A Deeper Look at LGBT Discrimination in Singapore

in #politics7 years ago

Pink Dot.jpg

Is there discrimination against LGBT persons in Singapore? Activists and bloggers insist there is. Janelle Faye, a transgender Singaporean, argues there isn't.

I think the truth is somewhere down the middle. In recent history, the authorities have not launched sweeps targeting LGBT people. There are no laws punishing people for the crime of being non-heteronormative. Sex change operations are freely available here, and LGBT-friendly bars, saunas and non-government organisations operate openly. Discriminatory attitudes and practices against LGBT people occurs at the level of individuals, families and organisations; not at the level of society. There are no formalised mechanisms of oppression aimed at LGBT people in the same fashion as, say, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria or the Islamic State.

At the same time, there still exists laws and policies that, for better or ill, sweep up LGBT people in their wake.

Section 377A and its Consequences

Section 377A of the Penal Code states:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with >imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

Singapore inherited its laws from the British, and the Penal Code is based off India's. Since Independence, other legislation that criminalises "unnatural sex", such as non-vaginal sex or lesbian sexual intercourse, have been struck down. Section 377A still remains on the books, but the government insists that it will not prosecute gays under the law.

In practice, this is mostly true. As far as I know, in the past two decades Section 377A has only been trotted out to handle cases of public nuisance, rape and statutory rape. It has never been used to prosecute men who have consensual sex with men in private.

Singapore's government needs to balance the needs of multiple groups in society, including religious conservatives. Keeping Section 377A can be seen as a peace offering to keep them happy while the government does away with less controversial legislation on other kinds of sex. Unfortunately, retaining Section 377A has knock-on effects.

In the military, gay soldiers are assigned a special deployment status, kept away from sensitive information, and confined to day duties for the rest of their careers. This essentially means that openly gay soldiers will never be placed in career-enhancing positions within the military. I don't think this is institutional discrimination, rather an operational security measure. If a spy learns that a gay soldier has access to classified information, the spy can deploy a honey trap and take compromising photographs of the soldier, blackmailing him to reveal this information on pain of being arrested and charged under Section 377A.

The criminalisation of homosexual male acts also has wide-ranging impacts on civilian life: marriage, housing, insurance, legal aid, medical services. Since same-sex relationships are not officially recognised by the government, such couples are not eligible for the same benefits as heterosexual couples, and homoseuals cannot make legal decisions for their partners. This situation will likely remain so until and unless there are no longer any laws on the books criminalising consensual sex acts between adults. Perhaps longer.

While Section 377A has not led to institutionalised discrimination, this is only due to the policy of the current government. With the People's Action Party enjoying a supermajority in Parliament (82 out of 84 seats), if the government decides at a future date that it will benefit from cracking down on gay men, there is nothing to stop it. Likewise, if a future government decrees that it shall henceforth prosecute all gay men in Singapore, Section 377A empowers it to do so.

Section 377A hangs like a sword of Damocles over the gay community. Its existence automatically criminalises men who have sex with men, even if they have done nothing to harm others. No citizen can count on the eternal benevolence of the state. Section 377A must be abolished. In its place, Parliament must revise existing law to cover cases of public nuisance, rape, statutory rape and other crimes that were previously prosecuted under Section 377A, with an eye towards deterring and punishing harm as opposed to consensual acts.

LGBT People in the Media

There are no laws forbidding the portrayal of LGBT people in the mass media. Instead, the Media Development Authority -- which develops the media by censoring it -- issued guidelines forbidding the "promotion or glamorization of the homosexual lifestyle".

This policy has claimed a long list of victims of censorship. Barack Obama's pro-LGBT comments. A same-sex kiss from a theatrical production of Les Miserables. Mass Effect, for its femShep/Liara relationship, for a while. A number of local films and plays. A full list of censored media can be found here.

This isn't to say that the MDA demanded the media to hide LGBT characters. Indeed, there is no bar against having such characters, so long as they aren't portrayed positively. A local Mandarin-language police procedural featured a male-to-female transsexual as a killer. Another drama had an episode where the cast convinced a transvestite to give up his cross-dressing ways.

This is discrimination by regulatory fiat. The MDA does not answer to Parliament or the people. If the government believes more restrictions should be placed on the media, the MDA can do it without having to go through the formalities of a Parliamentary debate or try to convince the people through the press.

But this should also be seen in context. The government has long held the position that Singapore's media should be a 'nation-building media'. The media takes its cues from the government, delivering the messages and creating the narratives that the government wants it to deliver. When controversies erupted over en bloc sales of real estate in Singapore, MediaCorp suddenly produced a drama about a family caught up in an en bloc sale. Press coverage of national events tend to be slanted to favour the government, emphasising Singapore's 'traditional values', including religious harmony, efficient government, and de-politicisation of racial and religious matters. This is part of the government's overall strategy of justifying its rule through 'Asian values', which is really a hodgepodge of Confucian and Victorian moral norms. It creates a narrative of 'Asian values' through the media, then uses it to claim the moral high ground.

