Synonym
March 14th, 2005 | Published in glbt | 22 Comments
written after I stopped being upset
The AIDS issue largely remains a taboo in (Un)Surprising Singapore, along with other no-go zones: pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and these other decadent imports via “high prevalence societies”. It took the “coming out” of a man named Paddy Chew before little Singapore was able to put a human face to a disease previously unspoken of. Paddy Chew is long dead. The monster of HIV rages on. How far have we come since Paddy Chew?
Let’s take a step back and examine the sex education currently in our national curriculum. While it will not give us any concrete answers or solutions, it will at least throw us a little closer.
Sex education in Singapore’s schools operates on a need-to-know basis. Boys and girls are being taught the parts of the male and female anatomy, what goes where in the process of “making babies”, what happens when a man puts what where. This basic physiological approach appears to form one part of “Sex Ed”. The other part to the riddle involves a combination of moral education, propaganda, and proselytizing. Rather than to include a modern approach involving safe sex practices in Sex Ed., our educators have decided to ignore that entirely - and stick closely to the official line: abstinence until marriage, monogamy after marriage and until death.
While their efforts at inculcating concepts of such conduct is certainly noble, it also begs the question - how far are we able to live in this shell and insist that such an approach will still work, in today’s context? Our young are assumed to be, by default: fresh-faced, heterosexual, naive, sex-less. Any deviation from these categories can only be because deviations from the norm, which run contrary to family values and Asian values and Confucian values and all other good things like that, have been introduced by some external stimuli. The argument goes that changing official policy to involve a more modern approach - the even mere mention of condoms - will give the mistaken idea that pre-marital sex is acceptable. Groups which choose to pursue such a rigid line ought to stop proselytizing, stop pushing for unattainable ideals, and learn to compromise with what already exists, to attempt to pre-empt future mishaps. What they are doing now is nothing more than obstructing attempts to find solutions to today’s problems.
Much is said of that enigmatic “conservative majority”, but we are not told who this influential group of people are, though we may guess that it is a motley crew of groups such as conservative Christians and Muslims (Buddhists and Hindus, I doubt their opposition is as vociferous). Alex Au, renowned gay activist from the group People Like Us, made the point at the Singapore Forum on Politics that this “conservative majority” shares a symbiotic relationship with the authorities, since the hierarchical structure of their values system (top-down, ought to do this, approach), puts them in the best position to offer support to authorities which share their behavioural patterns. The influence of this “majority”, while not yet at politically threatening levels like that in the United States, is one to be reckoned with. There is a nascent “ex-gay” movement which sells the idea that homosexuality is but a mere tendency that can be “cured” with a combination of counselling, Bible study and healing through prayer. A large poster flies outside the Church of Our Saviour with the loathesome slogan, “Gay But Not Happy? Call XXX XXXX“, visible when one passes the Queenstown MRT station. Groups such as Focus On Our Family campaign, under the banner of promoting “family values” and the “preservation of the home”, against the horrors of gambling, pre-marital sex, and of course, homosexuality. It has been successful in launching a puzzling, but high-publicity abstinence drive, in which school students were cajoled (with the potent offering of community involvement hours every student so badly needs?) into cajoling people on the streets to pledge abstinence until marriage, and to wear a white wristband to show for it.
The article “What Happened At Sentosa’s Gay Parties” in the Sunday Times today ominously closed with two ‘family-friendly’ viewpoints, after a few sensational paragraphs describing the Nation parties in overtly graphic detail. A certain Koh Su Yin said: “By having the parties, we are sending the message to young people that such a lifestyle is okay. It also desensitses and normalises a behaviour which would be construed intuitively as normal.” A mother of two toddlers says, “We don’t need such parties on our doorstep. Call me selfish, but they [AIDS, gay parties, 'heartbreaks'] can happen elsewhere.” They both referred to the gay existence - or, as Adrienne Rich might say, the gay continuum - with the choice of word, “lifestyle”. Highly loaded vocabulary.
