He was scheduled to give this lecture last year at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (Iseas), but Iseas was arm twisted by the Home Affairs ministry to cancel it. 

A similar talk (sponsored by me, for 7 August 2007) that Sanders was going to give in conjunction with the gay pride season Indignation also had to be cancelled because the Police reversed themselves over the public entertainment licence. They had at first given approval subject to my getting a professional visit pass for Sanders, but when Iseas publicised their talk, militant Christian homophobes got wind of it (the Iseas talk) and pulled strings with the Home Affairs ministry to clamp down on the institute. In the course of that, the approval for my talk was also reversed. See the earlier article Bark and crumble.

Ho Peng Kee, the Minister of State for Home Affairs had to explain to Parliament the unnatural contortions of the government on 18 September 2007:

In the case of the public lecture on 7th August, after careful deliberation, Police assessed that the event was contrary to the public interest and cancelled the licence for the event. This was because it became subsequently clear to Police that the event was part of the efforts of gay activists to promote their political agenda which involved a foreigner. Our laws are an expression and reflection of the values of our society and any public discourse in Singapore on such matters should be reserved for Singaporeans. Foreigners will not be allowed to interfere in our domestic political scene, whether in support of the gay cause or against it.

A follow-up question by People's Action Party member of parliament Michael Palmer was:

If foreigners should interfere in local politics and local policies, many foreign experts are engaged by the Government to comment and advise on local policies, are we saying that the Government is permitted to engage foreigners in policy making to the exclusion of initiatives by the civil society?

Ho Peng Kee tried to square the circle:

It is not as though that foreigners cannot make their comments or views known on Singapore’s policies and laws. In fact, they all do. But it is quite different if the context is a situation in Singapore where we know that there is an ongoing debate for some time already on a topic which is divisive, a topic which has caused two sides in particular to expound different points of views. From what we know, Prof. Douglas Sanders is a known advocate for the human rights of the gays and lesbians. We can hear his views on the air or read it online but it is quite different to invite him here to speak to a Singapore audience at this time.

In effect he was saying that if something is "divisive" – meaning what the government doesn't want to hear – then foreigners' views are not welcome. Ditto, I suppose, on matters such as our shameful treatment of migrant workers, or censorship. [1]

So how did Sanders get to be speaking here after all?

The Asian Law Institute (ASLI) [2] is a consortium of law faculties from various universities around the region, and they organise an annual conference that makes a circuit of the cities involved. This year, NUS is the host.

The papers are assessed for inclusion by a panel comprising academics from various universities, on the basis of academic merit. Sanders submitted his paper to the panel and they accepted it for presentation. The NUS does not decide this, nor the Singapore government. It would also be very improper for the government to interfere and try to veto academic freedom. If Singapore wants the honour of hosting conferences – what the Tourism Board calls the MICE sector, which is among its top priorities – this is the freedom it must allow.

To clarify, here is an analogy: Suppose a conservative Muslim country bid for a Miss Universe or Manhunt pageant. It would be improper for the host to want the honour and the tourist dollars, but refuse to allow a swimsuit segment.

I have just seen an advance copy of Sanders' paper (2008 revision). In the section on Singapore, there's an interesting analysis:

What then is the reason for the purpose for retaining such criminal laws and not enforcing them?

Perhaps there is a very simple explanation. Avoidance. Politicians want to avoid controversial subjects. Don't propose any change in the status quo.

[snip]

Why was Singapore retaining 377A while pledging not to actively enforce it? The strategy served to block discussion of other issues.

There are a series of issues involving gays and lesbians that only starts with issues of criminal law. The issues, in sequence, are (1) being charged with a crime for having sex, (2) getting fired from your job, (3) being denied benefits available to heterosexual couples (pensions, health insurance, rent-controlled apartments), (4) equal rights in relation to children (custody, access, adoption, fertility treatment), (5) equal rights in immigration law to sponsor a partner, (6) social recognition and support (registered partnerships or marriage), (7) open inclusion in public institutions (LGBT teachers, professors, judges, cabinet members, human rights commissioners).

[snip]

In other words, retaining, but not enforcing a criminal law, can block having to deal with any of these subsequent issues.

But none other than Lee Kuan Yew told a gathering of PAP supporters in April 2007 that on homosexuality, Singapore needs a "practical and pragmatic approach", which he later clarified in a follow-up interview as a need to decriminalise eventually. Referring to the example of adult entertainment like the Crazy Horse Revue, he said, "You either go with the world and be part of the world, or you will find that we become a quaint, a quixotic, esoteric appendage of the world." [3]

* * * * *

 
Last month, a group of students from Puttnam Film School screened their graduating project to a private audience at a local gay bar. Led by Boo Junfeng, this group's short film Tanjong Rhu was based on an incident that took place in late 1993, at the height of a police campaign that involved sending decoys into the park off Fort Road to entrap gay men cruising there. Boo had used Yawning Bread's article How entrapment ended as part of his research.

Stills from Tanjong Rhu, courtesy of Boo Junfeng

Like the Singapore government spending Parliamentary time explaining why Douglas Sanders is not permitted to give his talk in Singapore, with all the consequent international bad press about a ban-happy Singapore, only to have Sanders give his talk in Singapore. On exactly the same topic. Brilliant.

© Yawning Bread