Synonym

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.

possibly related