Even if they are entitled to their beliefs, at what point do the rights of the rest of us to pursue our lives as we see fit, come under attack? At many points, if you ask me. It is too easy to paint a devilish picture of “alternative lifestyles” that may not fit the family-first picture of an ideal existence this “conservative majority” so often demands. This group has yet to provide a conclusive and convincing answer to our questions of what exactly family, Asian, Confucian values are; or a convincing reason as to why they think gay parties happening at Sentosa necessarily has any direct impact upon them or on their families. (Side note: To paraphrase (and bastardize) Rosseau Voltaire, I may not attend these Sentosa gay parties, but I will fight for your right to.)
While the authorities cannot and will not switch its allegiance from this group overnight, they must at least make the attempt to open up, as they have claimed to be trying for some time now. Making insinuating statements, however implicit, does nothing constructive. Though it does plenty of damage.
Social structure needs to evolve as societies are swept up in the frenzy of development. That includes reviewing sex ed. in national schools. Re-examining the stereotypes we hold. Our treatment of all HIV-positive people, in general, needs to be reviewed as well. The general attitude reeks of a, “who asked you to go and be so promiscuous, you’re on your own if you can’t afford your medicines”. To have to resort to (more affordable) drugs from our neighbouring countries is a travesty to the much-lauded healthcare system. We cannot call ourselves a developed nation if there are still surprising numbers of people who think the disease can be spread by sharing utensils, or by being in the same room. The same way we cannot continue marginalizing our sexual minorities.
If you had gone to see Russell Wong’s exhibition at the Singapore Art Museum, alongside his portraits of Picasso’s daughter, of Michelle Yeoh, Gong Li, and other notables, you will see a portrait of Paddy Chew. It is shot in black and white, reveals only his face and a little bit of his upper body; the contours of his face and body were evident - but his features were not. The photographer had chosen to interpret his subject, this Paddy Chew - the first Singaporean to publicly say he had AIDS - as a man with everything every man had. All the limbs intact, like the other portraits around him. Yet unlike any other portrait in the entire exhibition: he was the only one whose face was blurred. But you could see his eyes, and oh, how those eyes leaped out at you when you looked.
March 14th, 2005 at 7:47 am (#)
Singapore’s sexuality education? A contradiction in terms.
I discovered, to my horror, that there were individuals (read: 17 year-olds with at least 10 years of education) who had no idea as to what homosexuality was about, save for limp-wristed sashaying by weird men.
March 14th, 2005 at 8:18 am (#)
i take it that you find russel wong’s depiction of paddy chew offensive?
March 14th, 2005 at 10:49 am (#)
ivan: No. Why should I?
March 14th, 2005 at 11:13 am (#)
Paddy had an one-man play about 7 years ago, just before he passed away. I was fortunate enough to catch it - powerful stuff. He didn’t just come out - he put a face to an anonymous killer that should have been viewed with clinical objectivity, not gossiped about in hushed whispers and loaded overtones.
The rest of the photography exhibition is good too?
March 14th, 2005 at 1:30 pm (#)
Understanding the theory is good, but what can we powerless serfs possibly do in practice to effect change?
Specifically. What can a politically-castrated hetrosexual serf who is sympathetic to the GLBT discrimation situation - but detached from the immediate impact, possibly do to make a difference?
I fail to see how we can bridge the chasm from “oh.. that’s sad” to “let us do our bit”.
