In a letter dated 4 March 2004, the Assistant Director of Operations, Police, replied to Mr Richard Chua, the Artistic Co-Director of the Fun Stage, saying it would be "contrary to public interest" to grant them the necessary permits.

It appears that nothing has changed since May 2000, when the same lousy excuse was used to ban the forum that I proposed. See the article My forum was banned . Even the same line, "contrary to the public interest", was used.

"Lovers' Words" is a Chinese-language play by Qiu An Chen (Taiwan). I gather from a circulating synopsis that the play imagines a situation where society is majority gay and looks at how a heterosexual minority would fit into such a society.

The talks, meant for academics, arts practitioners and critics, aimed to address issues such as the representation of same-sex love in Chinese history, literature and culture, how Chinese culture is changing today, and the impact of the book "People Like Us: Sexual minorities in Singapore", published last year.

It will strike everyone that "contrary to public interest" is a sweeping reason that begs elaboration. It is so opaque, one cannot but feel it masks a true reason, perhaps one which the government cannot publicly reveal.

People Like Us issued a statement on 9 March 2004 saying the government needs to provide much greater accountability than that. The Straits Times called PELU to ask them to elaborate, but they refused (see attached article on the right)

The last time PELU elaborated, in the letter of rejection given to me in May 2000, they said that Singapore was conservative and the law made homosexuality illegal. Therefore it was contrary to the public interest to talk about things people don't want to hear and which Queen Victoria had already made illegal.

From that experience, I think the authorities learnt the lesson that the public felt free to laugh at them. So this time they must have decided to say even less.

Like all organisms, our government learns. They learn how to stonewall better. However, they never seem to stop and ask whether what they're doing makes any sense at all!

* * * * *

 
Russell Heng faults them for inconsistency. He pointed out to Associated Press that:

The PELU action is hard to understand or justify in view of what is an established reality in Singapore. Last August, PELU issued a permit for SPACES, a private counselling agency, to hold a one day public conference: Homosexuality and Homophobia: Applied Psychotherapeutic Issues for Counsellors. My question for PELU is: since then has the police found that to be detrimental to "public interest" in any way? In Singapore today, gay people can go to bars, saunas, and dance at a Sentosa Island party on National Day in huge numbers. Nothing so far has shown that these things are "contrary to public interest", so why should an academic discussion on gay literature be? PELU's decision would seem to indicate that the government only wants gay citizens to play and not to think. That makes PELU's decision a very thoughtless one.

* * * * *

This wasn't the first time such a story has appeared in our local media. This scientific finding has even been mentioned by the Minister of State for Health Dr Balaji Sadasivan (see the article Junior minister notes gay sheep).

Anyone who is able to string a couple of thoughts together would be able to discern an inescapable conclusion from this: that there is probably an organic difference between straight and gay people, just as there is an organic difference between one colour of skin and another, i.e. race. When there is a difference which in itself causes no harm, then public policy should try to accommodate that difference in an equitable way, rather than exclude and dehumanise a set of your own people on account of it. 

The difference cannot be wished away, anymore than racial minorities, tall people and math geniuses can be wished away. If a government  takes seriously its responsibility to the whole society which it is supposed to serve, then the wisest thing for it to do must surely be to build an inclusive society that everyone can call home.

Blind to the force of this logic, and running to no discernible logic of its own, PELU and our government seek to obliterate all discussion and representation of anything gay. Recognising no obligation to be accountable -- typical of all authoritarian governments -- they don't even feel a need to provide a half-credible reason.

But we can guess that the real answer lies in the nature of the beast:  an authoritarian government. Authoritarian governments take a lot of trouble constructing the power structures that most suits them, but that also means that any change, especially social change, will be seen with a suspicious eye. Either the change itself is seen to undermine one or more assumptions upon which they have built their structures or if the change itself is relatively harmless, it may still set off a domino effect. The resulting cascade of changes may be too unpredictable and too threatening to contemplate.

So don't even contemplate. Questions of merit or rationality aren't important. It boils down to a visceral feeling. Any change, any novel point of view, must be stamped down unless it is clear that it helps to further solidify the regime. Thus, when they say "it is not in the public interest", it really means it does not help them stay in power.

© Yawning Bread 

Alfian Sa'at provided a similar reading in a posting he made to SiGNeL, the gay mailing list, on 10 March 2004:

QUOTE

My main gripe about censorship practices in Singapore is not that it exists at all, but that it lacks the basic mechanisms which would make it a justifiable act, namely--accountability, consistency and transparency.

I was one of those who was slated to speak as part of the series of talks, and the topic I was going to address was that of Representation in Queer Theatre, with close reference to two plays I'd written: Asian Boys Vol. 1 and 2.

As a rough estimate, around a total of 4000 people have watched the two plays, which were passed uncut. Asian Boys Vol. 1 was passed by PELU (Public Entertainment Licensing Unit) in 2000, and Vol. 2 was passed by the MDA (Media Development Authority) this year. The changeover from one regulating body to another occurred some time last year, I believe.

From my experience of attending open forums in the past, the audience is usually very small. I would estimate the number of people who'd actually attend the talk I was meant to deliver to be in the region of 40-100.

Now, if there is indeed a hierarchy of censorship, where the 'censor-able' material is evaluated on the basis of its outreach and potential number of adressees, what could explain why the talk has been banned by the authorities? After all, I would believe that more people have purchased a copy of the book PLU: Sexual Minorities in SIngapore, than those who would attend the talk *about* the book.

I think the main answer lies in the unpredictability of the forum set-up. The presenters can perhaps send their papers to be vetted, but there are no mechanisms of control to regulate a question-and-answer session. And in Singapore, despite all the talk about active citizenship, spontaneity often equates to chaos in the bureaucrats' books. The state is unable to flash its red lights when a provocative question is asked, when dialogue is opened, when the people start arriving at a sense of commonality that proves counter to the state's own agendas.

Because when a gathering of people start expressing similar sentiments, begin to realise that they are not alone with their taboo opinions, then this sows the seed of some kind of social organisation. The actions of the state become vulnerable to all sorts of criticism, without any avenue for any of their proxies or representatives to present their famed 'firm, rigorous rebuttals.' And the state does fear collective opinion; one can criticise as individuals, but a demonstration of solidarity is the genesis of some kind of activism and advocacy.

It is this fear of the 'unscripted' that had led the state to proscribe both Forum Theatre and performance art in 1994. It is this fear that has led to laws prohibiting 'audience interaction' , even if at most it involves the most innocent of gestures: that of shaking hands. There is this paranoia that any citizen provided with some space for free expression will naturally seize the opportunity to voice anti-establishment rhetoric. The vicious irony in this is that if the citizen had not felt repressed to begin with, he or she would not immediately want to capitalise on such chances to air such grievances. So the logic goes as such: the silenced citizen has to be kept as a silent citizen, because he or she by default is a potential dissident.

The other thing I want to address is the statement of PELU which stated that the talk was 'contrary to public interest'. We have to once and for all dismantle such flimsy excuses. Who defines the public? Am I not also a member of the public? What right does PELU have to determine the desires of the public and speak on its behalf? Was it not contrary to public interest that the GST was raised? That Singapore lent full support for the war on Iraq? That the National Library torn down?

To anyone who feels disheartened by this recent turn of events, I'd like to say: don't. The fight will continue, in many forms. These are nothing but desperate bogeyman tactics, not backed by moral certitude or even intellectual credulity, motivated only by fear and self-righteousness.

ENDQUOTE