalization could lead to "clashes
with fundamental liberties such as free speech".
There was a "broader homosexual rights agenda to
transform social morality", she charged.
Her university boss, vice dean Victor
Ramraj, penned a rebuttal, but the newspaper
requested that his piece be toned down for
publication, according to sources familiar with
the exchange. Nevertheless, there has been an
outpouring of criticism in cyberspace of the law
lecturer and her spirited defense of the continued
criminalization of homosexuality.
This
being Singapore, few consider it likely that the
government will be moved by the public feedback.
Especially as the government in its law reform
explanatory notes published last November has
seemingly already nailed its colors to the mast by
saying, "Singapore remains, by and large, a
conservative society. Many do not tolerate
homosexuality, and consider such acts abhorrent
and deviant. Many religious groups also do not
condone homosexual acts ... Hence, we are leaving
section 377A as it is."
To some surprise,
in April Lee Kuan Yew uttered his dissenting
opinion, saying "They tell me and anyway it is
probably half-true that homosexuals are creative
writers, dancers, etcetera ... and if we want
creative people, then we got to put up with their
idiosyncrasies." However, "I am not in charge of
government policy. I am just a Minister Mentor,"
he added, qualifying his remarks.
The gay
question serves as an important litmus test for
the government's avowed wish to open up Singapore
and create a more cosmopolitan, vibrant and
tolerant society.
Soon after Richard
Florida's highly acclaimed book, The Rise of
the Creative Class was released, Singaporean
ministers frequently referred to the book for
pointers to move the country in the direction of
the author's so-called "innovative knowledge
economy". However, at the same time, they coyly
refused to acknowledge that central to Florida's
arguments was his use of the "gay index" as a
vicarious measure for how societies embraced
mavericks and creative rebels.
So far, the
tiny steps that the government has taken to
liberalize society have not borne any lasting
fruit. Despite much fanfare, the opening of a
Singapore branch of the Parisian nude revue, Crazy
Horse, lasted barely 13 months. It closed in
January due to poor business. However, the
management complained bitterly that the government
imposed onerous restrictions on its marketing -
for example, it was not allowed to advertise in
mainstream channels.
Ironically, as
recently as three months before its closure, none
other than Lee Kuan Yew touted Crazy Horse as a
token of Singapore's determination to break past
social taboos. In 2003, the poster-child for
liberalization was counter-top dancing. Previously
it had been illegal for bar patrons and hired
performers to dance atop tables and bar counters.
Then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong decided to
loosen the rules after many pleas from bar owners,
but he also used the gesture as a totem of his
government's push to liberalize Singapore.
In actuality, allowing counter-top dancing
was more form - and rhetoric - than substance.
That is, the loosening was confined to
entertainment, but it was the only example of
social liberalization at the government's
disposal. However, it was recently reported by the
Straits Times that currently no bars in the
downtown area now feature counter-top dancing on a
regular basis. To the government's chagrin, the
fad has passed.
Compared to the question
of homosexuality, permitting a tightly-cordoned
nude revue and counter-top dancing – no nudity
included in the case of the latter – were
low-hanging fruits. For the same reason, they were
never convincing demonstrations of true
government-backed social liberalization.
Whether the government can grasp the
nettle of the anti-gay law, which even the
authoritarian Lee Kuan Yew apparently now thinks
should be abolished, serves as a true barometer of
the junior Lee's liberalizing convictions.
Alex Au is an independent social
and political commentator, freelance writer and
blogger based in Singapore. He often speaks at
public forums on politics, culture and gay issues.
(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
