| Yawning
Bread. 29 February 2008
From my mailbox 1
|
|
||||||
|
The eleven options one can check off as reasons for wanting to leave Singapore are:
If one selects "others", more detailed reasons are requested. The applicant is asked to select 3 reasons and list them in order or importance, although it doesn't seem to be mandatory. What is most interesting however, is that this survey is tacked on to an application form for a Certificate of No Criminal Conviction. Such a certificate is often required by the authorities of the country one is emigrating to, e.g. when you apply for permanent residency or citizenship abroad. A reader asked: How likely is it for applicants to divulge their true reasons in the survey? Most probably, people would tick "others" and leave it at that, he said. His opinion hints at a pervasive sense that Singapore is a punitive state. The applicant might feel that should he say anything that the Singapore government finds unflattering, the Police might not issue him with a clean certificate. I had said in my essay that in all likelihood, the information collected through this survey is treated as a state secret, arguing that it should not be so. However, if that reader is correct in his reading of Singaporeans' fears and responses, then even if my call is heeded and the data collected is revealed,, it may not be worth very much. It reminds us of the fact that by the time people have made up their minds to quit, it's probably too late for them to even care enough to tell you honestly why. This is as true with employees in a workplace as with citizens of a country. So how does a government find out what areas need fixing, in order to stop the exodus? Simple: Listen to those who are still here. * * * * * Some readers may recall that at the 2007 Academy Awards, Melissa Etheridge's reference to her wife Tammy was snipped [2]. As for this year's Oscars, the email pointed out,
Here's the original speech in question, as found on Youtube:
To fill you in on some context, below is the blurb for the winning film Freeheld:
What kind of "world-class" city is this that engages in such petty censorship? Why should Singaporeans not be allowed to know about fights for justice and equality in other countries? Are we afraid that people may realise that we don't have justice and equality here either? And we call this a world-class city? For example, an opposite-sex couple can document their relationship officially -- it's called marriage -- and thereby get a new flat built by the Housing and Development Board, with a huge subsidy from the state. Gay people do not enjoy the same benefits, not because they don't fall in love, not because they're unable to form relationships, but simply because the state refuses to document their relationship. Failing this step, they are denied the same housing privileges and subsidies. That many Singaporeans are totally blind to this act of injustice can be seen from an email I received in response to the article Media silence and the cultivators of hate. It was quite long, but basically, he took issue with the analogy I drew between the way the fundamentalist Christians in the US were trotting out ex-Muslims to sell their Christianist triumphalism and the way fundamentalist churches (including those in Singapore) were trotting out "ex-gays", ratcheting up homophobia. The letter-writer said the comparison was false because trotting out ex-Muslims would "cause offence", and Muslims were "entitled to being treated with respect." Parading ex-gays was a different matter, he argued. They were simply "sharing their testimony", and in the name of religious freedom, no one should take offence. After all, gays in Singapore can, for all practical purposes, engage in sex. Similar points were made by some other readers in the comments section of that article. I can go on at length about how off the mark such a view is, but at its heart is the failure to see gay people as people. Muslims and people of other faiths are perceived, at least in Singapore, as people with feelings, and so certain types of speech are recognised as offensive. Why is a similar kind of speech, targetting gay people, not seen as offensive? Because these blokes do not perceive gay people as a class. Homosexuality to them are acts of certain people, not the people themselves. Since their minds cannot quite grasp the notion that there is such a thing as "gay people" they cannot grasp either that homophobic speech has an audience that would be offended by it. To them, homosexuality is behaviour, bad habit, sin, crime, "lifestyle". Being reduced to a matter of sex, these Christians pride themselves as being extremely tolerant when they say that despite the law, "gays" -- and they always see only gay men in their minds, not women -- are free to engage in "sodomy". What else is there for "gays" to legitimately want, they ask?
As well, the failure to see gay people as people leads them to dismiss any debate about justice. Justice, after all, is a question of fair treatment between people, whereas in their minds, the gay issue is a question of good versus bad. How can there be justice and equality between good and bad? Hence media representation is critical. Until media starts to represent gay people as people, this paleolithic attitude can hardly change. It's the same with representation of other minorities, e.g. Africans, Asians (in Western media), Arabs and Muslims. Invisibility or stereotype perpetuates a culture that treats such groups of people as less then worthy of full human dignity and respect. And that is why censorship matters. And
why Mediacorp and the Singapore government have a lot to answer for. © Yawning Bread
|
|||||||
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
I got a number of emails following the article 
