Signup
LoginSingapore gays allowed a step forward, but pushed two back
110 posts
-
-
Singapore gays allowed a step forward, but pushed two back
By Sonia Kolesnikov-Jessop
Thursday, August 2, 2007
International Herald Tribune
SINGAPORE: In a city-state that reserves the right to control public expression and private sexual behavior, these have been interesting weeks for the emerging gay rights movement.
Last month, the Singapore Media Development Authority allowed "Happy Ending - Asian Boys Vol. 3," a new play on gay themes by a local playwright, Alfian Sa'at, to be staged uncensored. It was seen by more than 6,000 people in its 23-day run and drew praise from a visiting British film actor and well-known gay rights advocate, Ian McKellen, among others.
But this week, the same authority denied licenses to two art exhibitions that had been planned for the third annual Singapore gay pride festival, IndigNation, which began Wednesday: an exhibition by Alex Au that was to show 80 photos of same-sex couples kissing, and a pencil drawing by Genevieve Chua depicting two nude women in a suggestive sexual position.
In a letter explaining its refusal to license the photo exhibit, the authority said that while homosexual-themed content was permissible in an "appropriate context," it should not be of a "promotional or exploitative nature."
"Hence we have allowed brief same-sex kissing in plays and in R21-rated films. But the proposed exhibition (comprising 80 color photographs), which mainly focuses on homosexual kissing, is deemed to promote a homosexual lifestyle and cannot be allowed," it said.
Although homosexuals in Singapore have become slightly more visible in recent years, few have been willing to take public stances on gay rights. Despite some signs that the government might be rethinking the issue, gay sex remains a criminal act under Section 377A of the Singapore penal code, and many are unsure how far they can push the debate.
In April, Lee Kuan Yew, the founding prime minister of modern Singapore, referred to homosexuality as "genetic" - an announcement some people seized on as an indication that the government might move toward liberalization.
At a public forum last month organized to coincide with the opening performances of "Happy Ending," a lawmaker, Baey Yam Keng of the ruling People's Action Party, argued that if Section 377A was reviewed in Parliament, members should be freed from the obligation to vote strictly along party lines, in order to encourage a "very open debate and open expression of opinion."
At the same forum, the Reverend Yap Kim Hao, a former Methodist bishop, said he thought the law should be repealed. The National Council of Churches of Singapore said that Yap was not speaking on its behalf.
"Happy Endings" is the final play in a trilogy by Sa'at that began in 2000 with "Asian Boys Vol. 1." In the years since that first installment was performed, Singapore has loosened some of its restrictions on sex, both heterosexual and homosexual.
The government now lets gays serve openly in the civil service and allows a small number of gay bars, saunas and other businesses to flourish in certain parts of the city. In 2001, the government gave the green light to the first outdoor party for gays in Singapore. In ensuing years, though, the party got bigger, and in 2005 it was denied a license. Organizers moved it to Bangkok.
Last year, the government announced plans to decriminalize heterosexual oral and anal sex between consenting men and women, but made clear that the ban on homosexual sex would remain intact. However, the Home Affairs Ministry said it would not be "proactive" in enforcing the ban when it came to consensual acts taking place in private.
Sa'at said that with "Happy Ending" he wanted to confront issues that he was "at most alluding to" in the first two plays.
"The first was almost apolitical because it used a lot of camp aesthetic, and there was a lot of hide-and-seek because I wanted to avoid censure and get it staged," he said.
"Happy Endings" is more direct. In part, it is an adaptation of "Peculiar Chris," a gay-themed 1992 novel written by a Singaporean, Johann Lee. The book deals with a gay man's coming of age, his first loves and his eventual decision to leave Singapore, where his sexuality makes him a criminal.
McKellen, who was in "Lord of the Rings" and "X-Men," saw "Happy Endings" in Singapore while on tour with the Royal Shakespeare Company. "It seemed to be talking about a situation I recognized in my own life, even though here it was, set on the other side of the world," McKellen said.
"The play does have a strong point of view, but it doesn't only argue one side of the issue and time and again you're having, as you watch it, to adjust your thoughts and answer the point that is being made," McKellen said. "It doesn't just shoot its opinion at you."
