What we don't realize is that the issue isn't a narrow one of economic activity alone. Social conditions, political arrangements, the quality of education and the space available for innovation contribute to the end result over the medium and longer term.

In other words, 'progress' isn't only a matter of direct economic activity. There must likewise be progress on other societal fronts that enable economic progress.

One of the starkest examples before us today is the case of the Arab world. A series of studies carried out in recent years under the aegis of the UN have documented how, despite oil wealth, the region has failed miserably to develop its human potential, leading to many states in crisis. Blame is laid at the rigidities imposed by authoritarian governments, anti-modern religious dogma, censorship and a social environment more akin to the feudal than the modern age.

As true blue Singaporeans who like to look down upon others, we'd hardly think the same can apply to us. But it can and, seeing the creeping sclerosis of our political system and the pig-headed social engineering it promotes, such a scenario is more conceivable than most of us may think. Our economy and society don't have to fail. They only have to be more paralysed and more unadapting to the external environment than our neighbours', and we will gradually fall back into (relative) poverty.

* * * * *

Let me illustrate this by delving a little deeper into the question of gay marriage.

At first glance, this is precisely the kind of thing we don't think we need to bother about. Only the libertine West -- the part of the world that has lost all moral compass -- is prone to such nonsense. Here in solidly Confucian Asia, where people are still hardworking and where people put society over self, blah, blah, blah, there is no chance of that happening.

Singaporeans don't have to lose sleep over this issue. Our neighbours aren't going to act differently from us anyway. Falling behind? What a laughable question! And how does gay marriage contribute to economic growth, anyway?

The issue looks distant when you're not on the frontlines.

I am.

Recently, there was an email from a senior executive currently living in Europe. He works for a very big multinational company. (I shall give you a clue. The company's name starts with the letter "I" and just about everybody in Singapore - no exaggeration - will know it. It's a huge corporate success story.)

Anyway, this guy has been asked by his company to relocate himself to Singapore. In his email, he asked for advice - what are the chances of getting residency for his partner, on the basis that they are a couple? After all, when heterosexual expatriates move to Singapore, their husbands or wives automatically get residency permits as their dependents.

It won't take a genius to guess that there can be no equivalent arrangement for same-sex couples. After all, aren't they criminals under our law, in the first place? Shouldn't they be arrested upon arrival? And if you think the last is a far-fetched notion, put yourself in the potential expatriate's shoes. Given Singapore's worldwide reputation of having a harsh authoritarianism, it is quite possible that foreigners imagine it can happen.

Even if he's not altogether paranoid about seeing the inside of Changi prison, or getting flogged (another famous icon of Singapore), what do you reckon are the chances that he will accept the posting, if he has to be separated from the one he loves?

So we lose a few potential expats, so what? What percentage of people are gay anyway?

But let's not forget the multiplier effect. A research lab, corporate head office or big legal firm will want to move a complete team together. They don't want to have to leave one or two key members out. Or if they rotate staff, they don't want to have to go down the list to second choice or third choice just because the ideal candidate won't relocate to Singapore.

It isn't a merely a question of how many professionals and executives are gay. It is how many investing and corporate teams contain gay members, who will be affected by our archaic laws.

In the days when Europe and America were only slightly less homophobic than Singapore, gay expatriates might not have baulked at our strictures. But as civil unions and gay marriages become widespread, expectations change. It will be increasingly unacceptable that we do not offer the same legal and social conditions as what they are used to.

* * * * *

But if they want to invest in Asia, what other options will they have?

Within this question lies another danger: that of believing our own propaganda: that we're an Asian society and so can only move glacially in the direction of gay equality.

As I pointed out in my article 'Asian' means we have to live with hypocrisy and paralysis, at an intellectual level, this line of thinking is crap. We need to wake up to reality.

See the yellow box alongside. Wouldn't you agree that Norodom Sihanouk, a descendant of a long line of rulers from the days of Angkor Wat, king of a dirt-poor, largely rural, Buddhist Cambodia, is a whole lot more authentically "Asian" than us? And what's he saying about gay marriage?

The Taipei government has already put forward the idea of legalizing gay marriage in Taiwan.

The Chinese government gave a nod to their governing body for psychiatrists to remove homosexuality from a list of psychiatric illnesses in 2000. The significance of this, as I pointed out in my article 20th century China - the rise and fall of state homophobia, is greater than it looks, for China does not have any law specific to homosexuality. The psychiatric classification was the main justification for state homophobia previously. Its removal was equivalent to decriminalization, a step that Singapore has yet to take.

Singapore has to keep ourselves an attractive place for wealth and talent. We are already handicapped because countries like China, India, Thailand and others have huge domestic markets and low-cost resources. To compensate, we have to make our physical, legal, social and cultural environment - in addition to the economic - more attractive than theirs. We can't just keep pace. We have to be ahead of the pack.

* * * * *

But is the future where gay civil unions and marriages become widespread, imminent? If 'imminent' means a 5 to 10-year time frame, then Yes.

We're not even preparing our population for the idea. When the first massive wave of gay marriages came out of San Francisco's City Hall, starting 12 Feb 2004, there were one or two articles in the Straits Times. Then when President Bush said he favoured a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, it was reported again. And so far, that's been that.

Singaporeans are left with the impression that Bush will soon fix the problem.

Other than the news wire reports, we haven't had any commentary on the subject. If our papers had carried some commentary, Singaporeans would have seen that the general consensus of knowledgeable opinion was that such a constitutional amendment was unlikely to succeed. Nor have Singaporeans heard that Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General of New York, and Bill Lockyer, Attorney-General of California, have both said, in effect, that they felt the law is wrong to forbid gay marriages. 

As the outraged Christian rightwing would scream, "The Huns are already within the castle walls!"

As things stand, it is likely that marriage as a civil right in one form or another will be extended to gay persons in the near future, the same way that America has gradually broadened its inclusiveness throughout its history.

These commentaries are all there in the leading American newspapers. Not only is it irresponsible for our papers not to seek to import any of them, when one arrived unsolicited, our leading newspaper turned it away.

The Straits Times regularly carries the twice-weekly columns of Tom Plate, a syndicated journalist. One of his articles, dated 2 March 2004, touched on the subject of gay marriage. The Passion of Christ - and the passion of gay bashers is archived here in Yawning Bread. This particular one was not carried by the Straits Times. Interesting omission, don't you think?

© Yawning Bread