No doubt, some have heard about our history of police raids and entrapment, but do those stories sink in? They've heard about cruising in back alleys, but is it possible to conjure a sense of the danger, mixed with sexual anticipation, that attended the generation who trawled those lanes?

If it is difficult for younger gay men to appreciate what life was like 10 – 20 years ago, how much harder it must be for heterosexuals to understand the same? But without awareness of the formative experiences of a generation of gay men, some of whom are still in their thirties, it is understandably hard to grasp why state homophobia is such a burning issue.

Nonetheless, let me try, using some Straits Times reports I managed to obtain recently.

On or around 8 April 1990, police officers posing as gay men, went undercover to entrap and arrest homosexual men in the Hong Lim Park and Boat Quay areas. Nine men were caught and their arrests reported on 9 April. [1] 

A day later, seven of them were charged in court.

 
You'd notice that the details made it clear it was an entrapment operation. You'd also notice that the 7 were not charged under the anti-gay section of the Penal Code, but under Section 19 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, which says,

19. Every person who in any public road or public place persistently loiters or solicits for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

From the press report, there's no mention of money being offered to the undercover officers, so the "prostitution" element of this act of soliciting probably didn't arise. Hence, the "immoral purpose" element must have been the basis on which to charge them. However, all over Singapore, men propositioned women to have sex with them, for free, in various bars and public places (including the infamous Macritchie Reservoir Park) , actions similar to what the homosexual men were doing in Hong Lim Park and the backlanes of Boat Quay. The difference in police action was simply from reading immorality into one situation and not into the other.

The following year,

Again, it's clear that it was another entrapment operation. However, the press report did not indicate which law they were charged under.

Sometime after this case, a decision was made to stiffen the state's reaction to homosexuality. Instead of charging the accused with offences that only merited fines, the police upped the ante, using instead Section 354 of the Penal Code, which deals with "outrage of modesty":

354. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage the modesty of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any two of such punishments.

The first time this was reported seemed to be in 1993.

My friends recall that not only were the names and jobs of the accused published in the newspaper, so were their photographs. The Straits Times seemed to see it as part of its nation-building role to make an example of these hapless men. Note too its graphic descriptions of the actual acts, written to induce disgust in its readers.

On a point of law, Section 354 requires the element of assault or criminal force in order to make the offence. Nowhere in the press report is this condition said to be present. In fact, just about every gay man's knowledge of gay cruising would indicate that no such element would have existed. Gay cruising is a very consensual activity.

Hence, in the absence of assault or criminal force, it could be argued that the prosecution was wrong. But the men were already being crucified in the media and they would probably have wanted to get it over with as soon as possible. No surprise then that 6 of the 12 accused pleaded guilty.

However, being charged (wrongly, in my opinion) under Section 354 made a huge difference to the sentence. Instead of fines as in 1990 and 1991, they received prison terms and 3 strokes of the cane each.

This incident would provoke a series a events that would lead to a re-examination of state policy. That story however is outside the scope of this essay; I'll cover it another time.
 

What should be borne in mind is that all men behave like this. It's about the most human thing in the world, to go out searching for casual, anonymous sex. The difference between the heterosexual and homosexual experience is how sex can be obtained and the degree of social and state tolerance.

For heterosexual men, their bigger problem is how to get it; the smaller problem is social and state tolerance. For homosexual men, it's the other way around. Availability is less the problem than disapproval.

For straight guys, getting "it" has to involve women. However, until recently -- and attitudes have changed dramatically in the last few years -- females are not culturised to give sex so easily; it is expected to be couched in terms of love and marriage, or at least within the rituals of dating. Even now, if a heterosexual male just wants a quickie or a one-night-stand, no strings attached, his options are quite limited. Personally, I have had numerous conversations with 20-something, not unattractive straight males wherein they moaned to me about how much effort is required to get laid. 

In such circumstances, paying is a common way of getting sex. That is why the heterosexual prostitution scene is huge, but that very scale of the scene is also a measure of official tolerance. Scale notwithstanding, it is still hard not to apply the "sleazy" label to it, unless one can afford $1,000-a-shot callgirls.

For homosexual men, getting "it" is less of a problem, because basically, it is a reciprocity of horniness. However, in the Singapore context, extreme official intolerance pre-1994 meant that the scene must necessarily shift from place to place like a cat and mouse game. The preferred locations must be extremely discreet, and one where there were fewest possible accidental encounters with straight passers-by. All it would take was one complaint and the police would come charging in. This explains the choice of dark alleys in derelict districts.

But history is worth remembering. At the very least, we should spare a thought for the men whose names, faces and occupations were splashed onto the pages of the Straits Times, whose family ties and means of livelihood were forever wrecked as a result. Not to mention the injustice of jailtime and the strokes of the cane.

The state owes them an apology.

© Yawning Bread