He said seeing the play made him feel that he was witnessing "a really important part of Singapore's social history."
A survey in May by a local newspaper found that 62 percent of "heartlanders" - Singaporeans living in public housing, a majority of the population - thought homosexuality should not be legalized.
But Ivan Heng, the director of "Happy Endings," said the question was badly phrased.
"The question was whether gay sexuality was acceptable and not whether homosexuals should be put in jail," he said. "There is a big difference here. Of course, the majority of the population is conservative and will reply accordingly, but that doesn't mean they want to see gay people in jails."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/02/news/singapore.php?page=1
----
So who gave them the right to decide what is deemed promoting or not. This is classical paternalistic madness at its peak.
How can you criminalise a sexual orientation? You simply can't, and must not.
Edited by LazerLordz 02 Aug `07, 10:31PM
-
-
-
I think with regards to gay issue, we are currently at the "we don't ask, you don't say stage". Lots of room for improvement, but at least we are way beyond prosecuting them.
Perhaps in our life-time, we might get to see a civil-union sort of arrangement for the homosexual community in Singapore.
*The Civil Union is a arrangement similar to a marriage for gays.
-
-
-
Originally posted by wisefool83:I think with regards to gay issue, we are currently at the "we don't ask, you don't say stage". Lots of room for improvement, but at least we are way beyond prosecuting them.
Perhaps in our life-time, we might get to see a civil-union sort of arrangement for the homosexual community in Singapore.
*The Civil Union is a arrangement similar to a marriage for gays.Perhaps..
However, I must say that our SAF is quite progressive when it comes to homosexuals serving in the Army.
-
-
-
The government is just a group of people representing the wider group of people, the populace.
Just ask urself if your HDB uncle, or your hawker center aunty, or your neighbourhood school teachers.....etc etc....will 'accept' homosexuality as 'normal'.
When Mahathir wanted to publicly destroy Anwar, he didnt say Anwar is taking bribes or what, he said Anwar is a homosexual.
So....
I believe.... in this regard Singapore has already been way too liberal, not in tune with its Eastern roots, Asian roots.
I think the current system in Singapore is actually quite fair........all people can live their lives, but without offending other people.....seem logical and fair....
So....gays can be gays....but cannot have exhibition...that seem to be logical.
Meat Pao.
-
-
-
you win a right for yourself, you're infringing on the right of another ....
simple analogy ... you have a right to blast your radio at night, it's your radio ... but you're disturbing other people in your neighbourhood, no ? ...
same thing with this issue .... no body cares if you're a brokebacker in private .... but keep it private ! ... it's not like brokebackers are being jailed or what not in Singapore ...
this is sticking the middle digit up in the face of the rest of society ... I think this is the right decision, even when it's crouched as "Art" ...
-
-
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:Perhaps..
However, I must say that our SAF is quite progressive when it comes to homosexuals serving in the Army.
juz curious...how the SAF "progressively " deal wif homosexuals in camps? kindda interesting...havn't came across gays during my ns...
Edited by urbanmonkey 03 Aug `07, 1:32AM
-
-
-
Originally posted by Fatum:I believe the ones that "came out" are still segregated, to prevent dropped soap incidents I suppose ...
"dropped soap incidents"...dat phrase brings a lot of memories
if they are segregated, imagine, a gay platoon...damn...i wonder how their bunks looks like...stand by bed must put condoms in the cupboard as part of the checklist....
-
-
-
That last post was quite uncalled for. It's likening homosexuality with promiscuity.
If you're homosexual, you still serve according to your PES status. There is less segregation these days.
As for the infringement of rights, let me just put it this way. If the government won't enforce Section 377A and publicly says it will not do so to intrude into the private lives of homosexuals, for goodness sake, scrap that piece of legislation and not make a mockery of the Penal Code or the laws of Singapore for that matter.
They still think they can have their cake and eat it.
Your average ah pek can be free to denounce homosexuality in the streets, but moral opposition to something does not make that very thing a crime. This issue is not that advanced a concept to understand actually.
