Responding to the Schizophrenic States on the Issue of Homosexuality - Research Proposal Example

Responding to the Schizophrenic s on the issue of homosexuality: A comparative analysis of the Society relations in Singapore and Hong Kong Introduction “Singapore appears to be the last frontier in the Asian region for positive gay and lesbian developments.” – Leong Wai-Teng (1997, p. 142) This was Leong’s postulation more than a decade ago when he wrote an article about the socio-legal control of homosexuality in Singapore. Indeed, a decade later, homosexuality is still being criminalized in Singapore even after a heated national debate on the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code in October 2007. Under Section 377A, acts of “gross indecency” between males, in public or private, are punishable with imprisonment of up to two years (Leong, 1997). While the government has assured that the law will not be enforced proactively, the legislation was retained, citing the resistance of a “conservative majority” – real or imagined. With the decriminalization of homosexuality in Hong Kong 1991, Hong Kong society appears more tolerant and accepting than in Singapore. Prior to the passing of the Amendment Bill in 1991, homosexuality acts were punishable under similar terms under the “Abominable Offense” chapter in the Offense Against Persons Ordinance (Cap. 21.1) of 1901. Alike to Singapore, the law was not actively enforced by the colonial government until the 1970s during which several prominent cases of homosexuality propelled the homosexuality movement in Hong Kong (Lau, 1982; Chou, 2000). Nevertheless, the state in both countries remained undecided of their level of tolerance or acceptance of homosexuals in the society and schizophrenic responses arose. How do the gay advocacy groups relate and react to the schizophrenic nature of their states then? In examining the relationship of state and civil society in this paper, I will argue that gay activists in both countries relate to the state differently, and likewise, the state relates to the civil society differently, and this complex relationship elicits different responses. Specifically, gay activists in Singapore view the schizophrenic states actions as opportunity-inviting and valuing civil society to meet the needs of the economy whereas those in Hong Kong view their schizophrenic states actions as apathetic towards the value of civil society, necessarily eliciting different responses. Nonetheless, it should be noted that both states do not seem very concerned with the human rights discourse as much as they do with pragmatic concerns such as having their authority challenged or economic success. Schizophrenic State in Hong Kong Prior to 1970s, homosexuality was almost non-existent. However, during the 1970s, several homosexual cases involving government officials, civil servants and the Caucasian community had prompted the colonial government to maintain the credibility and normality of the government bureaucracy, and the most prominent and monumental case affecting the government and involving the greatest public speculation had been the incident of Scottish police inspector, John MacLennan, in 1980 (Chou, 2000). An unprecedented debate among the Chinese arose after the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong recommended the decriminalisation of homosexuality, prompting the Government to issue the public document titled “Homosexual Offenses: Should the Law Be Changed? – A Consultation Paper” in 1988 to seek public opinion (Chou, 2000). The paper discussed three options, namely to retain the current legislation, reduce the sentence, or to decriminalise consenting homosexual acts conducted in private and the entire discourse on homosexuality was feverously debated by members of the society. Despite the findings of a survey conducted on 690 people revealing that 89 percent said that a Chinese community would not accept homosexual behaviour and an even larger proportion of 95.5 percent were against decriminalisation (Lee, 1983), the government still went ahead to decriminalise homosexuality in 1991. Chou (2000) argues that this decision could be attributed to the emergence of a representative government, debates about democracy, and the uncertainty of the political future of Hong Kong after the 1997 handover to the Chinese government. Coupled with the sensationalising June Fourth incident in Tiananmen Square in 1989, the Hong Kong public pressed the government to safeguard human rights before the handover, leading to the passing of the Bill of Rights in January 1991 which ultimately overrides laws concerning individual privacy (Chou, 2000). Hence, it was believed that the legislation for decriminalization was passed to render the law compatible with the Bill of Rights (Chou, 2000). Nevertheless, even with the decriminalisation of homosexuality, the age of consent for sexual intercourse remains discriminatory against homosexuals – 16 for heterosexuals and 21 for homosexuals. Other legal rights such as same-sex marriages and adoption were not legislated. This led to Chou (2000, p. 76-77) to believe that decriminalization was “an act of tolerance and compromise rather than acceptance and liberation.” Furthermore, in the debate on the Equal Opportunity Bill from 1993 to 1995, the protection against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in areas of employment, education, housing and social services were opposed by the government in 1997 (Chou, 2000). Hence, any civil servant risked being dismissed if he or she is found to be a homosexual (Kong, 2004). Again, in 2000, 15 gay organizations including the Ten Percent Club, Horizons and Satsanga set up a joint taskforce and lobbied Legislative Council candidates to advocate for anti-discrimination, equal opportunities and positive societal education (South China Morning Post, 2000, September 2). Again, the Legislative Council emerged victory. Even though the battle to fight for anti-discrimination was lost, they had at least increased public awareness of their struggle (Ammon, 2006). Schizophrenic State in Singapore Homosexuality is still illegal in Singapore. Legal system of the country has not changed its stand on homosexual acts since the British colonial times. Any homosexual act is an offence under Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code. No