26 We will continue to expand the space which Singaporeans have to live, to laugh, to grow and to be ourselves. Our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional ideas, or simply be different. We should have the confidence to engage in robust debate, so as [to] understand our problems, conceive fresh solutions, and open up new spaces. We should recognise many paths of success, and many ways to be Singaporean. We must give people a second chance, for those who have tasted failure may be the wiser and stronger among us. Ours must be an open and inclusive Singapore.

I am going to show you a series of examples, drawn from my experience in gay activism, that are astoundingly at variance with the sentiments expressed in that paragraph. There seems to be an enormous gulf between sweet words and harsh reality.

Let me say at the outset that while I am going to use examples from the gay issue, the points that I hope to make apply more generally, in particular how the ideal of openness requires us to re-examine the values that have long underpinned our political system.

The gay issue is useful in that it throws sharply into relief many contradictions in policy, but the conclusions go well beyond sexuality alone.

* * * * *

People Like Us

Many of you may have heard of People Like Us. Our mission is to inform and educate the public and to advocate for a more enlightened approach to gay and lesbian sexuality.

In the first half of 2004, People Like Us made our second attempt to get registered as a society under the Societies Act. The Registrar of Societies refused and, after some prodding, provided their reasons:

• The society is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore; 
• and It would be contrary to the national interest for the society to be registered.

The Registrar further explained that,

As the mainstream moral values of Singaporeans are conservative, it is hence contrary to public interest to grant legitimacy to the promotion of homosexual activities and viewpoints at this point in time.

-- Registrar of Societies, 5 April 2004

You see here the excuse of "conservative mainstream" that effectively guillotines the subject.

What openness are we talking about if certain 'viewpoints' are deemed illegitimate by government fiat alone?

Snowball

More recently, Jungle Media's application for a licence to hold the Snowball party was rejected.

The reasons given by the police were lengthy, but the key sentences were:

Police’s assessment is that the event is likely to be organized as a gay party....

The Police recognize that there are some Singaporeans with gay tendencies. While Police do not discriminate against them on this basis, the Police also recognize that Singapore is still, by and large, a conservative and traditional society. Hence, the Police cannot approve any application for an event which goes against the moral values of a large majority of Singaporeans.

-- Police PELU media release, 8 Dec 2004

The most striking thing about this so-called explanation is the intellectual vacuity of it. They declare that there is no discrimination. In the same breath they say, if something is gay, it must be banned. If this is not blatant discrimination, what is?

And then they use insulting language. They use the phrase "people with gay tendencies", a phrase that comes from the anti-gay religious rightwing of America, language that denies the authenticity of gay and lesbian identity.

It's only a tendency, a weakness, a human failing.

Yeah, right. Just as some people have Chinese tendencies, others have Hindu tendencies, and most of us have adult tendencies. Our adulthood is not real, just our collective weakness that can be cured.

Bear in mind, the Snowball event was a ticketed event. If you don’t like to mix with gays and lesbians, you don’t have to buy a ticket and attend.

Yet the police are saying that there are people offended by the very thought that gay things exist, and the police see it as their job to help those people obliterate things gay.

Here is a decision that comes out of kneejerk prejudice. The decision is first made, and then some rationalisation, however stupid, is sought to justify it. No effort is made to apply critical thinking to the matter.

It begs this question: How do we become an open society when we have to suffer such closed minds?

Formula 17

A Taiwanese film, 'Formula 17' was banned by the film censors, and the ban upheld in July 2004 by the Films Appeal Committee. The reason given by the Committee was reported in Today newspaper:

The film "creates an illusion of a homosexual utopia". According to the FAC, everyone in the film is homosexual and no negative aspects of the lifestyle are portrayed.

-- Today, 21 July 2004

By this logic, Singaporeans may not see any film that portrays gay people positively. We cannot be open to that point of view. Gays and lesbians can only be depicted if they are also shown as miserable and sick.

Even if it's just a piece of escapist cinema, such an "illusion of a homosexual utopia" is too far out for our thinking society to safely contemplate.

Permissible illusions and utopias. Please limit your openness to these.

Sometimes, even truths cannot be safe to contemplate.

Manazine 1

Here is a Reuters report about some difficulties the publisher of the magazine Manazine got into, in August/September 2004.

