| April
2005
Sirenes who will turn you gay
|
|
|
In the yellow box on the right is part of a front page story from the
Straits Times. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told his senior civil
servants that they should
He also said, they shouldn't stick to tried and tested ways, or tell the public 'No', because the rules don't allow it. Wonderful! Now, let's look at a case study. * * * * * The chronology I will first begin with the chronology of events. I first heard about the Jason and deMarco concert on Friday 18 March, six days before the PM's speech. The actual name of the event was Affect05; it was scheduled for 3 April 2005, and there were some other performers besides Jason and deMarco, a well-known singing duo from the US. The organisers had been planning it for some months prior, and it was to be a fundraising event for Action for Aids (AfA). The organisers had pledged their own money to cover the costs; the intention was that all revenue from ticket sales would go to benefit AfA. By coincidence, the junior minister for Health, Balaji Sadasivan raised the issue of AIDS in Parliament on 9 March, and for days, it hogged the headlines. It seemed more than worthwhile to hold the concert. Who were the organisers? A group of gays and straights (including a mother with kids) connected with Safehaven, a Christian support group. Through their connections, Jason and deMarco had agreed to come to Singapore to perform free of charge for a good cause. The organisers had booked the Jubilee Hall and put in an application for an Entertainment Licence, which was within the ambit of the Media Development Authority (MDA). However, all this was kept low profile since the organisers weren't ready to launch ticket sales. Meanwhile, the application was circulated within MDA's panel of advisors. People Like Us would later learn from sources whom we wouldn't be wise to name, that the majority didn't have any objections. Then on 18 March, my friend Clarence called me. Clarence knew the organisers (though he wasn't one of them), and when the first bit of trouble started brewing, he rang me to let me know that a new gay issue was about to emerge. People Like Us might have to swing into action. What triggered Clarence's call to me was this: a little earlier, someone from the MDA had phoned the applicant, Gary. The MDA person said, "We have received a complaint that the performers, Jason deMarco, are a gay couple. Are you aware of that?" Gary's response was that he was aware they were a gay couple, but "their sexual orientation is not relevant to the granting of the licence. The licence for the concert, which is to raise funds for AfA and increase HIV awareness, should be granted on the basis of content, which I can send to you." But he could sense from the tone that all was not well.
We were later to learn that an anonymous email had been sent to MDA. It was from a free email account and it merely bore a few initials instead of a full name. The sender would not have been identifiable. It seems that our bureaucrats are very liable to wet their knickers should they receive a single anonymous email from someone with a conservative viewpoint (who may not even be Singaporean). Immediately, they batten down the hatches to defend morality - theirs, yours, mine. They don't ask whether we want our morality defended by the likes of these cowardly bureaucrats. The same day, the MDA made up its mind and sent out the rejection letter, which, I understand, the organisers didn't see until Monday, 21 March. In the meantime, I began briefing the press. My point was that it was truly absurd that on the one hand the government wanted 'gay champions' (Balaji's favourite phrase) to take ownership of the HIV problem, while on the other hand, if gay champions did anything remotely gay, it would be banned. You can see the press reports in the appendix JdM concert: press reports and letters. The organisers lodged an appeal to the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts, Dr Lee Boon Yang, reputed to be one of the arch-conservatives in the cabinet. * * * * *
|
|
|
|
This case reveals an unthinking rigidity As is evident from statements by the MDA, the chief reason for banning the concert was that it would " promote alternative lifestyles." As detailed in a letter sent to 'Today' newspaper and published on 31 March 2005, the MDA said, "Based on the duo's performance in the United States and information from the website, the couple have used their musical performances and their own example as a gay couple to promote a gay lifestyle." [1] Do you believe this? Yes, Jason and deMarco are out about their sexual orientation. Yes, they're proud and happy that they're a couple in a monogamous relationship. But do you think they go around singing, "Come on, boys and girls, try it, you'll love what you'll find..." That would be so childish. Do you think they'd be successful artistes if they sang songs like that? The problem hinges on what MDA means by "promot[ing] alternative lifestyles." To them, so long as you announce that you are gay and aren't confessing it like some dreadful sin with deep remorse, then you're promoting it. Effectively, this suggests that no out-and-proud person can come on stage and perform. If you're gay, then whatever you do, you are promoting an "alternative lifestyle". But this is absurd. It's equivalent to ruling that if someone is Christian, saying so on his personal webpage, and he one day goes up on stage to sing a few innocuous songs, he must therefore be proselytising. And the event must by definition be an evangelical event (which by the way, won't be banned in Singapore, even if they preach gay-hating). The MDA said that they had to reject the application because it didn't "comply with current guidelines." Clearly no attempt was made to interrogate the guidelines. The Prime Minister said to the civil service: "It is not good enough just to treat rules as commandments and perpetuate time-tested precedent. Your job is to see opportunities and solve problems, not to choose the easy solution by just saying no and transferring the problem back to the member of the public." [2] * * * * * The MDA was clearly informed that it was a charity event to raise funds for Action for Aids. In their letter published in 'Today' newspaper on 31 March 2005, the MDA acknowledged that they were aware of this. We can assume they were also aware that Balaji wanted 'gay champions' to take ownership of the HIV issue in the gay community, because it was all over the papers. Yet, it made not an iota of difference to the decision. Their own ministry's guidelines, their own unquestioned interpretation of "promoting alternative lifestyles", didn't allow it. The Prime Minister said civil servants should "work with other ministries and partners outside of government."[2] * * * * * Oh, by the way, Balaji is not only the Minister of State in the Health Ministry. He is concurrently the Minister of State in the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts, the same Ministry that includes the MDA. The Prime Minister said "civil servants must shape policies with a view to their political impact and be sensitive to the politics of the issues you handle." [2] It's really hard to call this decision sensitive to Balaji's own credibility, to start with! * * * * * No one in government seemed to anticipate that it wouldn't remain a domestic issue. Safehaven's ability to connect with an American duo, persuading them to come to Singapore to sing for charity should have indicated to the government that the days when domestic social issues are insulated from wider political impact are gone. The duo released a press statement in America, distributed through news wires. They said, "We are very concerned about the intolerance against gay people that is expressed and enforced by the government of Singapore, and we are asking people to speak out." Reuters (and I believe, AFP) too sent out news bulletins worldwide. A long commentary appeared in The Advocate magazine, with a circulation of 108,000. And here we have the Singapore government spending millions of dollars holding the Singapore Season in London (with more such festivals in years to come in other capital cities) trying to brighten Singapore's image. See also the appendix Gay themes OK, within boundaries, when the same minister Lee Boon Yang was cornered by a local reporter into talking rubbish. * * * * * Now that I've mentioned the minister... So far in this article, I have focussed my ire on the civil servants in the MDA. They are rigid, unimaginative, and 'silo'-minded. But another source indicated -- though it's hard to confirm -- that the MDA's decision was dictated by the minister. The civil servants had little leeway. If so, all the criticisms by the Prime Minister should be directed at...? About a week after the organisers appealed the decision to Minister Lee Boon Yang, he rejected the appeal. The brief letter from his office said that the Minister had considered the matter carefully but still decided to uphold the MDA's position that the promotion of alternative lifestyles is against the public interest. The Prime Minister said, "if indeed we have erred, we should
admit it, apologise and put it right." [2]
© Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes
|
|
