| November
2001
The arrests at One Seven and Section 20
|
|
|
It was deliberate, not writing earlier about the arrests
made at One Seven Gym and Spa, when things were fluid and subjudice. But
now that the cases have been concluded, I will put on record here what I know or
heard. I
will also discuss the unexpected twist to the story – how the 2 men arrested
were finally charged under Section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act, instead
of Section 377A of the Penal Code.
On Monday, 23 July 2001, three undercover cops went into One Seven Gym and Spa, by posing as customers and paying for entry. They entered sometime between 7 and 8 pm. From the management's statements and other details provided by eyewitnesses directly to Yawning Bread, the undercover officers changed into towels, sat around and wandered about for quite a while. They flicked their cigarette lighter from time to time when in dim areas. An employee of One Seven noticed them doing this as they entered the steam room and told them not to do so, but of course, he didn't realise they were undercover. Sometime after 8 o'clock, the officers watched two men, both in their mid to late twenties, lock themselves into a private cubicle. The cops went into an adjacent cubicle and, one climbing onto another's shoulders, peered into the locked cubicle. The one peering over flicked his cigarette lighter again to throw light into the little room. Then they banged on the locked door, identified themselves as the police and demanded that the two men come out immediately. One of the eyewitnesses Yawning Bread spoke with was at that very moment in another adjacent cubicle, and was extremely disturbed to hear the commotion. After some hesitation, this eyewitness came out of his cubicle with his companion, and was confronted by one of the officers. "What were you doing inside there?" the officer demanded, brusquely. The eyewitness, making use of the fact that he was holding an empty can of soft drink, said, "Just finishing my drink," and walked off. The 2 guys inside the cubicle took a little longer to come out. When they did, one of them made the mistake, according to what Sam, a partner in One Seven, told Yawning Bread, of admitting that they were having sex ... and so what? The officers handcuffed the men, and called for a police van. (The management's statement said that handcuffs weren't used [2], but two eyewitnesses told Yawning Bread they were -- the discrepancy is probably due to a difference in timing.) Meanwhile, the officers behaved rudely and aggressively to the arrested men and other patrons. Yet another eyewitness told Yawning Bread that one of them passed crude, homophobic (and possibly misogynic) remarks, something to the effect that "jeebai [3] so good, why you all want to fuck backside?" There was a wait of about 15-30 minutes. Meanwhile, Sam arrived after his manager called him, and soon after, the police van arrived too. The two arrestees were told to get dressed, and were taken to the police station. Beyond this point in the story, there are no more eyewitnesses. We do not know what happened except that the accused were held overnight without lawyers, made to sign a statement each, and charged the following morning. Some concerned members of the community organised a meeting to come up with some help for the 2 guys. They decided to write a petition letter. The first draft was rather lengthy, touching upon AIDS and the possibility of scaring away foreign talent. When my friends showed it to me, I immediately pointed out that the most crucial argument was missing – that no less than the Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew himself has said that the existing law would not be actively applied to consensual homosex (see below). I believe my comments were relayed to the drafting committee, because in the final version, that became the main thrust of a more concise letter. So far, no one can tell me whether the petition letter was ever sent. Quite rightly, the committee wanted to consult the 2 defendants and their lawyers. If any one of them objected to the submission of such a petition letter, they would hold back. Perhaps they did. Meanwhile, separately, one of the defendants reached me via email in August. He had seen on Yawning Bread my article detailing what the Senior Minister had said to reporter Terry Gross of US National Public Radio on 24 October 2000 (a fuller report can be seen in the article Radio journalists ask the gay question):
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.
Over the following weeks, I gave a little help to him to provide him with a contact within US National Public Radio so that he could get a formal transcript. I would imagine, although I didn't want to pry, that it would be useful to his lawyer's efforts to get the charges dropped. Meanwhile, everyone I knew was keeping his fingers crossed that the case would not appear in the media. Not only would it be devastating to the two defendants, it would completely undermine what little confidence gay Singaporeans might have that things were gradually being liberalised. A few foreign wire agencies filed reports of the "raid" and arrests immediately after that fateful Monday. Within 2 or 3 days, my friend Chris had been told by two of his friends, one in Italy, another in Japan, that they had read in their newspapers about the "raid". Foreign news agencies' reports are part of the news feed to our local media newsrooms, so at least some journalists locally would have been aware of the incident. Yet, nothing appeared in the local press or on TV. We must be careful, though, not to read into this any kind of editorial policy to suppress the news. Unless it's a major bust, e.g. against narcotics or illegal immigrants, the media does not cover police action. Most police forays here and there aren't newsworthy enough. The media generally waits till the case comes to trial, and if the story that emerges is salacious or noteworthy, then they'll report it. As it turned out, when this case was finally heard in court, some three stale months later, the charges had been reduced to relatively minor ones. On first sight, it would look so routine, I wouldn't be surprised that no court reporter bothered to follow it (see yellow box below). Yet, it was at this point that it got really interesting. The 2 guys caught in One Seven were originally charged under Section 377A of the Penal Code:
|
||
|
Although
the Senior Minister's public statement did not specifically refer to
Section 377A, given the context and his reference to "British 19th
centuries law" [the grammatical error probably arose from
transcription of his radio interview], it is quite clear he was
referring to it. Hence, pointing out this stated policy to the
prosecutors might be useful.
From the outcome of the case, it appears defence counsels did. The charges were amended to one under Section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Ed). This provides as follows :
The 2 guys were fined $600 each, which a lawyer friend of mine said, would be consistent with a first offence. However unhappy we are that the 2 guys were arrested at all, charged and fined, the outcome of this case may represent some kind of half-step of progress. A precedent has been set not to use Section 377A of the Penal Code, with its mandatory jail term, for cases of consensual homosex. Future such cases (not that we wish for any!) may see defense counsels citing this precedent to get charges reduced. The outcome seems to be in keeping with the Senior Minister's assurance, albeit more in a technical sense, rather than in the spirit of his words. Another implication lies in the fact that Section 20 is specific to a public place. This means that if Section 377A is no longer to be applied to consensual homosex, and Section 20 cannot apply to acts in a private place, the effect is therefore that consensual homosex in private no longer comes under any actively applied law. Not that we'd be satisfied with this "effect". Fair treatment for us should be enshrined in law, rather than depend on the whim and forbearance of rulers. But what is private space and what is public space? This calls for another article [A].
|
|
|
|
A continuing mystery
We may never know why the police went into One Seven at all. A sauna with gay sex going on is nothing new in Singapore. The venerable Diamond, which has been in existence for perhaps 10 years or more, is a well-known haunt of middle-aged Chinese-speaking men making out in the back rooms. The Diamond, however, officially positions itself as a straight place. Any number of other fitness centres with their steam rooms and whirlpools (including some well-frequented Armed Forces clubs) have "action" going on. Ever since Spartacus [5] opened in the 1997 (?) we've had exclusively gay saunas in Singapore, but One Seven's may be the first time the police went in to make arrests. The instinctive reaction of the gay public when news of the arrests flashed through the community like lightning was that this was the start of a major clampdown on gay men and their sex venues. We now have reason to believe it never was. Consider this:
In addition, one of my friends spoke with some contacts in the civil service, and they were quick to assure him that there has been no change in policy towards the gay community. So, once more, why? Even from the beginning, cooler heads (heavily scratched in puzzlement) considered a number of other possibilities:
I guess we'll never know.
© Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes
Addenda
|
|