The Media Development Authority (MDA) also chided "Manazine" for publishing a story in its latest publication that featured an article on Will Young, a gay singer who won the U.K Idol contest. Young had told the magazine that he wanted a boyfriend.

"The MDA said we can mention gay topics but we cannot promote a homosexual lifestyle, and that article where Young mentioned 'boyfriend' has crossed the line," Twilhaar told Reuters.

-- Reuters, 1 Sep 2004 

So if a pop star said he was looking for a boyfriend, and objectively he DID say it, our minds cannot be open enough to know that he said it. Our censors would prefer that we don't know what he said.

And this wasn't the first time. A few months earlier, 

MDA brought up an article which was an interview with local actress Beatrice Chia, around the time that the gay play, Bent, was staged. It quoted her as saying that she objected to the government’s stance that gays should be tolerated. Homosexuality is something that should be accepted, she said. 

"It is the opinion of the interviewee, not the opinion of the magazine," said Mr Twilhaar. 

-- Streats, 27 Feb 2004

Manazine 2

While on the subject of Manazine, here are some dirty pictures. The Media Development Authority threatened to cancel Manazine's publication licence over pictures such as these.

Manazine Oct 03 | Dec 03 | Dec 03 | Dec 03

Here are some other pictures with an equal degree of undress. These pictures were published by other magazines, but they were not a problem with the MDA.

 
Her World Jul 02 | Her World Jul 02 | Crew Jul 04 | Men's Health Feb 04

I find it hard to see in the latter set of pictures a conservative society. I see double standards. I see sexism – female bodies can be commoditised, but male bodies cannot. And I see homophobia – heterosexual coitus can be depicted but homo-erotic art cannot.

Homophobia

From these examples, I hope you get an idea of the perspective of gay and lesbian Singaporeans to these sweet words about openness and inclusiveness.

There is a systematic effort to exclude gay and lesbian citizens. We are denied rights of association, we are denied voice and representation in the media.

* * * * *

How do we reconcile this experience with PM Lee Hsien Loong's words? I can think of two possibilities: Incompetence and insecurity

Incompetence

Is it possible that the ministers do indeed mean what they say, but are fumbling the execution? The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing – that kind of thing? I think it is possible.

In all the instances I cited above, for example, one can imagine a low to middle level bureaucrat taking a decision to ban something based on his or her interpretation of "morality" and "family values", phrases often spouted by the political leaders.

Then, it's quite conceivable that once a heavy-handed decision is made, the political leaders find themselves unable to disown it, for fear of losing face and appearing indecisive. So our openness is trumped by the need to preserve the aura of infallibility.

Yet the examples I cited above have a certain consistency about them.

Foul-ups, by their very uncoordinated nature, are seldom so aligned. This brings me to the other possibility: insecurity.

Insecurity

What do I mean by that? I mean that our political leaders feel so insecure about what openness entails that they can't bring themselves to act in a manner consistent with it.

In the 2003 National Day Rally speech (a few months after former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong spoke about gay civil servants to Time magazine), he said,

Singapore is still a traditional and conservative Asian society. Gays must know that the more they lobby for public space, the bigger the backlash they will provoke from the conservative mainstream. Their public space may then be reduced.

-- Goh Chok Tong, National Day Rally, Aug 2003

On 13 July 2003, Channel News Asia reported Minister without Portfolio Lim Boon Heng as saying,

.... it would be a step backward if the gay community starts to push and demand rights. I think there's going to be a backlash

-- CNA, 13 July 2003

Both the speakers used the word 'backlash' as did a number of others during that same period.

From the gay and lesbian perspective, we are so disadvantaged in space and voice that we have more to gain from speaking up than lying low in fear of a backlash. We welcome open, robust debate. Yet the government says that that is too dangerous.

Too dangerous for whom? Who, really, is the one fearing the backlash?

I think it's the government. Why? What have they got to lose?

Here's my theory: They are extremely nervous about controversies. One of the worst things that can happen is for one or more key issues to split opinion down the middle. Then whatever they do, they're in a no-win situation. One casino debate is more than they can handle.

This is compounded by their addiction to winning at least 65% of the votes – a super-majority - in general elections. Any less than that will undermine their claim to a monopoly of the political space. If, because of intractable differences of opinion over two or three issues, they cannot please enough people to get a super-majority, that monopoly is at stake.