exemption is provisioned for private acts or acts with the consent of both adult partners. In other words no same sex intimacy is legal and is subject to punishment. Same sex marriage or any kind of association is totally illegitimate in the state attracting severe punishments and huge fines. In employment, there is no protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual inclination and behavior. Few years back offices like the ministry of foreign affairs did not allow homosexuals in jobs with access to classified information. Exposed homosexuals were sacked from the job or sent to another office. Circulation and publishing of any information related to homosexuals is prohibited in Singapore. Books on homosexuality are banned for public distribution and are only available in institutions for study and research. Any medium of information that supports gay culture or portrays it in a positive manner is not allowed. Homosexuality is regarded as a curse, against the cultural and moral values and a state of mental illness and must be portrayed as same in the society by media. Social gatherings and union of gays and lesbians are also illegal. Places like discos and bars specific for gay community do not exist and are not approved a license. Others having gay customers are raided by police and face legal consequences for entertaining gay community (Leong, 1997). The conditions are improving in the state, even though remarkable changes may take time. Government is taking steps to make the society more open and acceptable to gays. These steps are being taken to attract foreign talent into the country and to provide a better platform for gays in shaping the creative economy. When it comes to financial gain state of Singapore is ready to make any compromise. Gays are being employed in civil services under the condition that they declare their sexual orientation before joining in order to prevent any kind of blackmail practices that may force them to lose any confidential information (The Straits Times, 2003, July 4). Government does not want to upset conservative majority of Singapore by decriminalising homosexuality but wants to create an environment that will cater gays’ needs to attract foreign talent to the country that will prove to be a boost for the economy of the country. In the words of Vivian Balakrishnan, the government official in charge of the Remaking Singapore Committee ‘Singapore will do "whatever it takes" to attract talent’ ( Time magazine, 2003, July 7, The Lion In Winter, p.4). Several saunas, gay bars and dance clubs exist today for gays. However every change is coming very quietly not to hurt the conservatives of the country. Doors opened or doors closed? In both countries, whether decriminalisation of homosexuality is put in place or not, the legal discourse on rights is inadequate as the schizophrenic acts of both government suggest that they are merely gestural and do not signify any true acceptance and tolerance by the society at large. How then do the gay organizations or advocacy groups make sense of such actions and what will be their future steps? Hong Kong – Doors closed? Gay organizations in Hong Kong view such contradictory responses as the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) government’s lack of genuine interest in human rights and the value of civil society. Law Yuk-kai, director of Hong Kong’s Human Rights Monitor, was saddened by the responses of the Legislative Council candidates they had approached for legislative changes for anti-discrimination. He lamented, "These candidates are supposed to be the elite of society, but they consider the basic rights of individuals as a ‘sensitive issue’. Under the existing political system, those standing for the election don’t really care too much about these minority groups. They do not see them as vote-winners. They only care about the interests of their own profession." (Ammon, 2006). More germane to the relationship between state and civil society, the Hong Kong SAR government is no different from the colonial government in terms of attempts to depoliticise the society by means of a minimally-integrated socio-political system (Lau, 1982; Kong, 2004). Hence, even though the government sought the public’s opinion on several occasions so that it does not have to make hasty decisions of controversial nature on its own, the influence of civil society apparently did not matter as much as the attitudes of the general public. For instance, after another failed attempt of the gay organizations to call for legislative changes, Leo Kwan Wing-Wah, the Deputy Secretary for Home Affairs had commented that “It is not the right time to introduce a law banning discrimination against homosexuals, due to a lack of majority support” but that “majority” finding dated in 1996 (South China Morning Post, 2000, December 13). More importantly, Kwan tried to distance the bureaucratic polity from society when he insisted that “the government cannot impose any social values on the public” (South China Morning Post, 2000, December 13). Ammon (2006) was sceptical since it is not hard to see that governmental policies generally influence the values and attitudes that people hold. Accepting the political impotence and the government’s apathy toward the value of civil society, the gay activists in Hong Kong became apathetic as they do not see any opportunities for them to proactively push for their cause. Kong (2004, p.11) argues that the new government’s emphasis on Chinese values such as “harmony” and “moderation” as well as the collective wish of the people that Hong Kong should “remain the same for fifty years” has led the public to accept the “political impotence” as their fate. Moreover, democratic progress and human rights advocacy should also be subsumed under social harmony and economic prosperity (Kong, 2004). Hence, both Chou (2000) and Kong (2004) concluded that most homosexuals seem to share the public’s alienation and disinterest in politics. In fact, Chou (2000) found that most homosexual interviewed for her research are supportive in principle of the Equality Opportunity Bill but they do not deem them practical. Moreover, Hong Kong’s main LGBT [Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgendered] coordinating body, Tongzhi Community Joint Meeting has recently came