The New Paper on 4 May 2007, part 2

source: The New Paper, 4 May 2007, pages 6 and 7

4 May 2007
The New Paper, page 6

THE GREY AREA
by Ng Tze Yong

Gays okay, say some heartlanders. But only if they stay away

Friday night, Tanjong Pagar. Thumping music. Hunks and babes, dressed to kill. Macho sauntering, come-hither looks.

Just another scene at a club? Watch a little closer.

At some Tanjong Pagar pubs, the hunks don't check out the babes. They check out other hunks. And the babes check out other babes.

This corner of old Chinatown becomes the centre of Singapore's gay scene when night falls and the neon lights flicker on.

'Tanjong Pagar is to gays what Little India is to Indians, or what Chinatown is to the Chinese,' said regular patron Issac Ritz, a 22-year-old NSman.

Most of the gay clubs in Singapore are here, he said.

In a country still grappling with the idea of homosexuality, Tanjong Pagar is Singapore's fringe zone.

It's where the 'conservative majority' brushes up against the 'liberal minority'.

Where the singlet-clad uncle shares the same table with the guy with the right earring.

And it's okay.

The simplicity of logic works both ways. Security guard Joe Nathan, 30, doesn't like 'their attitude'.

'I'll be polite,' he said. But draws a line there.

 
OF COWS AND PIGS

Does he believe that some people are born gay? He offers an old Indian saying 'If a cow follows a pig around long enough, it will stop eating grass and start eating like the pig.'

Or, in less colourful language: Group influence.

The gay debate often takes place at the highest levels of society, bringing in genetics and God.

But often, it's street logic that prevails.

Ride a motorcycle. Follow a pig.

Dismiss it as ignorance? That might be too simplistic.

Homosexuality is an issue that has split the church, challenged medical science and changed laws in some countries.

Sometimes, it seems you need to be a doctor, priest or lawyer to answer the question.

But not everyone can dissect the issues wisely, although it's becoming an increasingly relevant question.

Hawker Tan Beng Seng, 53, runs a drinks stall at Maxwell market.

'I like them,' he said. 'They got standard, okay?'

They're professionals and well-educated, he explained. They wear branded clothes and many are from rich families.

'They're a bunch that really knows how to let their hair down and have a good time,' said Ms Aw.

Down the road, 37-year-old car jockey Remy A looked almost star-struck talking about the gay crowd that arrives on Friday and Saturday nights.

'It's a good crowd,' he said with a veteran's air. 'You should see their bodies, man. Muscle!'

And he has never seen the crowds at gay clubs get into fights.

Mr Remy's tone sounds accepting. But what would he do if his son should one day tell him that he is gay?

'I'd smack him,' he said.

The trend seems to be this: A decade ago, it was okay to be gay as long as you didn't come out of the closet.

Now, it seems okay to step out of the closet. But just don't step into my backyard.

Is it progress? Or just grudging resignation?

When gay customers give Mr Tan a friendly peck on the cheek, he doesn't mind.

'Kissing and hugging is the way Westerners greet each other,' he said matter-of-factly, even though not all his gay customers are Westerners.

Where does he draw the line?

'If a gay couple were to kiss openly in front of my stall, I'll ask them, please, lah, don't like that,' he said.

 
'NATURAL'

What if it's a male-female couple?

His eyes widened in surprise. 'Why would I need to do anything? That's perfectly natural,' he said.

The clubs or gay hangouts are subtle. A rainbow flag hangs outside one club, quite innocuously.

Only those in the know understand it's a symbol for gay pride. You won't find men smooching openly here.

It's only late into the night that you might see a couple stroll past hand in hand.

There seems to be an unspoken code.

You do your thing and I'll do mine.

Live and let live.

* * * * *

4 May 2007
The New Paper, page 7

Why the half measures? 
Comment by Ng Tze-yong

Put a priest, a professor and a gay person in the same room. Now ask a politician to keep the peace.

Tough call?

For some, the best thing to do about the homosexuality question is to gingerly walk the tightrope.

To be tolerant, yet sensitive.

Two weeks ago, at a forum with the Young PAP, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew called for a "pragmatic" approach.

The Government, he said, should not be the moral police.

But at the same time, it cannot ignore the concerns of conservative citizens.

In other words, let Tanjong Pagar be Tanjong Pagar.

But don't forget, there's a Toa Payoh and Tampines out there.

MM Lee's comments sparked off a flurry of letters to The Straits Times Forum pages.

Some argued passionately for equal rights for gay people. Some argued just as passionately to safeguard moral values.

One write labelled gay people "promiscuous and hedonistic". Another praised them as "contributing citizens".

 
HARD TO COMPROMISE

The old saying - "you can't make everyone happy" - holds true.

Compromise is never easy.

Are half-measures a cop-out, a "neither here nor there" situation?

Or do they represent a coming-of-age?

Dr Russell Heng, a senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, feels that the Government's behaviour is "confusing".

"This is a Government that is usually decisive, even with unpopular decisions like the ministerial pay hike," he said.

The Government's message, he said, seems to be this We're actually ready to go in this direction, but the public isn't ready yet. It's them, not us.

"There might be dissenting views among the political elite," said Dr Heng. "The Government might not have thought this through intellectually yet."

An MP who says he "might have had more exposure to this issue than others" is Mr Baey Yam Keng, MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC.

Mr Baey is a post-65 MP involved in the theatre scene where "there is a higher proportion of gay people".

He admitted that "maybe the Government is not very sure of itself yet."

"But different issues do require different approaches," he said.

"If a majority of the public accepts it, then the Government will be more liberal."

It's a dynamic position that does not quite convince John, a gay writer.

"MM Lee might have been more concerned in showing he is in tune with the times when he made his comments," said John.

Look at the "fine print", said John, who asked that his full name not be used.

In a separate Reuters interview, MM Lee had said "If we want creative people, then we got to put up with their idiosyncrasies so long as they don't infect the heartland."

The problem, said John, lies not with the "conservative majority" but with the "fundamentalists".

"Most homophobic people I know are religious people," said John.

Catholic leader Michael Broughton does not agree with homosexuality. But he insists he is not a fundamentalist.

For one, Brother Broughton's from the Inter-Religious Organisation, whose goal is to forge religious harmony.

"There are some things, however, which you just can't compromise on, which is the sanctity of the family unit," he said.

He feels the crux of the gay debate is this A case of a secular government trying to decide for a people that might not be that secular.

"How secular is Singapore, really? Just take a walk through a HDB estate during the Hungry Ghost Festival," said Brother Broughton.

But he added that "the 'public' is a huge grey area which everyone is trying to second guess."

The irony is that both gay people and religious leaders use morality to back up their oppsoing cases.

As John claimed, "criminalising homosexuality is immoral."

 
WHAT TO DO?

Caught in the middle, what else can the Government do?

Waiting for the right time (if it does come) is recognising that something immoral today might be acceptable in the future.

For example, pulling the plug on a brain-dead patient used to be an appalling idea.

But as medical science improved and it became possible to keep patients alive indefinitely, it gradually became acceptable.

Similarly, how should we reconcile the age-old institution of marriage with new medical claims that homosexuality is inborn?

But half-measures are not just about keeping up with the times. It's also about context.

You might think abortion is wrong. But would you have the courage to say that to a rape victim?

Similarly, is banning gay marriage the same as banning a gay party?

These days, homosexuality is not the only tightrope issue.

What lessons can we derive from the gay debate?

Like many other issues in an evolving, globalised, tightly-connected world, the gay debate will be resolved with time.

Slowly.

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None