I oppose smoking, so do many people. Smoking is not a crime though. So why is sexual orientation a crime? Sexual abuse and orientation are two different things. Rapists of either orientation are criminals, because they rape and force themselves on others by force and without consent.
Orientation is not a crime, let's get that straight people. I am straight, but I've seen GLBTs suffer for far enough, for issues beyond their control.
Everyone could do with some simple logic now and then, especially the witch-hunting ones who are in fact, more extremist in their counter-advocacy and are simply dripping with scorn.Edited by LazerLordz 03 Aug `07, 2:35AM
-
-
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:That last post was quite uncalled for. It's likening homosexuality with promiscuity.
If you're homosexual, you still serve according to your PES status. There is less segregation these days.
As for the infringement of rights, let me just put it this way. If the government won't enforce Section 377A and publicly says it will not do so to intrude into the private lives of homosexuals, for goodness sake, scrap that piece of legislation and not make a mockery of the Penal Code or the laws of Singapore for that matter.
They still think they can have their cake and eat it.
Your average ah pek can be free to denounce homosexuality in the streets, but moral opposition to something does not make that very thing a crime. This issue is not that advanced a concept to understand actually.
I oppose smoking, so do many people. Smoking is not a crime though. So why is sexual orientation a crime? Sexual abuse and orientation are two different things. Rapists of either orientation are criminals, because they rape and force themselves on others by force and without consent.
Orientation is not a crime, let's get that straight people. I am straight, but I've seen GLBTs suffer for far enough, for issues beyond their control.
Everyone could do with some simple logic now and then, especially the witch-hunting ones who are in fact, more extremist in their counter-advocacy and are simply dripping with scorn.last I hear that's under review ... but one shouldn't mistake that as a sign that's it's a free for all now ... singapore society is still deeply conservative at heart, that is why till now, we still don't have a Singapore edition of playboy or penthouse or whatever ...
yes, orientation is not a crime, but pushing your orientation into the face of others is infringing upon their liberties. Certain things are best left in the privacy or one's own bedrooms, just because one's kinked that way doesn't mean one has the right to parade it in front of people ... let's have other examples, what if the exhibition was about beastiality ? ... people bonking animals ? ... or nacrophillia ? ...... would you agree or welcome an "artistic" exhibition of people engaged in the above fetishes ? ...
liberties is not a personal concept, but the choice of the majority of a society to decide upon the conduct and the permissible boundaries of society. If the silent majority is to be held hostage by the demands of a minority, then something is wrong, no ? ...
-
-
-
Originally posted by Fatum:last I hear that's under review ... but one shouldn't mistake that as a sign that's it's a free for all now ... singapore society is still deeply conservative at heart, that is why till now, we still don't have a Singapore edition of playboy or penthouse or whatever ...
yes, orientation is not a crime, but pushing your orientation into the face of others is infringing upon their liberties. Certain things are best left in the privacy or one's own bedrooms, just because one's kinked that way doesn't mean one has the right to parade it in front of people ... let's have other examples, what if the exhibition was about beastiality ? ... people bonking animals ? ... or nacrophillia ? ...... would you agree or welcome an "artistic" exhibition of people engaged in the above fetishes ? ...
liberties is not a personal concept, but the choice of the majority of a society to decide upon the conduct and the permissible boundaries of society. If the silent majority is to be held hostage by the demands of a minority, then something is wrong, no ? ...
If we're focusing solely on the exhibition itself, I might be able to accept your line of argument about what other segments might find tasteless.
Still, there was no need to ban the thing. Exhibitions are private. No one forces children or the public to view the exhibits. If it offends you, don't go and see it. It is a private, personal choice isn't it. People should learn to take responsibility for their own likes and dislikes, and stop asking the government to rule their lives by proxy. Perhaps they've gotten too used to that I suppose..
Though it may take time for the rest of the population to realise that being different isn't wrong, the chance that certain extremist elements on the other side of the fence may use this to advance their very own ultra-conservative agenda is very real as well.
