I bought a copy of the magazine on my way to the support group meeting, but
didn't have time to read it. While the support group was gathering, some members
of the gay writing circle were coming out of their meeting, and between the two
groups, some of them borrowed my copy of Asiaweek (issue of August 7, 1998) and
read their cover story, "Gays in Asia: the struggle to be accepted".
The guys' opinions were uniformly negative.
"Lousy writing", "shallow", but mostly, "there's
nothing about Singapore".
It was only this morning that I finally sat down
to read the cover story, and I regret to say, my opinion is equally negative.
Not the lack of the Singapore part, which was not correct -- there was
some mention of Singapore -- but I do agree, the whole article was an
unsatisfactory potpourri.
Actually, 'unsatisfactory' is, in my opinion, par
for the course for general newsmagazines like Asiaweek, Time or Newsweek, which
is why I have never subscribed to any of them, and hardly ever buy a copy from
the newsstands. These magazines try to be so wide-angle and try so hard to cater
to the 'general' reader, meaning the one with no pre-understanding of context
and history, that it cannot but fail to hold the attention of the more demanding
reader. It is seldom clear whether the magazine is supposed to inform or
entertain. If it's stuck at that very basic dilemma, then you can forget about
it aiming to challenge people to think.
This particular cover story reflected this
problem to a magnificent degree. It had three major weaknesses:
- It saw "gays" as the issue, when in
fact it was tumbling around at least 3 different issues: male gayness,
lesbianism and male-to-female transsexualism (and many informed people would
say that transsexuals are not gay). The fact that it couldn't see the
distinctions among these three meant that instead of clarifying the issues,
it actually reinforced the ignorance and confusion of its readers. Serious
journalism in the West has moved to the term "sexual minorities"
to describe this subject. The term is used in the plural to denote that
there are different groups and the only thing in common is that they are
each a minority in terms of sexual orientation.
- It tried to take a sweeping perspective across
Asia. This is often fatal to a subject set within specific cultures and
societies, because the countries of Asia are so diverse. You can never get
into any depth when you take this approach; you can't analyse and you can't
draw conclusions. By being unable to get into the particular, the cover
story left out entirely the nexus and conflict between sexuality and
religion, especially the very different philosophical approaches taken by
Islam, the westernising Christianities (which, again, vary so much) and the
Buddhisms. It also forgot to mention East Asian films, which have been
increasingly bold in depicting homosexuality set in an Asian context, and
the impact of the internet.
- It was unable to focus on any specific issue
presented by sexual minorities. It wandered along many side-alleys such as
clubbing and the entertainment scene, cruising, sex-change and fashion
design, when the story's subtitle "The struggle to be accepted"
should have been better respected. This should have compelled a more tightly
written story about coming out, stereotypes, family pressure, conformity and
individualism, discrimination, censorship, self-help and civic rights. Come
to think of it, even this would be too broad a topic! It is intriguing that
seen through the lens of "The struggle to be accepted", it is
obvious why the matter of sexual minorities is such a burning question
today. It crystallises two of the most unresolved questions in a rapidly
modernising Asia that has yet to find equilibrium at the social and
political levels: the tension between the individual and society and that
between a minority and the state.
These key weaknesses resulted in a story that
hopped around from country to country, collecting an anecdote here and a quote
there. It ended up more descriptive than analytical. Behind these weaknesses,
was, I suspect, a problem of structure in the reporting and editorial team.
General newsmagazines are built around generalist country-writers, and the poor
dears are often asked to contribute stories on subjects they know absolutely
nothing about. It's no wonder then that the output reflects the incompetence.
You see it in this article, with its clichés of sequins and feathered boas (did
anyone check how many gay males and lesbians identify with such things?),
hairdressers and fashion designers.
|
|
|
For a subject as difficult and as hidden as this,
a magazine should have used a specialist writer, well-versed in the issue,
focussing on 3 or 4 countries supported by the country-reporters doing the
preparatory work for him. He would have been better able to tie the threads
together, and come up with a more cogent story. As usual there is the question
of economics. How does a general newsmagazine afford specialist writers when
there are an infinity of subjects?
* * * * *
Now, I will come to Singapore and in the yellow box on the right are some passages from the story. They're enough to illustrate the
shortcomings I have enumerated.
Take the case of Ben mentioned in the sample from Asiaweek. How typical was it? There's also the loose end of whether,
a decade, ago, a self-declared gay person would have been rejected. Is that
true? And as for shunting off into a desk job, does one honestly consider that a
"relaxed official attitude"? While some gay Singaporeans rather relish
this loophole in the enlistment regulations in order to escape the rigours of
field soldiering, others consider it degrading and believe it perpetuates the
exclusion of gay people from full participation in civic life. But most of all,
the implications of the squad's standing by Ben were not explored: that
Singapore society may be a lot more tolerant than the Singapore government. If
so, how did this come about, and what does it portend for the future? Surely,
these are questions a good journalist should ask?
The paragraph that opens with the sentence,
"Singapore -- the heart of the Asian gay movement?" is a real
let-down, because it immediately goes off into cruising. Most people would think
that the word "movement" is rather more related to organising,
changing minds and civic goals. I guess the country correspondent couldn't find
any leads. Which is strange. We're all over the internet, and there has been a
minor explosion of gay angles in local theatre.
Bugis Street. This is where the confusion of one
sexual minority with another shows up so starkly. Bugis Street was indeed the
haunt of transsexual prostitutes, but the clients in those days were not gay.
They were horny straight men. Bugis Street was never a gay haunt. You can't in
the same sentence talk about Bugis Street, and about a "hip gay
clientele". There was no connection.
So much for what has been written. What was not
written? Nothing about lesbians. And really, nothing about "The struggle
for acceptance". See what I mean?
But maybe we shouldn't say it's all hopeless.
After all, what with this pretty rude criticism emailed to the editor of
Asiaweek, and pinned up on the World Wide Web to boot, perhaps the truest
statement in the cover story may well be how astonishingly aggressive
Singaporean homosexuals are! 
© Yawning Bread
|
Issue of 7 Aug 1998
Asiaweek magazine
excerpts:
In
Singapore, stories abound -- without proof -- of senior government
officials and prominent professionals whose careers have been derailed
when their sexual orientation became known.
[snip]
Sometimes
a relaxed official attitude can be found in what might appear to be the
least expected places. Ben, a Chinese Singaporean waiter, says he was
asked if he was gay while undergoing medical tests for national service in
1992. "When I said yes, they simply asked if I would be having a
sex-change operation." Instead of being rejected, as he thinks would
have happened a decade before, Ben was assigned a desk job. There was no
hassle from the officers. "Some people made fun of me, but my squad
stood by me."
Singapore -- the heart of the Asian gay
movement? It is not an image that springs easily to mind. But,
government-mandated morality and Draconian laws aside (see box this
page), there is a thriving scene in the Lion City. A downtown shopping
mall, conveniently attached to two major hotels, is one of the prime
"cruising" spots, and it doesn't take a very practised eye to
figure out who's available.
Bugis Street, the raunchy old transvestite
haunt, has been cleaned up for tourists, but other watering holes have
opened to cater to a hip, gay clientele -- either exclusively or on
specific nights. One nightclub sets aside Wednesdays and Saturdays for
men. Another caters to men most nights except Wednesday, when it is for
women. The worldly Chew says he is astonished how aggressive Singaporean
homosexuals are: I have never been so accosted as in Singapore. Once, I
was walking down Orchard Road. When I got back to my hotel room, I found a
sticker on the back of my T-shirt. It read, 'If you are gay and want to
know what I look like, call me.' Of course, I didn't!" |
|
