He said,

looks like Singapore's "Asian" values is even more "Asian" than China. In a few more years, with more and more Asian countries jettisoning the imported homophobia that it learned from the west during the colonial period, and African countries still hell bent on discriminating gays and lesbians, this "Asian" values that our politicians so love to quote will look more and more curiously like African values. Hmmm.... in election speak, isn't this [a case of] First world government with Third world values?

* * * * *

In the First world, the second anniversary of Massachusetts' gay marriage legalisation passed with hardly any fanfare. This relative lack of interest in what was just 24 months ago headline news and street demonstrations augurs well. People are probably getting used to the idea, as everybody who knew anything about social change said they would. Despite the dire warnings of the fire-and-brimstone crowd, civilisation has not collapsed, heterosexual marriages have not been cheapened nor families destroyed, any more than the stress of modern life already does on its own.

It was on 4 February 2004 that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that only marriage is equal to marriage. No attempt by the legislature to fashion a civil union law would satisfy the equality clause of the Massachusetts constitution.

Gay and lesbian couples could not be discriminated against by only allowing them the right of civil unions, the judges said.

Marriage brings with it social recognition that the feeble legalism of civil union does not. Marriage brings with it a host of benefits and obligations as well, such as employee benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, adoption and custody rights over children.

Consequently, on 17 May 2004, same-sex couples were permitted to file for marriage licences in the state and the first marriages were officiated on 20 May 2004.

* * * * *

A fuller report can be seen at right.

This follows the establishment of a gay studies course in Shanghai's Fudan University last year. It was first established as a post-graduate course in 2003, according to China Daily, but has now been made available to undergraduates. Past classes have drawn a total of 1,745 students, the report said. [1]

The aim of the course is to examine the legal, social and health issues relating to homosexuality, said Sun Zhongxin, an associate professor of sociology who is leading it. "We hope this course, which is an optional one open to the whole university, will introduce the study of sexual orientation to more and more students," Sun told China Daily.

Teachers for the course will be mostly from outside the university (including a Singaporean) since Fudan University does not yet have enough experience in teaching these subjects.

This reminds me of an article by Daniel Bell in Dissent Magazine, in which he wrote about how surprised he was at the relative openness he discovered while teaching political theory in Tsinghua University, Beijing.

In my case, I had taught at the National University of Singapore in the early 1990s. There, the head of the department was a member of the ruling People’s Action Party. He was soon replaced by another head, who asked to see my reading lists and informed me that I should teach more communitarianism (the subject of my doctoral thesis) and less John Stuart Mill. Naturally, this made me want to do the opposite. Strange people would show up in my classroom when I spoke about "politically sensitive" topics, such as Karl Marx’s thought. Students would clam up when I used examples from local politics to illustrate arguments. It came as no surprise when my contract was not renewed.

In comparison, China is a paradise of academic freedom. Among colleagues, anything goes (in Singapore, most local colleagues were very guarded when dealing with foreigners). Academic publications are surprisingly free there aren’t any personal attacks on leaders or open calls for multiparty rule, but particular policies, such as the household registry system, which limits internal mobility, are subject to severe criticism.

Bell's essay is really worth reading, because it's not just a general opinion, but a detailed first-hand account of the difficulties, but also the unexpected freedom, he found.

Singapore in 2006 may be quite different from the Singapore of the early 1990s (or maybe not) when Bell was here, but if we are supposed to be ahead of the competition, it's not good enough to be maybe/maybe not.

This uncertainty is something that an authoritarian government sees as helpful to itself. Students and academics, unsure where the "out-of-bounds" markers are, will play safe and self-censor rather than explore risky subjects. The government gives half-hearted assurances of academic freedom, every assurance hedged with a statement that opinions should stay within academia and not emerge into the public sphere as politicking. It was this kind of non-categorical double-speak that lost us Warwick University. [2]

Unlike China, we can't even point to any university conducting a gay studies course or any university organising a moot parliamentary session debating same-sex marriage and adoption. Too controversial for our "Asian values"?

Having said that, it is necessary to point out that the situation in China is nowhere as consistent as may be suggested by the above. There are certainly pockets of amazing liberalism, but social attitudes are marked by great ignorance and perhaps Confucianist conservatism. Nor does the Chinese government give out consistent signals on gay-related subjects, but what signals they do send tend not to be as homophobic as the Singapore government's.

* * * * *

 
Meanwhile, here, on 21 May 2006, the New Paper splashed all over its front cover and the first 4 inside pages -– yes, 4 whole pages -– a story about a gay guy who got Aids at a gay sex club, complete with posed colour photographs.

On the front cover were the words, "They bathe, then get dirty". Straight away, gay sex was labelled unclean.

The headlines inside, "Health clubs - deadly HIV hubs" and "Once inside, we drop our towels", tell you the slant of the story.

The New Paper, 21 May 2006, Pages 2 and 3.

The New Paper, 21 May 2006, Pages 4 and 5.

 
Basically it's about a guy who knowingly had unprotected sex at what the newspaper called on its cover, an "orgy" (a word that was sure to sell more copies of the newspaper) at a gay bathhouse. He later discovered he had sero-converted. He then blamed the existence of such bathhouses for his misfortune and called on the government to ban them.

This particular bathhouse provides free condoms in all lockers, though the newspaper didn't mention this fact (or didn't know).

Neither did the newspaper provide some intelligent commentary on what the story represented. There was no problem, apparently, giving space to all the prurient stuff and the news source's demands for a sweeping crackdown. But would it be too much to ask to have a little opinion piece alongside, putting things in context? Perhaps pointing out that this situation is similar to that of someone who mortgages his house to finance his girlfriend's business venture, but when it fails and he loses everything, calls on the government to ban the entire banking industry?

If one were to count the PAGES devoted to "gay" stories that paint a negative picture of gay men compared to the rare COLUMNS devoted to neutral stories of gay issues in Singapore newspapers, the imbalance would be striking.

Once in a while, there is a positive story in 'Today'. A recent one was last December when it reported a Singaporean getting married in the UK to his lover [3]. I'm trying hard to recall a positive story from the Straits Times as I write this.... but nothing comes to mind.

Perhaps our largest circulation newspaper thinks that Singapore is not ready to respect sexual orientation as a human right. After all, homosexual sex is still illegal here, like in Nigeria, Egypt and Uganda and other African countries.

Not for us legal same-sex marriage as in Massachusetts, Canada and some European countries.

Not for us the repeal of anti-gay laws, like China did. There, the vague hooliganism law that local authorities in China used to harass homosexuals was removed from the statute books in 1997, effectively removing all legal prohibitions against homosexuality. 

Not for us public debates and serious education about gay issues.

Perhaps, as a First World country, Singapore has to cohabit with Africa? And the press has to play its part?

© Yawning Bread