Secondly, decriminalising homosexuality does not equate to pushing one set of sexual mores into the bedrooms of others. It is merely cleaning up the legal mess surrounding what orientation means, and how to differentiate it from active application.Edited by LazerLordz 03 Aug `07, 3:12AM
-
-
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:If we're focusing solely on the exhibition itself, I might be able to accept your line of argument about what other segments might find tasteless.
Still, there was no need to ban the thing. Exhibitions are private. No one forces children or the public to view the exhibits. If it offends you, don't go and see it. It is a private, personal choice isn't it. People should learn to take responsibility for their own likes and dislikes, and stop asking the government to rule their lives by proxy. Perhaps they've gotten too used to that I suppose..
Though it may take time for the rest of the population to realise that being different isn't wrong, the chance that certain extremist elements on the other side of the fence may use this to advance their very own ultra-conservative agenda is very real as well.
Secondly, decriminalising homosexuality does not equate to pushing one set of sexual mores into the bedrooms of others. It is merely cleaning up the legal mess surrounding what orientation means, and how to differentiate it from active application.I'm not concerned about the legal morass surrounding that issue, if a piece of legislation is never going to be enforced, then it doesn't really matter, eh ? ... there's a 500 dollar fine attached to not flushing the toilet, but why is the toilet habits of Singaporeans, judging from the state of public toilets, still as dismal ? ... people are not idiots, no brokebacker's going to get charged for sodomy or whatever if they do it in their bedrooms ... same thing with that silly oral sex legislation, I'm sure many of us enjoy that in private too (oral sex that is, not brokebacking)
you know, I can almost agree with you on your second argument, that's certainly very persuasive, but then let's picture this, why would a naked man, or woman, parading down the streets, be arrested and covered up ? ... after all, if anyone's going to be offended by their nakedness, they can always look away, no ? ... there's the answer there.
choice choices ... yes, it's easy to think that ultimately, one's life, and lifestyle choices is up to oneself alone, but it's not as simple as that. Why do we ban drugs for instance ? after all, it's up to us to destroy or live our own lives, no ? ... because not everyone is equipped enough to live their lives with discipline, or equipped enough to make all the choices in life. Every wondered why pedophilia is outlawed ? ... why is sex with girls below 16 considered rape, even if it's with a willing one ? ... after all, they reach puberty at 12, neh ? ... because they are not yet equipped to make the right choices in life, hence society has to step in. Same thing with a myriad of other examples, juvenile delinquency, family violence, etc, would you call these having your lives lived by proxy ? ...
-
-
-
I feel that while Singapore has progressed significantly over a short 4 decades, its people unfortunately, jas not all evolved or developed as significantly enough to face up to such a matter...
As such, I think the government should not have touched on such an issue until later times... because now they can't totally alienate this society of gays, nor could they bring themselves to go Full Monte about it...
Always like that; wanna swim but don't wanna get wet...
-
-
-
Originally posted by Fatum:I'm not concerned about the legal morass surrounding that issue, if a piece of legislation is never going to be enforced, then it doesn't really matter, eh ? ... there's a 500 dollar fine attached to not flushing the toilet, but why is the toilet habits of Singaporeans, judging from the state of public toilets, still as dismal ? ... people are not idiots, no brokebacker's going to get charged for sodomy or whatever if they do it in their bedrooms ... same thing with that silly oral sex legislation, I'm sure many of us enjoy that in private too (oral sex that is, not brokebacking)
you know, I can almost agree with you on your second argument, that's certainly very persuasive, but then let's picture this, why would a naked man, or woman, parading down the streets, be arrested and covered up ? ... after all, if anyone's going to be offended by their nakedness, they can always look away, no ? ... there's the answer there.
choice choices ... yes, it's easy to think that ultimately, one's life, and lifestyle choices is up to oneself alone, but it's not as simple as that. Why do we ban drugs for instance ? after all, it's up to us to destroy or live our own lives, no ? ... because not everyone is equipped enough to live their lives with discipline, or equipped enough to make all the choices in life. Every wondered why pedophilia is outlawed ? ... why is sex with girls below 16 considered rape, even if it's with a willing one ? ... after all, they reach puberty at 12, neh ? ... because they are not yet equipped to make the right choices in life, hence society has to step in. Same thing with a myriad of other examples, juvenile delinquency, family violence, etc, would you call these having your lives lived by proxy ? ...
