Radio journalists ask the gay question

On 24 October, Lee Kuan Yew was interviewed by Terry Gross of National Public Radio, USA, for their program "Fresh Air". The interview ranged across many subjects: Singapore's early economic development, how English became the common language, attracting multinational corporations, home ownership, censorship and human rights.

Well, it also touched on caning and chewing gum -- ridiculously petty, you might think,, but then it’s an American interviewer, you understand. Americans are too often hung up on these two little things about Singapore.

Here's the part about homosexuality:

Gross: ..... I want to just get back to something we were talking about earlier, which is certain things that are illegal in Singapore. What are the laws against homosexuality in Singapore?

LKY: Well, we are with British 19th centuries law on homosexuality which is on the statute book. But we have not prosecuted anybody for homosexuality for the last 40, 50 years. What is on the statute book, and if you molest somebody and try and make him a homosexual, particularly if he's a minor, then the law will be enforced. It's a question of judgment. Once we conclude that homosexuality is also a DNA problem, then you've got to approach the punishment in a different way. And if you have consenting adults, well, God bless both of them. But let's...

Gross: God bless both of them only if you find DNA evidence, or...

LKY: No, no. Only if they do not inveigle and draw in innocent, young boys who are not with that inclination.

Gross: Why not just take the law off the books? I mean, for example, you can say, `Well, you know, these laws aren't being used to persecute people,' but say you're a homosexual who's also a political dissident. You might think, `Well, this would--you know, convicting me of homosexuality would be a handy way of getting me into prison so I can't protest things I oppose in the government.' So you never really know where you stand when there's a law on the books that's not really being used, but it could be used.

LKY: Well, we've not had any dissident or any opposition member who's a gay or a lesbian, so the question doesn't arise. Really it's not an issue, not even with the opposition. And if the opposition raises it, they may well lose votes with the conservative parents.

Gross: You know, I've noticed that every time I ask you about a criticism of your country, especially those having to do with what is perceived as human rights violations, you laugh. And I'm wondering...

LKY: Well, because I think it is absurd. Because if you are right, if the reports you read about is right, then Singapore must be a hell of a hole to be in. But as I told you, we've got one million out of four million who are foreigners happy to come to Singapore, willing to work there and wanting to stay on. Now you tell me if that's right or wrong. Something must be going on right. I mean...

The most notable thing from Lee’s answers was an indication that it is now policy in Singapore not to prosecute for consensual homosex between adults. I think this is the first time this point has been made by any cabinet minister. In this sense, it’s a noteworthy statement.

However, the specific assertion that such prosecution has not happened in the last 40, 50 years can be disputed. The article You can’t do that! mentions a case where a lawyer, Ashok Kan, was charged with Section 377(a) of the Penal Code, for "gross indecency". What happened was that his sexual partner made a police report that he had suffered sexual contact from the accused against his will. Kan, in his defence, pointed out that the accuser had asked for money. There was the whiff of blackmail. Kan was acquitted. Reading between the lines, it seemed to me that there had been sex between the two, and it was consensual, only that the accuser had the gall to make a police report when he was not paid off.

Given such a case, it is hard to see how the Senior Minister could so blithely suggest that no one had been prosecuted for consensual homosex, only for cases of molest, when the line between the two is so easily blurred by malice.

This was the point that Terry Gross was leading up to when he asked, "Why not just take the law off the books?" Leaving it on the statute books merely invites abuse. And you can see that the Senior Minister really had no answer to this, beyond saying that the opposition hadn’t made an issue of it yet.

From another interview given around the same time, however, we can deduce the government’s case. This interview was given Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (Lee Kuan Yew’s son) to BBC’s Christopher Gunness. The program was called "Out in Asia", and was aired on 13 November, 2000.

Gunness: I'm now with one of the new generation of Singaporean politicians, the Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. We've been talking to gay and lesbian people in Singapore and one of the things they say is that they just don't have enough space, that because it's criminalised but people aren't actively pursued by the police, there is this atmosphere of intimidation, even though it's not actual, they're not all carted off to prison, but there is this fear in the background. What's your answer to that?

LHL: These are social mores and norms, a balance which is set not so much by the Government, as by the expectations of the public, and this is a multi-racial, multi-religious public and some segments are very conservative and traditional in their views, and we have to accept that. As you say, homosexual people are not harassed or intimidated or squeezed in Singapore. But neither do we encourage homosexual lifestyles to be publicly flaunted or legitimised or presented as being part of a mainstream way of life.

Gunness: We spoke to a lesbian who told us that her girlfriend was a doctor, and when she qualified, they had to split up because her girlfriend said, 'I will simply not get a job as a doctor.' Now, that's clearly not Government discrimination, but the Government sets the tone and it happens lower down. Do you accept that that is at least a problem?

