| November
2005
Only nuns and monks need apply
|
|
|
One really feels sorry for the 5 guys who were named in the Straits Times
and other media (see box on the right). Not only are they facing criminal
charges, they have suffered the body blow of being diagnosed as
HIV-positive, and their HIV status announced to everybody in
Singapore.
How many of their employers will not find some excuse to lay them off, is not worth guessing. The even sorrier thing is that Singaporeans need this kind of news before we have even the slightest hope of giving a little thought to the absurdities of our society that have created Catch-22 situations for these men. They are, in a sense, sacrificial lambs to our society's wilful blindness to reality. Two of the 5 men, Ng Choon Siong and Wong Shimin, donated blood last year when they were still serving National Service (NS). As all of us who have gone through NS know, the military is probably the largest single source of blood for our national blood bank. Whole companies of men are "encouraged" to line up and donate blood when the blood transfusion service comes to camp. Given the peer pressure and the commandant's "encouragement", it is extremely difficult for a closetted gay person to answer the question posed by the blood service, "Have you had sex with another man?" If you say Yes, your mates will wonder what's wrong with you that you are told to get out of the line. You might be effectively outed. Furthermore, it would also suggest that you had lied earlier at enlistment, when the same question would have been asked. After all, if you're in a combat unit, it indicates that you had answered "No" to the question "are you a homosexual?" then. Even for the older 3 guys who were likewise charged, although their individual circumstances at the time of donation was not revealed by the Straits Times, a clue can be seen from Lua Bu Chung's case. He was an employee of Baxter Healthcare, and the company had mounted a blood donation drive. Similar forces of peer and management pressure would have applied in his case, as in the NS guys' case. In addition, I have heard tales from people who were asked by family members to donate blood. What happens is that when someone faces major elective surgery, with expected blood loss, an appeal is made by the hospital to the patient's family to come forward and donate. In such a situation, it's very hard for family members to say No. * * * * * What this news story points to is how we have a social and legal climate that encourages people to lie, and then punishes them for so doing. The safety of our blood supply requires people to be honest about their medical and behavioural history. Yet if men admit they have had sex with other men, they are open to prosecution, since the sex act itself is illegal under our laws. Even short of prosecution, there is pervasive homophobia and discrimination in Singapore, not least because the government insists on setting the tone. Why should people out themselves, risking their jobs and family relationships, when it's so easy to tick "No" to the blood bank's question? Singapore should realise, that as in so many things, society functions best when there is trust, openness and honesty. This is true whether we're thinking about commercial transactions, about healthy family relationships, about an employee owning up to a mistake and alerting the company to a possibly disgruntled customer, or the nexus between government and people. Every time we do something that is a disincentive to trust, openness and honesty, we sow the seeds of a problem. Homophobia, especially institutionalised homophobia (as in law and government policies and pronouncements) is one such disincentive. It doesn't reduce the incidence of homosexual persons in our society; it simply drives a whole class of people underground. But they are still part of our society, and epidemiology sees no distinction. For the sake of society as a whole, an effort must be made to stamp out homophobia, and we can start but doing away with silly laws and dogmatic policies. * * * * * I was intrigued by the mention in the Straits Times' report, about how Lua Bu Chung was being charged because he had lied about having had more than one sexual partner. Does this mean that anyone who has had more than one partner is disallowed from giving blood? I went to the Blood Bank's website [1] and saw this (the numbering is mine):
Look at items 2 and 3. Doesn't that capture the great majority of people in Singapore? As I mentioned in the article Reality in a world of make-believe, some 60% of 18- and 19-year-olds entering National Service have had sex before; even if it's just once, they are most unlikely to be in a life-long relationship with that partner. This means that if a battalion is asked to donate blood, and anything more than 40% appear to qualify, then you can assume that you have liars among them. You can also assume that when it comes to company-organised donation drives involving older people, the percentage who ought to be disallowed should swell and swell, since they are more sexually experienced than army recruits. Item 8 acts as a kind of coup de grace. It says that if you have had sex with a life-long partner (and no one else), and if that life-long partner has ever had casual sex, then you too are disqualified! With such rules, I can't imagine there is a single person left in Singapore, other than nuns and monks, who are eligible for donating blood. Over a million people, at least, are lying on their questionnaires. And since it's an offence to lie, they are all criminals in the eyes of the law. If everybody were honest, our blood bank would dry up. So on an even bigger scale, here is an example of how our entire medical system depends on people behaving dishonestly. Which only leaves us with this question:
what morality is there behind the decision to prosecute these 5 persons
for being dishonest?. © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