The social impact notwithstanding, if something is limited to the private space in its activity, and not in the public, like parading naked in the street as opposed to parading naked in a studio where people who share the same interests have to make the effort to find and enter that private space, away from the public space, that itself is a fairly decent distinction made to allow vastly different interests to co-exist together without too much spilling over.
Your example of people not having enough discipline to make life choices, is more likely to represent the underaged segment of the population. I feel, if you're an adult, you should make your own choices and not have someone or the state "nanny" you around.
If you make mistakes that harm yourselves, you should be taking responsibility for yourself.
Let's not mix both public and private space more than it has already been mixed..
-
-
-
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2007/yax-769.htm
Read this article by Alex Au. The censorship is now international news.
-
-
-
Originally posted by royston_ang:
Actually, nobody really care if you are gay or not. And it's not a crime to be gay. It's just that we don't want to [b]promote gay. So what's all the fuss? [/b]singapore ultimately is still a conservative-minded country...an asian country..to be given the "alright to be gay" by our government does not constitute the general feelings of most singaporeans..
i guess the locals here are tolerant over sexual-orientation of the gays but DO NOT PUSH the limit! personally i feel it's kindda sick to have guy-guy kissing even if it means artistic art...it's juz not right!
juz accept wat is given to you..life isn't fair...tis is Singapore...not USA
-
-
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:The social impact notwithstanding, if something is limited to the private space in its activity, and not in the public, like parading naked in the street as opposed to parading naked in a studio where people who share the same interests have to make the effort to find and enter that private space, away from the public space, that itself is a fairly decent distinction made to allow vastly different interests to co-exist together without too much spilling over.
Your example of people not having enough discipline to make life choices, is more likely to represent the underaged segment of the population. I feel, if you're an adult, you should make your own choices and not have someone or the state "nanny" you around.
If you make mistakes that harm yourselves, you should be taking responsibility for yourself.
Let's not mix both public and private space more than it has already been mixed..well, I believe the exhibition was supposed to be held in conjunction with the Gay Pride Festival, the IndigNation, no ? ... you know, that's pretty big news, around the world, I had a friend who happens to be a member of the LBGT group in school ask me about that before. I didn't even knew it existed then, nor was I interested, since I like women very much. I'm not sure if it was something I should be proud of, but I remember telling him that Singapore was not what he'd imagine it to be.
thing is, what constitutes a public space, and what constitutes a private space ? ... and where does what you do in private start offending public sensibilities ? let me offer another way of looking at this, remember the play, talaq ? ... the one about abused Indian Muslim wives that was banned in Singapore because it offended the religious sensibilities of Muslim Singaporeans ? After all, the play was not staged in public, eh ? If it offends any Muslims, then they could jolly well choose not to watch it, no ? ... But why was it important, and the right thing to do, to have it banned ? Cos the OB marker has been crossed, and a line had to be drawn, no ?
I think it's already quite telling that Singapore even have a gay pride festival at all, it's a sign that Singapore is slowly opening up, but at the same time, we have to be mindful of Singapore's deeply conservative roots, we are an asian society, with taboos very different from that of the west. This is how our society is. A tiny minority with it's narrow interest should not shove that down the throat of the rest of society.
-
-
-
Originally posted by Fatum:you win a right for yourself, you're infringing on the right of another ....
simple analogy ... you have a right to blast your radio at night, it's your radio ... but you're disturbing other people in your neighbourhood, no ? ...
same thing with this issue .... no body cares if you're a brokebacker in private .... but keep it private ! ... it's not like brokebackers are being jailed or what not in Singapore ...
this is sticking the middle digit up in the face of the rest of society ... I think this is the right decision, even when it's crouched as "Art" ...
How would an exhibition disturb people? If you don't like it then don't see it. Some people, however, are interested in art dealing with homosexuality and they should get to see it.
-
