PLU first application: first appeal letter

source: original document

Appeal for the registration of People Like Us (PLU)

On 8 April 1997, the Registrar of Societies advised us in a letter that our application to form a society under the name of "People Like Us" has been rejected. No reason was given.

This appeal may risk being dismissed out of hand as coming from undesirable elements detrimental to the nation's moral fabric. But we hope it will not be because it is being lodged in the firm belief that Singapore has a government which gives aggrieved citizens a fair hearing. So we hope this letter is taken in such a spirit of mutual respect. Such an approach is also a procedure permitted by the law and at this point is the only reasonable way by which PLU can engage officialdom in a sensible dialogue.

To focus this dialogue, we would start by setting down ahead of our arguments, the three specific requests we are making of you:

1.1 Reconsider and approve our application.

1.2 In the event that you still feel compelled to say no, then:

(a) we hope you would oblige us by letting us know your reasons. Asking to know the reasons should not be taken as a challenge to your prerogative but is instead a sincere attempt to understand better the State's objection to the gay and lesbian community. This issue has never been publicly articulated and therefore leaves gay people second guessing the limits of a policy which so affects their emotional well-being If we knew the State's position better, not only would it indicate to us where we stand in this country, but, where possible, we would also be prepared to find ways to assuage these official concerns

(b) we hope you would advise us on how to proceed from here. Our starting point is that in any civilised society where there is rule of law -- and we consider Singapore to be such a society -- there must always provisions for citizens to meet each other to discuss issues of mutual interest to them. We would have thought the spirit of the Societies Act is to provide a framework for responsible free association, especially when voluntarism and civil society is being encouraged in Singapore. Instead, the decision by the Registrar seems to thwart and throttle such an initiative, offering no further avenues except this appeal. Should this appeal fail, then we would appreciate your advice how else like-minded people can meet and organise to better serve themselves and Singapore society.

2.1   A gay support group will not threaten or disrupt social order
2.2   It is necessary.
2.3   It is untenable and wrong to continue to proscribe homosexuals.

a) The group has been agglomerating informally for more than three years and, in that time, it has not proven to be disruptive, corrupting or subversive of Singapore society.

b) Gay and lesbian groups may conjure visions of radical gay politics demanding extreme sexual liberties. PLU has no such radical agenda.

c) Our main focus will be awareness in the educational sense, through discussion groups with the aim of helping gay and lesbian people better understand their own lives. This is expected to lead naturally to self-help and support, not just for gay and lesbian people, but for families with gay and lesbian individuals as well, and the promoting of tolerance and understanding generally.

d) Having a homosexual support group does not mean it will be out to proselytize heterosexuals. People are homosexual, just as people are heterosexual, for a complex array of reasons which are not yet fully understood. People do not turn gay because of the mere presence of a homosexual support group. And not allowing such a group does not mean that gay or lesbian people turn heterosexual.

e) What is generally agreed by professions that have looked into such issues is that sexual orientation is fixed; in fact there is increasing evidence of genetics as a factor (see annexure C). It is not a case of people deciding to be homosexual (just as people do not decide to be interested in the opposite sex). The existence of a gay discussion and support group like People Like Us is not going to alter the percentage of Singaporeans who are homosexual.

f) There may be a belief that Singapore society is not ready yet to accept such an organisation. This is highly debatable. Asian societies around us have, to varying degrees, permitted homosexual support groups and it is hard to imagine Singaporeans being less cosmopolitan than them about such an issue. It is true that sections of Singapore society would be opposed to homosexuals just as there would be sections opposed to abortion or the theory of evolution. There may be a general discomfort with the issue of homosexuality because it has been kept a taboo for so long; but the issue of registering a gay support group is unlikely to concern the average Singaporean enough to cause social disruption. Besides, PLU, is not seeking a high public profile, as you can see from the proposed programs outlined in 2.1(c) above. Engagement with the larger straight community will only be done at a pace which is comfortable to both sides.

g) Over the years, there are distinct signs that Singapore has changed with people being more aware about the presence of homosexuals in society. Gay Singaporeans are more visible. The media (newspapers, magazines, television and films) have provided more coverage. Local newspapers (including the generally more conservative Chinese-language press) have shifted their approach gradually to a more matter-of-fact non-condemnatory middle ground.

h) Hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans travel abroad very year. Many have become acquainted with other societies in which gay issues are openly reported and discussed and gay organisations highly visible. The idea that gay Singaporeans exist, and that they may want to form a club cannot be shocking anymore to a large section of our society.