The problem here isn't just discrimination per se. It's that the government uses the media as its mouthpiece to spread its version of public ethics, politics and news, and LGBT issues is just one of them. Singaporeans cannot count on the mainstream media to explore alternative stories and narratives that contradict the party line, and there is little profit in petitioning the MDA to change its policies if the government won't. A more realistic approach would be to engage the government itself on portrayals of LGBT people, and why LGBT people should be given fair portrayal in the media.

But I won't hold my breath. Creators who want to have LGBT characters in their works would find better luck in spaces the MDA can't touch. In the age of the Internet, creators can upload works on YouTube, use Patreon or Kickstarter for funding, write and narrate digital stories, and more. Instead of butting heads with the MDA on legacy media platforms, seek places where the MDA cannot reach and build your audience there. This will pull receptive audiences to your platforms, allow you to render any and all discriminatory media portrayals in Singapore irrelevant.

Marriage and Housing

In Singapore, it is usually joked that the most common way to propose marriage is to ask your would-be spouse to buy a flat with you. That's because public housing in Singapore is strictly limited, favouring family units (including newly-weds). LGBT couples must either purchase flats on the private/resale markets or wait until they are 35 years old and purchase a flat under the joint singles scheme. Is this discrimination?

Singapore, it must be remembered, is a tiny, land-scarce country. Land use must be carefully planned, and a flat may be retained in the same family for two or even three generations out of necessity. The government must prioritise the needs of families with children and newlyweds who will produce children, for they will ensure the continued survival of the nation and the people. Lesbians, gays and transsexuals who will not or cannot produce children will not contribute to the next generation or the generation after, so their needs must be placed last.

Unfortunately, since bureaucracies must operate with a broad brush, there will be unintended victims. This year, a couple lost their marriage to the mechanisms of state. They registered their marriage as a heterosexual couple, but the male declared that he intended to transition to female. The marriage was nonetheless allowed to continue, and was registered as a heterosexual marriage. After the former husband transitioned, the marriage became a same-sex marriage -- which is illegal here. After months of hemming and hawing, the state forcibly dissolved the marriage and the couple had to move to a smaller home.

I understand where the government is coming from and recognise the necessity of prioritizing heterosexual couples (and, by extension, the long-term survival of the country), but this is most unfortunate for the couple mentioned above, and other edge cases that the bureaucracy isn't equipped to resolve. On the other hand, I don't think Western-style civil unions can resolve the matter either. If non-heterosexual couples in civil unions are accorded the same rights as heterosexual couples in recognised weddings, it could have a significant impact on the availability of public housing in Singapore. It is not fair for a tiny non-fertile percent of the population to have such an outsized impact on the rest of the population that will ensure the nation's continued existence.

Should we build more public housing? Singapore is the very definition of a concrete jungle: where can more land be found? What about letting LGBT people rent flats? Rent prices are sky-high in Singapore: rental flats cater to PMETs with astronomical salaries or groups of people, leaving rented rooms the only viable option for most people.

I don't have any easy answers. What I do know is that this issue isn't discussed in public at all. LGBT people are left to fend for themselves while the government will not accommodate them. Instead of harping on such abstract matters as the 'freedom to love', LGBT activists should focus on everyday matters that affect the lives of people, and the government should in turn engage these activists to hopefully reach a win-win solution.

Roll Up Your Sleeves and Get to Work

Having attended the original Pink Dot, I can confirm Faye's remarks on its essential vacuity. Yes, it celebrates the freedom of love. Yes, it trots out speakers affirming non-heteronormative relationships and the virtues of tolerance and diversity. Yes, there is music and live performances and balloons. For one day a year it makes people feel good. But what about the other 364 days of the year?

I don't care about feeling good. I care about doing good.

There isn't widespread systemic discrimination against LGBT people in Singapore on the scale of the Middle East or elsewhere. However, Section 377A allows potential tyrants to oppress the LGBT community. Media portrayals of LGBT people in Singapore are a facet of the government's control over the media. Housing for LGBT people remain a thorny but underdiscussed issue.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. LGBT people face a number of unique challenges that aren't aired openly. Half of lesbian relationships involve domestic violence. Last year, there were 408 new reported cases of HIV transmission, and 52% of them originated from homosexual transmission. Advertisements about HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention targeting the LGBT community cannot be aired here.

It's easy to jump on bandwagons, chant slogans and repeat the tired rhetoric of power, privilege and discrimination. It makes people feel good, but it doesn't do anything to resolve these issues. If you're truly interested in helping LGBT people, then roll up your sleeves and get to work.

Sort:  

Lived there for 2 years - unfortunately there is discrimination against LGBT but even worse? Indians & Bangladeshi's

It truly is a shame that such an amazing country has slightly racist views.

Don't believe me? Go look at the estate agent listings.

I do, and I have, unfortunately. At least there are people still willing to speak about such things.

Interesting read. I still find it mind boggling the subtle ways that members of the LGBT community are discriminated against in modern culture. Have you read about the Supreme Court case of Lawrence Vs Texas from 2003?

I haven't. What can you tell me about it?

Its good to expose this. Im optimistic and in the future there will be less discrimination i think.

Thanks. I'd like to think so, but it is a future that we must create.