Thus while they may be prepared to dispense small favours to gay and lesbian Singaporeans - and expatriates – under the umbrella of a compassionate society, they prefer to do it under the radar, so they don't get flak from the conservatives.

I will come back to the problem of the conservatives in a while, but first I want to show you some other indications of insecurity.

Other indications of insecurity

A few months ago, Vivian Balakrishnan chaired the National Youth Forum. Reading the newspaper reports, this bit struck me:

Dr Balakrishnan, who is also chairman of the National Youth Council, told participants they should go away from the experience with three things: a sense of the constraints policymakers here face; the ability to use their imagination to come up with ideas that recognise these constraints; and the ability to act on these ideas.

-- Straits Times, 24 Dec 2004

Here's another one:

For Singapore to compete against energetic cities, it must give more space to an experimental minority that wants to push boundaries, Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said last night.

But while there is a need to give more room to those who give society its edge and create a certain ferment, it must also reflect the interests of the conservative majority, he said. 

-- Straits Times, 10 Nov 2004

Push boundaries, he said, but at the end of the day, we must reflect the conservative majority, that is, preserve the status quo. But what is progress without being prepared to overturn the status quo?

In any case, is the majority conservative? Who says?

Secondly, even if so, what about changing society altogether? What about making the majority progressive rather than conservative? Is our voice to be gagged because we set out to persuade people to be NOT conservative?

The government's mixed messages reflect a tension between on the one hand, a desire for a diverse, creative society with buzz, and on the other hand, a deep fear that things might actually change, imperiling their monopoly of power!

* * * * *

That we have a conservative block, I do not deny. Whether it's a majority in reality or just in the government's imagination is another matter.

Either way, it's a problem of the government's own making. For 40 years, it has suited them to promote a social climate that is accepting of authoritarianism.

The conservative package

Now, values come in integrated packages. The package that is most tolerant of political authoritarianism, is also a package that contains within it its own internal authoritarianism.

That is to say, it tends to be hierarchical, recognising dominance and requiring submission. Thus patriarchal, sexist and homophobic. The value system is also very defensive about religious orthodoxy, ethnic identity, cultural norms and a prescriptive concept of morality. Basically, a worldview that’s very top-down.

The deal that the PAP makes resonates very well with conservatives. You accept our wide-ranging authority and we will look after your economic wellbeing and help defend your ideas of tradition and morality.

Again and again through the years, you see this bargain in action.

• Talaq – where the government came down on the side of religious orthodoxy against social criticism of male supremacy;
• Mother-tongue policy – where the government comes down on the side of racial identity against the individual freedom to choose;
• Unequal benefits for female civil servants – patriarchal and sexist values defended, and the question of equality is sacrificed.
• Divorced husbands cannot obtain alimony from higher-income wives – more patriarchal and sexist values defended, and the question of justice is sacrificed.
• And the example of People Like Us – homophobia and heterosexist conformity defended. Openness and inclusiveness sacrificed.

The dilemma

Given the consent of the conservative constituency, with their primordial fear of chaos and the unknown, the government has been able to build the superstructure of controls that preserves the PAP in power.

In turn, our mass media has been used to buttress these sectional values, and the education system applied to ensuring that each new generation shares the same habits of thought.

The now famous Jamie Han wrote about it in his letter to the Straits Times, 1 Jan 2005:

..... too many of my peers lack the moral courage to speak out after going through an education system that rewards conformity and punishes originality.

We have become a generation of sheep, too afraid to challenge the authority of our herders. The few wolves left among us who do challenge the status quo run the risk of being labelled as anarchists and troublemakers.

-- Straits Times Forum, 1 Jan 2005

The dilemma now is that the national interest, in terms of Singapore's future vitality, requires anarchy, trouble-making and the suspension of moralistic prohibitions.

All this is very unsettling to the conservatives -– witness the casino proposal or the changes in Chinese language requirements -- and every time the government is seen as a prime mover of such changes, there is a sense of betrayal. How many more betrayals can the government be seen to commit before they lose the allegiance of their most loyal constituency?

This is the values trap: how is a government that built its monopoly of power on a platform of standing steadfast against liberalism, now to embrace liberalism?

* * * * *

I suspect the hope is for society to gradually loosen up, and after a while, the government follows by relaxing some of the value-bound restrictions, such as censorship.