i) Your government is also taking a more understanding position regarding non-orthodox sexual behaviour. The recent legislation to allow transsexuals to get married even at the risk of upsetting certain religious minorities is a good illustration. In this instance, we note that adverse reaction has been minimal. We would believe then that Singapore society has matured considerably in the last decade. It is in the spirit of all these developments that we think it timely to take this cautious step forward with the rest of the nation.

a) PLU in its three years of informal existence has provided a forum for gay people to meet and talk about the problems they encounter in everyday life, e.g coping with family, work, breakups, bereavement. The act of homosexuality may be outlawed in Singapore but gay and lesbian people exist nonetheless and need to lead some sort of life where there are some very real problems to come to grips with. Discussing them in a low-profile support group as distinct from airing these problems publicly offends nobody while serving a real need within the gay community.

b) People naturally wish to discuss their concerns with like-minded or sympathetic others. It lends emotional comfort, and often by sharing experiences, lead to better insight and resolution of difficulties. It is certainly better than bottling everything up and feeling alone in this world. In issues of sexuality, family is often unhelpful. They are often bewildered and judgmental rather than supportive, and rarely better informed. Gay and lesbian people cry out for support groups. In short, a group like PLU can be helpful to people wanting to improve their lives.

c) Every gay or lesbian person has parents, grandparents and generally, siblings and other relatives. The lack of information, lack of avenues to get information, lack of forums in which to air and work out feelings and opinions, is as unhealthy to the family as to the gay or lesbian person. Just as gay and lesbian persons' lives and emotional well-being are deformed by ignorance, prejudice and self-hate, so are the lives and emotional well-being of those who love them. We sincerely believe that the mission of PLU in promoting understanding and tolerance and creating channels of communication would be a useful and constructive step in keeping families whole.

d) Several counseling services have approached PLU to ask if they can refer some of their clients to us. Being a fledgling unofficial organisation with no resources nor proper training yet to handle such a task, we had to turn them down but it illustrates a need for an organisation like PLU to grow in order to handle some of these socially useful tasks.

e) The more broad-minded sections of Singapore society are as accepting as any about the fact that homosexuals live and work among them and are normal, capable people in all respects. Questions of sexuality do not faze them. The more conservative and insulated sections of our society remain uninformed. We believe this growing gap puts our society under strain. When the gap is wide, social consensus on sexual issues break down. Being open to the world, that social consensus cannot be restored by closing our minds from the long-term trends abroad, which is that gay and lesbian issues are coming out into the open. The wiser option is to gradually educate the more conservative section of our population to be tolerant and respectful of sexual minorities. This is a task that PLU would be glad to embark on if given a chance.

f) PLU is in a better position as a non-government organisation in addressing such issues than the government. It allows the government to remain a neutral arbiter, moving slowly with evolving public opinion on this subject, rather than directly taking on an issue that may be emotional to some people.

a) A convenient reason for disallowing PLU would be to say that homosexuals are deviants and should not be encouraged. Round the world, professional psychiatric bodies are declassifying homosexuality as a deviance. The Singapore psychiatric fraternity may not yet have done this but most psychiatrists locally do not have strong views about whether it is a deviance or not. The practice has been to address homosexuality only when it segues into maladaptive forms, such as depression. For the government to act on the basis that it is a deviance when local professional opinion is uncertain, and professional opinion in many other countries to the contrary, would be to unnecessarily hurt the credibility of the government and undermine its image of compassion and reasonableness.

b) The gay and lesbian community is a disgruntled and disaffected community in Singapore. While no government can make everyone happy, it seems unnecessary to further entrench their disaffection, by a heavy-handed refusal to grant registration to a grass-roots organisation seeking sincerely to operate within the law. It would seem to us that the wiser path is to make Singapore society inclusive, to the benefit of all, and granting our appeal would be a helpful step in this direction.

c) We cannot imagine what further kudos the government can win from public opinion by refusing to grant registration when questions of sexuality are not key issues in Singaporeans' minds. On the other hand, to let the Registrar's decision stand could be interpreted adversely by the more educated (heterosexual) sections of Singapore society heretofore supportive of the government's encouragement of civil society, tolerance, mutual respect and inclusiveness.

 
Lastly, we would be ready to meet with yourself should you believe it useful towards a better understanding of our application.

(Signed on behalf of all ten applicants for the registration of People Like Us)
Annexures were included in the letter, but omitted from this website   

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None