| August
1998
Playing with Dynamite, part 2
|
|
The remarks made by the police inspectors in Playing with
Dynamite, part 1 may have surprised some readers by their rather matter-of-fact
tone. Do it at home or in a hotel, they said. But this would be at variance with
the law as written.
They way they approached their task -- and they were even slightly apologetic about it, "we have to do our job", "I also have many gay friends" -- was from the angle of controlling a public nuisance. The funny thing is, the law was not written with a view to controlling a public nuisance. It was written to impose a certain idea of morality. That is why the law does not distinguish between homosex in public or in private. The law sees it as bad wherever it may occur and sees its purpose as one of stamping out that Evil within Christendom. That is also why the penalties are severe. 10 years maximum for gross indecency between males, life in prison for sex "against the order of nature". Laws written to control public nuisance have very different levels of penalties. They provide for fines, even just compound fines, probation or community service, and at worst, short jail terms for the recalcitrant. Furthermore, laws against public nuisances are more focussed. Littering and smoking laws are space-specific. They don’t apply to private homes, or hotel rooms. Smoking laws even makes exemptions for pubs and dance clubs. Chewing gun laws are specific to transactions. They ban the import and sale of chewing gum in Singapore (I know foreigners make fun of this law, but I can bet you the great majority of Singaporeans approve of them, myself included), but recognise the right of the individual to chew gum, if he so wishes. Laws against homosexuality are not like them at all; their severity and their intrusiveness into the bedroom scream outrage and damnation. There are some laws that resemble the homosex laws in that they too spring from a certain idea of morality, and therefore are not limited to public spaces in their applicability. They are laws on solicitation, sex with a minor and pornography. Like the laws on homosex, enforcement action on pornography is well known to be haphazard. There is a certain half-heartedness about the whole thing. Vendors sell VCDs openly at bus stations, internet service providers make money on the connection time their subscribers use surfing buxom sites, and the post office has no inclination to check incoming mail. The police only appear on the scene when it gets too blatant, or when some self-righteous loud-mouth complains. Even more interestingly, when the issue is discussed in public forums, it is always framed as one of protecting the young, which implies that adults don’t need protection. It is another example of how a law written to impose a moral standard on a broad swathe of the population is currently justifiable only in terms of a narrow impact on society. Enforcement action against solicitation (the transactional aspect of prostitution) is even harder to find. Most people would take the view that it is their private affair. And sensibly too, because it is. Prostitution is a largely victimless matter. Willing buyer, willing seller. Consensual homosex is also victimless -- not that homosexual relations are anything like prostitution, I must stress. And you see the police approaching both in the same way. They only act when someone complains, and even then, they tend to do the bare minimum from the point of view of controlling a public nuisance. I’m sure they say the same thing to the woman and her john: "Why don’t you two do it in a home or hotel?" forgetting that the law does not distinguish between soliciting on the street and soliciting in a hotel room. Sex with minors may look similar to the above laws, but in actual fact, it is very different. The crux of the difference lies in the fact that it has a "victim": A young person whom the law presumes to be not old enough to understand what is happening. The purpose of the law is very clearly to protect them. Generally, people can see this distinction. If you ask around, you will find far stronger support for full enforcement of this law compared to attitudes about victimless "crimes". Yet, if you look at the landscape of laws and regulations in Singapore, these "morality" laws, however poorly enforced, still stand out as interesting exceptions to the well-observed tendency of the Singapore government to modify laws and by-laws regularly to suit changing circumstances. It has always made a virtue of hardheaded pragmatism, even if public opinion is not on its side. Look at the complex and sometimes inventive rules we have for Certificates of Entitlement (for car ownership), Electronic Road Pricing, foreign worker schemes, the maintenance of parents and even election laws. These have all been re-thought and adjusted regularly. Or take the example of sex change laws. Sex change was first legally permitted in the seventies, but a few years ago, a marriage involving