This hope is foreshadowed, for example, in the final sentence in the rejection letter that People Like Us received:

As the mainstream moral values of Singaporeans are conservative, it is hence contrary to public interest to grant legitimacy to the promotion of homosexual activities and viewpoints at this point in time.

This strategy of "you go first and I'll follow" is very neat in theory, but in practice, it begs a few questions

Firstly, how are people to become more at ease with the unconventional, e.g. gay marriage, criticism of religious orthodoxy, surrogate motherhood, unless censorship is first lifted so that people are exposed to the unconventional in the first place?

Secondly, what if, on exposure to the unconventional, we don't have a situation where public opinion moves homogenously in one direction, but instead pulls apart in different directions. The fundamentalists become even more obstreperous, the liberals more impatient. How does the government loosen rules in tandem with public opinion, when public opinion is all over the place?

Thirdly, are civil servants capable of such a subtle step-by-step evolution of policy? Does not our civil service, institutionally, have a bias towards control and playing safe? Won't they tend to retard the process rather than enable it?

Grand gesture needed

It seems to me that given our legacy of authoritarian control, widespread cynicism, and institutional inertia, if we truly want to be an open and inclusive society, we have to start with some kind of grand gesture.

As Liew Kai Khiun said in his letter to 'Today' 4 Feb 2005,

If the state is convinced of the need to position Singapore as a "funky" place to be, then take the Big Leap Forward, instead of a frustrating "one step forward, two steps back" approach.

-- Today, 4 Feb 2005

What is that Big Leap Forward? Liew didn't say.

* * * * *

Let me offer this: A shift in policy execution to prioritise civil rights – freedom of speech, freedom of association and so forth - over the defence of norms and communitarian conformity.

You see, openness, diversity and inclusiveness are words that dance around a key concept: individual freedom. What use is openness to difference unless people are free to be different? And their freedoms protected. And what is inclusiveness but respect for other people’s freedom? They are two sides of the same coin.

Yet we seldom hear the ministers speak of 'freedom'. All this talk of openness and diversity may be just part of a new mantra. Have we begun to speak of individual liberties and civil rights? Are we really open when we can speak only of ‘openness’, but not of freedom?

Interestingly, PM Lee himself couldn't avoid using that word, when he said,

Our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional ideas, or simply be different.

-- Lee Hsien Loong, Inauguration
speech, August 2004

You're invited to feel free, he says, but he has hardly begun to free up the rules.

We've been ambivalent about the word 'freedom' and we've certainly been grudging about civil rights for the last 40 years because they stand opposed to political monopoly. Yet, if we are serious about becoming an open society, we need to turn around and adopt the concept of liberty as a core value.

In fact, this gives us an exit strategy from the values trap.

The ideals of liberalism can have wide support, and has as much moral weight, if not more, than appeals to orthodoxy, custom or any particular prescription of "moral" conduct.

The ideals of liberalism -- justice, equality, civic freedoms, personal autonomy -– are open to all whatever your private beliefs These ideals are inherently inclusionary, whereas conservatism as a set of values is exclusionary.

I look forward to the day when the state defends its citizens' freedoms rather than curtail them in the name of norms.

I hope to see the day when the state sees its role as a defender of minorities against the weight of majorities.

I look forward to the day when the state is enlightened enough to know it shouldn't be an arbiter of morals anymore than an arbiter of religion.

* * * * *

Coming back to reality, I think the most that can happen is a kind of stop-start progress. You can expect the government's foot to be frequently tapping the brakes.

Naturally, the question will arise of how credible all this will be. How many are going to think it safe to speak up if all these reserve powers are kept at the ready, and used, as in the refusal to register People Like Us.

Given the hurdle of credibility, the slowly-slowly approach and the mantra of 'conservative majority', how long will it take to get us to an open and inclusive society?

Remember, yet again in our ideology of economic utility, openness and diversity are not treated as virtues in themselves, but as instruments of economic competition, to stay ahead of increasingly innovative and dynamic cities like Shanghai, Sydney, Seoul and Mumbai. So speed is of the essence. The economic utility of openness and diversity is defeated unless we get first mover advantage. But how fast can we go if the government's foot is always on the brakes?

The bottom line is this: Just exhorting people to express themselves is not enough. The government has to first overcome its own insecurities and demonstrate a commitment to liberalism. 

© Yawning Bread