Is this my country? Is this my land?

by Sal

I penned an opinion piece last year -- when I was still working for SgBoy.Com -- during the National Day festivities arguing how the PAP government's policy as regards the gay and lesbian community here was one that can best be described as the `ostrich approach'.

By that, I meant that as long as what the community does is of a substantially low profile and the activities do not incur the discomfort of the silent, conservative majority, it is fine.

In a maxim by a pioneer activist that I so love to use let the masses have their own circuses, and they will be satisfied and not question the PAP's rule. I even termed that as age-old wisdom well employed in 21st century Singapore.

I was wrong. Tomorrow, two boys will be charged in the Singapore subordinate courts for gross indecency, under Section 377(A) of the Penal Code. They have been accused of having oral –- read unnatural -- sex in a gay sauna on July 23, and were arrested by three undercover cops clad in nothing more than a towel round their waists.

This is a major departure from the perceived policy that we have hitherto held so dearly to our hearts.

For the first time in almost four years, two consenting homosexual men will be charged under Section 377(A) of the Penal Code for gross indecency [2]. And in these past four years, this law had been invoked only in cases of molest or public outrage of modesty, not against two consenting adults in a privately-run sauna.

What makes it even more disturbing is that our brothers in blue went as undercover cops, without identifying who they were right from the beginning and entering a private place without a search warrant.

Granted that Singapore has no privacy laws, and the police can practically enter any premises at their whim and fancy. But why enter as undercover cops and thus instill fear in this community? Must these men in blue be so draconian as to even regulate zealously private sexual activities between two consenting adults?

We all know that homosexual sex is against the law in Singapore, and we do know the police has the duty to uphold the law here. But the social contract that the community had forged, albeit in a most nebulous manner, with the government is that we can continue being gay and engage in our own private affairs, if we don't bring the activities to the public domain and not force it on somebody else. What now of this modus vivendi that had very much governed our relationship in the past four years?

The Senior Minister had said in an interview last year that Section 377 of the Penal Code has not been used to prosecute consenting adults for a long time [3] And his subsequent rhetoric became a form of de facto guarantee of our freedom –- behind closed doors -– that is enshrined religiously in the minds of the community. After all, it's the Senior Minister himself talking.

Even up-and-coming Minister Lim Swee Say said that whatever two consenting individuals do behind closed doors, it's their business. So, does this mean a demise of the `don't ask, don't tell, don't say' policy and the breakdown of our social contract with the government?

My guess is as good as the person next to me. But in my numerous conversations with members of the Establishment, including personalities that are close to the top policy-making body in Singapore, I have come to understand that this `ostrich approach' is very much alive and it will very probably prevail for a long time to come.

I really hope things have not changed with the July 23 incident. There is no reason to. The PAP government has better things to do than to `foul up the lives of a few faggots', in the words of an official from the Establishment. I pray hard that view still holds, sans the crude language.

And I'm also inclined to view this July 23 sauna incident as an isolated case, very probably carried out by a few over-zealous officers who may be bored sitting in the station, watching the mediocre shows being churned out by our local media. That's totally believable, especially as crime rate is indeed very low in Singapore.

And in my opinion, it's a fallacy to equate the police to the PAP government. No doubt that the latter has absolute control of the former, but still that does not mean the government directs every operation of the police. What may have happened low down the rungs of the Establishment may not be reported to the top until after some lag time.

That thought may give some of us the much-needed relief after the ugly shock we received a day back. But it may also be self-delusion.

As hard as I try to console my distraught conscience, I still feel very disturbed by this July 23 incident. And until a more lucid image emerges from amongst the haze, I can only keep my fingers –- and toes -– crossed.

What an awful way to usher in this year's National Day.   

Footnotes

1. These facts were taken from a statement issued by the One Seven sauna in question. Additional details in parenthesis were from conversations Yawning Bread had with the One Seven owner 24 hours after the incident:

   On Monday, 23 July 2001, approx. 7 pm, 3 undercover police officers entered One Seven after normal sign-in procedures (registering as new members), and changed into towel attire. (They circulated for a while, and it was only after 8 o'clock that the issue broke open. At one point, a staff member of One Seven noticed that one of them was flicking a cigarette lighter on as he entered the steam room. The staff member asked him not to do it. No one realised at that point that they were undercover, and that their intention was to see what was going on inside the steam room.)

   They then followed two men to one of the relax-o rooms. (The officers then went into an adjoining, vacant cabin) and, as the leading officer described to One Seven a little later, an officer climbed onto the shoulders of another and looked over the wall separating the two cabins. (They flicked their cigarette lighter to see better.) They demanded the door to be opened immediately, (and the undercover officers asked the 2 men, both around late twenties, what they were doing in there.) The investigators claimed (later on, in conversation with the owner of the sauna) that the two men confessed there and then to an illicit activity [i.e. having homosex.]

   All lights were switched on once staff was alerted by the commotion.