LGBT Discrimination Informative post keep it up keep sharing :)

LGBT Discrimination in my country is quite serious, I think it is really ridiculous they can't make decision for their partner for some urgent surgenty if necessary, I don't wonder the public will accept them but to respect. In Asia, I think Taiwan is the one who has less lgbt discrimination.

Taiwan and Japan, I think. It's easy for the government to just sweep things under the carpet and pretend these issues don't exist. All the more reason to keep bringing them up.

It's worst when you have a certain group of people, ie. my parents' generation who remain adamant that what the government does is always right. There's no conversation when the other party simply don't want to listen to your views.

There's a lot more work to be done and it will take time. All I can suggest is to create an alternative platform for information to be distributed, ie. Steemit. I'm optimistic that Singaporeans, in general, are a discerning bunch and don't want information to be spoon-fed by the government.

The next generation may be interested in discussion. Die-hard opposition supporters from the previous generation would take to whatever platform allows them to air their views. But otherwise, I just don't see very many people coming together to address issues beyond going, "Leave it to the government!" or 'This is not important!"

It doesn't take very many people. It just takes a few dedicated people to start a fire and keep it going.

Exactly. Then again, the major reason why singaporeans, in general, are not committed to making any real effort to changes is simply because there's no financial incentive to do so. Especially in a money minded country like singapore, it's easy to see why people don't really care about such issues. I see steemit as a great place to align social changes with monetary incentives.

I hope more people take to the platform to air their views without fear of censorship.

It's not just money. It's the belief that the government will crack down on people who steps out of line. It is a perception the government does not trouble itself to dispel, and occasionally finds useful to maintain. Nobody wants to be the example the government uses to maintain order.

It's never just about the money. But, money plays an important and fundamental role in Singapore. The Maslow hierarchy is a good example to demonstrate my point.

At the lowest level, it's all about basic needs: food, water, and shelter. Singaporeans who do not have sufficient financial capacity to maintain even the most basic needs wouldn't even be bothered to meddle in politics. Comparing between an empty stomach and LGBT rights, which do you think is the priority? With the high cost of living, it simply doesn't make financial sense to expend your time and effort only to get swatted away like annoying flies by the government.

The people who have the luxury of time are those who are financially secured in a way that they do not have pressing needs that are yet to be met like those in the lower rank of the hierarchy. Now, we are talking about psychological needs, and even perhaps, self-actualization. Arguing for a greater freedom of LBGT rights fall right into this category. The reason why self-censorship exists, I believe, is that the government has a way to make anyone fall to a lower rank in the hierarchy through financial punishment: lawsuits and fines. Just take a look at the opposition parties in Singapore as an example.

Nobody in the right sense of their minds, from an individual perspective, would want to sacrifice their own well-being for the greater altruistic good of LBGT.

The government has little or practically no incentive to be open and bring about social changes unless LBGT rights represent a huge threat to the economy. Everything will remain as status quo: the why-fix-something-if-everything-is-still-working-fine mentality.

You might say, it's never about the money because of the government. But, it's actually about the money which gives the government the power of self-censorship over the people.

Steemit has the ability to bridge such gap that exists in the Singaporean society. All we need is a pioneering little black sheep...... :D

I am a co-founder of The Online Citizen, and I have worked at almost all of Singapore's major group political blogs at one point or another. The people I've worked with who advocate for human rights, including LGBT rights, are by and large motivated by a desire to do good. Even if it means shouldering heavy financial burdens. They're not rich. They work soul-numbing hours to pay the bills and fight for what they believe in. They're never going to get rich doing it. But they do what they do because they believe it is right.

It doesn't follow that a person will always conform to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Some will, but not everyone. The ones who push the boundaries are the ones who are unafraid of taking risks and incurring great financial punishment and the social shame that comes from being the recipient of negative government attention. There are many ways to chase social influence and self-actualisation without attracting the baleful gaze of the state. All you have to do is do something popular yet unpolitical.

Steemit may make it easier for some people to speak up. It will not guarantee them immunity from government lawsuits or arrest if they cross the line. If the government chooses to sue a popular Steemit blogger, they will simply revise the demanded damages upwards to overpower his earnings on Steemit.

There are plenty of ways to make money more easily than fighting for rights. Society is structured to place money at the heart of all endeavours. People who are not overly troubled by the rat race, who can play the game and who can endure the longest will be the movers and shakers of society.

Steemit is a tool, not a be-all and end-all.

Interesting. I would never have thought to speak with a co-founder of The Online Citizen. I agree that Steemit is simply just a tool. Regardless, I hope to read more of what you have to say in your future posts and articles. Cheers!

Thanks. Hope to see more from you too.

Hey guys, So i hope this doesn't come across offensive or suggestive, but i saw that your post had a LGBTIQ theme. I was wanting to start a discord channel on the PAL server that was focused towards the LGBTQI community. Would anyone be interested in joining? you can contact me directly on the server if you prefer Link Here my username on discord is "@nathenial#0305"

To make it happen we need around 10 people. Once active the general traffic will invite more people in :)

I hope I havn't offended anyone by this unsolicited invite.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.18
TRX 0.15
JST 0.029
BTC 63191.06
ETH 2551.41
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.65