a sex-changed person was declared null and void by a court because the law on marriage refers to the sex at birth. After that case, the law was changed to allow sex-changed persons to marry based on their new sex. A humane, realistic and pragmatic solution to a problem. In contrast, the morality laws, particularly the present laws criminalising homosexuality, have been frozen for decades. They are certainly not realistic anymore. When police officers blithely advise that you do it at home or in a hotel, when police officers themselves go home to their same-sex lovers and go to bed together in the full belief that they are doing nothing wrong, it tells you that there is something farcical in the gap between real life and the law which first appeared in Victorian England, a century and a half ago. More than that, if the policy is to leave the law as it is, but be highly discretionary about enforcement, then it goes against the grain of Singapore’s philosophy of incorruptibility. The more discretion given to operational officers when it comes to enforcing laws, the greater the temptation to be corruptly influenced in the exercise of that discretion. Another downside to leaving the laws as they are, comes out of the climate of intolerance they produce. It is one of the major factors pushing Singaporeans to emigrate, or if they are abroad for studies, to decide not to return. For a place that is so talent-short, to pay this continuing price year after year, seems ridiculous. As for why we continue this ridiculous price, I will come to that later. What should be a more sensible policy in respect of homosex? Treat it in law the same way as thinking Singaporeans, including apparently, the police, are treating it. As a private matter, but potentially a public nuisance. Put aside the question of morality, which for a diverse, open society like Singapore, may never be much of a consensus. It’s like how the question of morality is hardly ever raised in discussion of pornography anymore. It’s considered unhelpful in arriving at a practical solution. If we are to treat homosex as a private matter, then the first thing to be done is to repeal the laws against it. In its place, there should be a more up-to-date law against public indecency, whether by men or women. And the law should not be too coy to be specific about what constitutes indecency, rather than leave it to vague Christian euphemisms like the present laws. A side advantage of repealing the anti-homosex laws, is that it makes it possible for the authorities to license private places, where sex may occur. The authorities can’t approve licences at present, because in effect it would be giving official permission for a crime. But come on, it’s a fact of life that Singapore has a gay population keen on sex, like any metropolitan city anywhere in the world. Can you stop people from having sex? No. But you can channel it to specific places, which would not cause offence to bystanders. If Singapore were less constipated in licensing pubs, bath-houses and short-time hotels, like other cities around the world, the whole scene would move into these more private places, and out of the public eye. Everybody would be happier for it. It’s a sensible carrot and stick approach to a complex social issue. It’s no different from the way we are evolving our film censorship policy, no different from the way we handle alcohol licences, no different from how the SBA is trying to take a modulated approach to internet regulation. Take the morality question out of it and get to grips with the real world. Be pragmatic and rational, like how Singapore prides itself to be. Then why is Singapore constipated over these ancient morality laws? Well, precisely because they are Morality laws, with a capital M. There will always be a righteous minority quick to scream in horror should anyone suggest lowering these high standards of moral rectitude, never mind if nobody follows them, never mind if they are not enforced. In contrast, there isn’t a vocal enough opposing voice, partly because any voice opposing the Moral voice will be made out to be an Immoral voice. Nobody cares to be labelled Immoral. Gay people don’t speak up in Singapore, because to do so, they are exposed as gay, and then everybody else may legitimately discriminate against them, as encouraged by the law, of course. The other problem is that morality is closely
linked to religion, which politicians know, is a sensitive, even explosive
subject. Here, pragmatism trembles before the primal. Perhaps the official
thinking is that it is better leave the status quo alone -- intolerance,
injustice, emigration, corruptibility and the absurdity of police inspectors
offering goodhearted advice contrary to the law -- than to have religion blow up
in our faces. Perhaps any attempt to update morality laws would be like playing
with dynamite. © Yawning Bread
|
Suggest you first read Playing with Dynamite, part 1 before coming here |
|
Footnotes None Addenda
|
|