   Handcuffs were brought out in the changing area to threaten the two guys but were not used at any one time. No search warrant was shown to the management and police identification was only brought out under the request of the management. They claimed that they were from the department of sexual and violent acts. [Yawning Bread believes this could have been misheard, I think it's 'sexual and vice']

   They explained to the management that they were investigating a complaint (but refused to give any details of the complaint). No other customers were stopped from leaving. (In fact some fled by the back door. But many stayed to watch.) The officers advised the onlookers to continue with their activities. No other Identity Cards were held, except for the two guys detained. Neither management nor staff were detained, nor unduly questioned or in any other way stopped from continuing its business.

   (The undercover officers telephoned for a police van) and the two men were later taken in.
   Return to where you left off

2. For more details of Section 377(a), see the article You can't do that!
   Return to where you left off

3. See the article Radio journalists ask the gay question where the Senior Minister's remarks are quoted.
   Return to where you left off

Addenda

1. The two men arrested by the police were charged in Singapore's subordinate court on July 25, 2001, under Section 377(A) of the Penal Code. The next hearing will be on 5 September. It is not yet known if they will fight the case.
2. Kelvin Wong responds to Sal's commentary (I have left it unedited, so that the flavour and urgency of email writing is retained):

   "I feel that there are larger issues at the economical-socio-political arena to consider. I believe that the government is strongly aware of our situation and I believe that they know too well that this the gay rights movement thingie cannot be avoided.

   I would tend to look at this issue from our current situation, context and from the point of view of running a country or governance. As in many of the policies and economical advances that the gov. had undertaken there are trade offs. For example, the state of our economic and comfort has resulted in not very graciousness people, a non eco-friendly economic and people, political apathy, uncreatively compliant average citizens and, of course, the socialist (not democratic) policy of governance. Could there have been solution? Possible, but we wouldn't know, would we? We don't have a test bed to test out those theories.

   Secondly, we are surrounded by predominantly Muslim countries and/or fanatically catholic countries. This does not give the gov. any comfort in upsetting the "morality" (that dirty word!) outlook against the favour of her neighbours.

   I don't know but I believe there are more factors to consider for the gov. when considering policies like gay rights. We are still rule by conservatives and fundamentalists and ass-kissing conformists.

   In a certain way, the gov. has managed to play some right cards over the years by giving more gay spaces, as long as its not too LOUD. They could have easily clamp down on a lot our the gay-related activities. Best of all, the most gay place in Singapore is where our dear SM holds power!

   But doesn't that mean that I believe that the gov. is doing the correct thing and that I should just sit back and wait out on my situation? NO! It means that I can understand how difficult it is to run a country and I do not get too upset, attached, angry or fanatical over what I want to achieve, unlike many activitists/revolutionalist that we hear about.

   I always believe in looking looking inwards first, before blaming externalities for my unhappiness and difficulties. What can we do for ourselves to change the situation and to make our situation better, instead of what others can do for me. As long as we are waiting for the OTHERS out there to do something for us, we will find difficulties in seeing contentment in the moment and our abilities to do something about it.

   I had always thought that my situation in Singapore is already much better than a lot of people elsewhere. Of course, I also know that we can improve further from this.

   I think that this "call" for better treatment have to come from us first. We must be proactive as INDIVIDUALS, to help the public to understand more about us and our difficulties and to gain the favour from the public.

   I have made this statement long ago and will still make it again. We cannot blame ANYONE for our difficulties nor misfortunate, IF WE ourselves are NOT willing to take up the challenge to CHANGE our situation. That is, if you are closet, hide amongst your tupperware parties, pretend that you are NOT gay, don't blame the others for NOT understanding you or the gov. to have such policies against you, YOU DESERVE IT!

   What good is there, if we just party, pub, sauna in the nights (note I am not implying that pubbing, partying and going to saunas is no good, I do that too you know), put on a MASK during the rest of the day. Then when there is a crackdown, we cry foul! I will throw the question back to you, what have you done proactively to better your situation? If you have not done anything about it, ITS YOUR FAULT PERIOD.

   Only by being more visible, by being more vocal, being more proactive in the socio-political arena, by coming out to more people can we change the situation at the grassroots and thus hopefull change some policies, not the other way around... waiting for people to accept you, before you step out! Even then, will you step out?

   My view is always, thus, we are responsible for our own happiness and life, NOBODY ELSE.

   At the end of the day, we can only blame the apathy from the gay majority for our current situation. We have people who are willing to stick their necks out, but the majority of us just like to sit back into the comfortable chair that has been created for them by these few others, enjoy it, but not willing to give back anything else.

   Yes, this IS still my country and this IS still my land and love it every step of the way and will continue to support it.

   Metta, Kelvin Wong"
   

    

3. After the 2 defendants were sentenced, Sal wrote a sequel to this essay. See Is this my land, an island where I wander free?. See also the Yawning Bread essay The arrests at One Seven and Section 20