[ Disclosure: I am not really into the GLBT "rights" either way, but the sheer balance of power is cause for concern. If it is so easy to persecute the gay boogeyman.. what is to prevent the Moral Majority to persecute the childfree next, or to marginalise the SPCA as not in our economic roadmap, or to make smoking or vodka or even chocolates illegal? ]
March 14th, 2005 at 2:41 pm (#)
How often do you come across people who can’t tell the difference between a sincere, reasoned opinion and a personal attack? People who want the law to clamp down on every social ill without being able to even explain how it harms anyone in the first place, and who’d never dream that such laws might one day touch their own lives and choices? Who fall back on the bullwarks of ‘values’ and ‘tradition’ to justify every unjust practice and prejudice that befalls all those deviant enough to disregard their roots. People who know nothing but an instinctive disgust and hatred at every unfamiliar, unconventional element or display, as if such sentiments are proof of one’s own high ground. People who believe that their entry to heaven depends on making life hell for everybody else. Who find a sense of comfort in the suppression of ugly truths, and even deem honest and open debate an afront to sensitivities too holy to be disputed. That’s the moral majority for you.
March 14th, 2005 at 3:30 pm (#)
So many have lived a life confined for such a long time that they are oblivious to or have even come to embrace the bars of the cage. And even though some might see that the key lies in the lock for their turning, the gateway to individual freedom so fraught with the vicissitudes of the natural world has now become something to fear. Unfortunately for the few that would reach for the key, those who see only threats in our capacity to grow and challenge mainstream views and ways of life stand in the way - the moral majority - they who would turn the lock and throw away the key.
March 14th, 2005 at 3:56 pm (#)
I believe that the ‘conservative majority’ is really made up of the same people who make Geylang their favourite spot in Singapore. They are the ones who can condone prostitution, but not intimacy between two consenting adults of the same sex. They are the ones who also don’t mind going to Bangkok once or twice every year to see sex shows performed by people of the same sex on each other, drag shows, have sex with girls young enough to be their daughters (which is worse? i think paedophelia is)… that’s the ‘conservative majority’ for you, very hypocritical because after all, they need someone to blame and it better be those sexual deviants. I also think that the govt chooses to blame the gay community because pointing the finger at the ‘conservative majority’ (who I feel are mostly to blame considering statistics prove that HIV is more prevalent amongst straight males) will mean that singapore has a NATIONAL problem — something akin to the falling birth rate, casino, etc which in turn means that it will become a fully debated issue, no stones left unturned proportions. Plus, I guess it’s not something that can help win or break votes, unlike more bread and butter issues directly involving the cost of living, so what’s there to bother? I believe, this HIV problem is something they would want to sweep under the carpet until it festers and explodes in their faces and perhaps give them the ability to take all the credit when they solve the problem, as this is only what a developed country should do — solve problems using first world solutions.
March 14th, 2005 at 4:22 pm (#)
I wouldn’t quite see this ‘conservative majority’ as equivalent to the Bangkok/Batam/Geylang-loving folk, although your observations seems true to an extent. Just look at the misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, racist yet utterly depraved crowd in Sammyboy’s Kopitiam forum.
There’s arguably a fair portion of conservatives who can’t be labelled as hypocrites (especially those of a religious base). I would like to think it shouldn’t be a problem demolishing their arguments and calls to cast a moral/religious cloak over society and laws, but in Singapore, their goals overlap a fair bit with those of policy makers (sometimes, they are one and the same), and ultimately, unless economic imperatives (e.g. casino) come in the way, the bedrock of family values as a cornerstone of this nation is used to bash anything that supposedly threatens the nuclear clan. The family be damned.
March 14th, 2005 at 4:52 pm (#)
A further tot: I won’t be surprised to see a repeat of Bush’s ‘values campaign’ in the coming GE. How can one possibly disagree with a gahmen that champions time-tested values?? And willing to spend money and resources to battle evil liberals seeking to shake the foundations of society? And even deigning to forgo precious pink dollars for the sake of social stability?
March 14th, 2005 at 8:53 pm (#)
Idler: Plus, I guess it
March 14th, 2005 at 9:42 pm (#)
At one stage in my life, I was an audience to panels of people with “alternative lifestyle” there to educate us, a new batch of working bee volunteers, at the Aids Council. I’ve a cross-dresser friend showing off ‘her’ boots to the audience. A man showed us a bagful of cocktail medication he need to painfully swallow (think 100 pills) everyday. A former man related to us her sex change operation. A former sex worker roaming the street looking after other sex workers’ welfare. A beautifully-faced young boy spoke of coming out as a gay. A lesbian told us the pain of being thrown out of her home for her sexual preference. These are normal people we see everyday on the street.