LHL: Well, I think these are balanced trade-offs which we have to make. We have to take a position. We've inherited a society which is the way we are. We've inherited legislation which we now have on our books, really from the British. You have evolved - you have changed, and it continues to be a matter for debate in Britain, so I'm sure it will continue to be a matter for debate in Singapore. But, I think it has to evolve on its own and it really cannot...we really don't think it's a good idea to make this an issue for a pressure group effort.

Gunness: There have been surveys done which show the people are much more tolerant, which puts a lie, if you like, to the Government argument that there are public objections to a more liberal attitude. Is that not fair?

LHL: Well, we have to judge the overall political tone. You can conduct surveys. It depends whom you ask, and our judgement is that this is a fairly conservative society and it is not ready to make a qualitative change.

In a nutshell, the government’s defence is to bleat that they are saddled with inherited laws and a conservative society. "Oh, we’re helpless under the circumstances!"

This is the same government that shut down the Chinese-language Nanyang University despite howls of protest from the Chinese conservatives, that is boxing in the madrasahs despite howls of protest from the Muslim conservatives, that cut workers’ provident fund contributions when the recent economic recession hit, saying it was necessary even if unpopular.

This is the same government that said the single-member constituency system that it had inherited from the British didn’t suit Singapore and went on to amend our electoral laws freely and repeatedly over the years. It has a large enough majority in Parliament to amend the constitution at will. Indeed, it has done so, for example, creating the Elected Presidency with veto powers when it wanted to protect state money from the (allegedly) grubby hands of the opposition.

But, no, it is unable to update the laws regarding homosexuality even when it has no intention to enforce them.

Is that credible?

Many gay people in Singapore will say, "See, it only shows how homophobic they are. They don’t want to change the laws, but will use ‘conservative society’ as a convenient excuse."

My reading, though, is that it is rather more layered than that. Yes, there is probably a streak of homophobia among the ministers and bureaucrats, most of whom would be heterosexual men in the 40’s or 50’s. Even if among them, some are more neutral to the question of equality in sexuality, there wouldn’t be enough motivation to make this a priority matter.

Instead, their priority is stability and power, and prevent any group or issue from arising that may circumscribe their freedom of manoeuvre. You can sense this from the way Lee Hsien Loong added the remark that, "we really don't think it's a good idea to make this an issue for a pressure group effort" when BBC’s Gunness did not even suggest anything like that. The Deputy Prime Minister doth protest too much, and it reveals their fears.

The claim by Lee Hsien Loong that "some segments are very conservative and traditional in their views," is quite different from another of his statements, that "this is a fairly conservative society and it is not ready to make a qualitative change." The latter speaks of a general average (which he claimed was ‘fairly conservative’ but which I dispute) while the former speaks of a bloc that resists change. I believe the former phrasing is more reflective of the government’s true concerns. They are afraid of the fundamentalists in Singapore society, and they are very wary of taking them on, least of all over the issue of homosexuality. The government has nowhere near enough conviction over broad principles like free speech, equality and civil liberties, (when have they ever displayed conviction for these principles?) to argue any kind of case against the fundamentalists, whether Christian, Muslim or plain Jurassic gender-phobes.

They just don’t want the gay issue to arise; their nightmare is that gay Singaporeans will gradually make their voices heard ("pressure group"), and the government will be caught in a bind.

In my opinion, they know very well that Singapore cannot afford to be overtly homophobic. As an economy, we are too dependent on foreign investment and talent – and we have a big enough problem even trying to attract our own people back to live and work here – to risk a reputation as an intolerant country. For this reason, I do believe that they are sincere when they say they are not out to harass gay men and women. Of course, they don’t realise that leaving the law on the books is intimidatory, but ruling classes everywhere are seldom sensitive to the nuances of their throwing their weight around.

I also wonder if the subordinate layers of government are in step with such a policy of non-harassment. Imposing a glass ceiling on gay persons' careers in the civil service, sustaining a climate of discrimination, refusing to permit a public forum discussing gay issues (on the risible excuse that since homosexual acts are illegal, so the public cannot hear or speak about gay perspectives on life and society) are also subtle forms of harassment.

The bind the government is afraid to be caught in is if the gay issue comes up strongly and the fundamentalists react in their usual way (i.e. all emotion, no logic, quoting scriptures and rabble-rousing). They’d be forced to choose. They’d be in a no-win situation. Their freedom of manoeuvre would be seriously limited. And this government hates it when they are not all-powerful.

So, to forestall that unhappy day, they’d see it wiser today to keep the gay guys gagged. I think I understand their logic, but it doesn't lessen the injustice inflicted on us.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

You can visit National Public Radio's archive at:
http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDate=10/24/2000