Of course, some would argue that it is comment-worthy only because I have chosen to comment on it; it would otherwise be unremarkable. However, the tongue-in-cheek reference to homosexuality in this poster is unusual. You'd be hard-pressed to find any other commercial in this so-called cosmopolitan city with the barest hint of it.

It's not that Singapore is a particularly homophobic society. The operative factor seems to be that Singapore is a particularly fearful society. People acting in their private capacities, such as creative directors or news reporters, often have to guess whether they'd get a ton of bricks on their heads if they brought up the subject of homosexuality, or even the hint of gay sensibility in their work. So far, only those working in the arts have demonstrated a persistent courage in pushing the envelope.

That ton of bricks can come from their editors, their commercial clients (many large corporations have current PAP MPs [1] or former ministers sitting on their boards), the police or from the Media Development Authority (MDA).

Partly, these gatekeepers act out their own homophobia when they are faced with material or proposals that touch on homosexuality, but even when the gatekeeper himself, e.g. a Managing Director, is not homophobic and sees the value in the material or campaign concept, he can still be concerned with the question, "What if somebody complains?"

When it comes to social questions, particularly sexuality, Singapore operates on the basis of the lowest common denominator. We're only as intelligent as the most unintelligent person in our midst. All it takes is for an irate "member of the public" whose identity is never disclosed, to make a phone all to a government department and immediately the sluice gates are lowered. The civil servants don't want to take the risk of telling the complainant he's being silly and controlling, instead the civil servants call up the editor, event organiser or corporate chief and tell them to stop "or else!"

Here in Yawning Bread, I have written about examples of such control, in the case of Manazine, the Jason and deMarco concert, and most recently, the Feelin' Good party.

* * * * *

By coincidence, "James" featured in another set of advertisements that a gay-affirmative Christian group, Safehaven, produced last year. They were meant as public-service advertisements to raise Aids-awareness and to combat homophobia which often drives unsafe sexual behaviour among MSMs (men who have sex with men) underground, and beyond the reach of public health intervention.

Safehaven contacted I-S magazine, who were keen to run them. However, I-S magazine were a little concerned if MDA would mind, so they wrote to MDA.

The latter's reply was:

From: [MDA]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:24 AM
To: [I-S magazine]
Subject: Re: Need Urgent Approval - Anti AIDS Ad for I-S Magazine

Dear [I-S Magazine officer] 

Our society is still a traditional society which has reservations on the gay lifestyle.

The proposed ads attempt to legitimitize and promote the gay lifestyle. They are unsuitable to be featured in IS magazine which is distributed widely including at places frequented by the young and families. 

[MDA Officer’s Name]

As you can see, it's the lowest common denominator rule again. Some people might object, the MDA said, and so cease and desist. Never mind the greater good of staving off a potential epidemic.

Non-Singaporeans may ask: But why did I-S Magazine consult the MDA? Why didn't they make their own decision to run the ads? That's because in Singapore, you can't publish a magazine without a licence from the government, so if I-S Magazine had run the ads, and the MDA disapproved, the "or else!" factor might come into play.

What you see on this page are only the mock-ups of the ads. The intention was that in the print versions, there'd be photographs of actual persons with their real names. The ads would have been statements by real people of their beliefs. 

The question this begs is this: Does the censorship of the ads mean that for some people, their freedom of expression to say what they believe has been taken away?

* * * * *

Whoa! Who is James? The viewer is led to ask. And then he finds out that "James" is a loan scheme from GE Money, distributed through SingPost. The couple relied on a loan to pay for the wedding.

It's not that the groom is a gay character, nor does the ad affirm gay sexuality. You could even say the ad uses homosexuality for its humour, and ultimately denies homosexuality in its resolution. So in that sense, the ad is quite pathetic. But then again, it isn't an ad targetted at the gay market anyway, so let's not have unrealistic expectations of it.

What it does is to make homosexuality an alternative that can be contemplated in a similar situation – love and marriage. It is registered as a different taste – he likes chocolate cake, I like cheesecake. It desensitises the issue.

* * * * *

The ad would have been a whole lot more hilarious if it had been a two-panel cartoon featuring a lesbian wedding. In the first panel, the first woman says, "I love you, darling." But in the second panel, the second woman says "I love James" and at that, the first woman gives her partner a scowl.

Then the copy could say, "When your parents won't or can't help pay for your wedding, James is just a phone call away."

But Singapore, trying to go post-industrial with creative and knowledge industries driving the next phase of our economic growth, is nowhere ready for such imagination.

© Yawning Bread