People living in poverty resort to unhygenic practices. Innocent children were born to mothers with HIV positive.
Unfortunately, these doesn’t change a thing - regardless if sex even come to the picture at all.
When such disorder occured, some people (the majority, if I may add) panic and search for scapegoats. Someone or something that doesn’t fit into the societal mould. Living under a traditional & patriarchal boundary makes it difficult to break the mould. That remain the most difficult problem in Singapore or even Malaysia. But Malaysia has Marina Mahathir (guess who’s daughter) to advocate. That’s the difference.
March 14th, 2005 at 10:59 pm (#)
last i read, singapore was still classified as a developing nation by the UN. correct me if i’m wrong though.
as for singaporeans not accepting alternative lifestyles, i emphathise, but you can never force such views upon people. don’t get me wrong, i’m not against GLBT rights, but it’s not mere “asian” or confucian values like you stressed, but more so social conditioning. people in modern-western first-world-nations are still debating over same sex marriages. having stayed overseas for a few years, trust me, they will be conservative/closed-minded people everywhere, and it’s not exclusive to singaporeans. it’s human nature to fear (and thus hate) the unfamiliar. hell, that’s why racism exists too.
simply put, it’s the world we live in that needs to re-think about respecting the lifestyles of such people, not merely asian nations.
p/s the paddy chew profile made be choke on my tears.
March 14th, 2005 at 11:02 pm (#)
ecks, there will be and made me
March 15th, 2005 at 12:16 am (#)
It’s interesting that the whole ‘Confucianism as the key to the success of the East Asian Tigers’ school of thought (or fantasy) emerged from neoconservative mouths in the United States. These people sought to construct the success of Singapore (amongst others) in a way that supported their claims for the reshaping of their own society and their own cultural values.
It is in fact a Western intellectual (if you would dignity it with that term) invention that we have so proudly adopted as a banner of our supposed exceptionalism. Once you realise that the whole ‘Asian values’ business is primarily a political tool to legitimise one-party rule, it’s clear that the government has a powerful interest not only in pacifying the so-called “conservative majority” (as they mouth apologetically to liberals) but one in constructing and perpetuating it. It supports the extended myth they have built around our social and political institutions, including the cult of the family, which is the ‘basic building block of society’ in more ways than one. A sense of dependence on others (and this includes parents) and consequently a sense of perpetual infanthood is what keeps many educated Singaporeans in
check.
Incidentally, I think it’s Voltaire, not Rousseau, Adri (though I’m not absolutely sure). That aside, great post.
March 15th, 2005 at 1:10 am (#)
I think you’re right, it is Voltaire. My current attempts at brushign up for psychology midterms will make a causal attribution to some fundamental error in the generic memory. Ok off I go.
March 15th, 2005 at 9:01 am (#)
If you read the original speech transcript, you may be shocked to discover that Dr. Balaji can’t make clear the distinction between HIV and AIDS. That alone is reason enough to clinch the conclusion that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
March 15th, 2005 at 3:28 pm (#)
For some reason I can’t ping your trackback link…
well, here’s my contribution.
March 15th, 2005 at 3:54 pm (#)
Sorry for the crappy link earlier, friendlier permalink address here.
March 15th, 2005 at 8:23 pm (#)
it is spelled roUsseau. sorry, but if you can’t even get that name right, you can’t be too correct.
March 15th, 2005 at 9:02 pm (#)
It’s grammAr. Sorry, but if you’re using “grammEr” as a nick, you shouldn’t be nitpicking other people’s typos.
March 16th, 2005 at 11:22 pm (#)
Maybe it’s post-modernist irony.