back onto the scene after several years of hiatus and one of the reasons cited for its absence was apathy across the gay community (Collett, 2008, June 25). Indeed, both the decriminalization in 1991 and the Equal Opportunity Bill were state-initiated instead of the gay groups (Chou, 2000). After a long wait of eight years, the gay groups were elated when news was divulged that the government is finally ready to openly debate on the rights to be accorded to homosexuals (South China Morning Post, 2004, July 27). On hearing that news, Gay activist Chung To, of the Chi Heng Foundation, hoped that the government would be less indifferent this time: "while public opinion is important, protecting the rights of minorities should not be left to the majority to decide. That is the governments job” (South China Morning Post, 2004, July 27). However, the government was subsequently accused by two Hong Kong legislators of hiding behind public opinion polls to delay the passing of anti-discrimination legislation for homosexuals (365gay.com, 2006, March 16). The lawmakers argued that the government “should be leading not following” (365gay.com, 2006, March 16). Nevertheless, the change in hands of the fourth Legislative Council in 2008 may indicate a slightly favourable political climate for gay advocacy groups to push for legislative changes once again (Collett, 2008, September 17). The timely return of the Tongzhi Community Joint Meeting may also seize the opportunity to resume open debate with the government on LGBT issues (Collett, 2008, June 25). Singapore – Open doors? Similar to the case in Hong Kong, gay activists in Singapore view such schizophrenic nature of the government as reflective of its lack of genuine interest in human rights. However, being pragmatic as it is, it is expected that the government’s responses have been more attuned to what the nation needs – a creative economy. In 1997, “Singapore 21,” a nationwide public consultation project, concluded with then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong urging Singaporeans to be more “willing to respect and accept a greater diversity in ideas” and move “beyond tolerance, to respect the different cultures in our midst” in the “broader social environment… critical in support of creativity and innovation.” (Goh, 1997). Moreover, similar yet not quite to Hong Kong, the Singapore state also actively depoliticize its citizenry but sees value in civil society as it “deepens the soil in which a people’s sense of nationhood takes root” (George, 2000, p.128). Thus, the state engages – albeit subtly – civil society to take responsibility and make the changes they want. Of course, these changes had to be compatible with what the state wants. Tan and Lee (2007) argued that civil society activists detected the “liberalizing” tone in the public rhetoric and looked out for opportunities opening in civil space. As pointed out by Tan and Lee (2007), Alex Au, a gay activist, attempted to “legitimize” homosexuals with equal opportunities and rights to play their part as active citizens by seizing the chance to apply for a license to organise a public forum titled “Gays and Lesbians within Singapore 21” in 2000. The application was nonetheless denied on the basis of a “conservative majority” (Mah, 2000, June 16). Several years later, in 2003, Goh again commented in the local daily The Straits Times, that “In the past, if we know you’re gay, we would not employ you. But we just changed this quietly.” The government will now hire gay Singaporeans in “certain positions of government” with the provision that these civil servants explicitly proclaim their sexual orientation. Expecting considerable resistance from the more conservative citizens, Goh sought to placate them by assuring a gradual change: “let it evolve, and in time the population will understand that some people are born that way… We are born this way and they [homosexuals] are born that way, but they are like you and me” (The Straits Times, 2003, July 4). This inclination towards the nature claims of homosexuality indeed signify that the society will gain acceptance of homosexuals and it is only a matter of time. This was interpreted in conjunction with Florida’s (2000) assertion that tolerance is a key indicator to attract talent. Essentially, Florida’s argument states that “to some extent, homosexuality represents the last frontier of diversity in our society and, thus, a place that welcomes the gay community welcomes all kinds of people.” (The Straits Times, 2003, July 9). In 2008, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced during the National Day Rally on August 17 that citizens will no longer need to apply for police permission to hold outdoor protests and demonstrations at the Speakers’ Corner, a spot designated for civil activity (Tan, 2008, August 27). Under the law of Singapore, any public protest of five or more people without a permit is illegal. In light of the economic discourse on attracting creative foreign talent – some of whom may be gay – to boost the creation of a creative economy, this ease on the ban might be seen as an invitation for the gay activists to heighten public awareness of the need to accept homosexuals as normal human beings and more importantly, to decriminalize homosexuality so that gay foreign talent may find Singapore an attractive place to live, work and play. Opportunistically, gay activists are taking the hint from the government and they were slated to stage the first ever (outdoor) gay protest on November 15, 2008. However, due to an overwhelming response from the gay community, the landmark event which will feature speeches on gay rights, particularly on the repeal of Section 377A, and a public forum that addresses the difficulties faced by gays in Singapore, has been postponed to early 2009 (Kor, 2008, November 1). Conclusion In the discourse on the policy pertaining to homosexuality, the states of these Asian countries have been indecisive and at times contradictory in their actions. It was argued that the states were not very much concerned with human rights. Instead, pragmatic reasons specific to each country could clarify their schizophrenic nature. Civil society was thus forced to decipher the underlying intentions of the state and indeed civil societies in both countries might perceive and react differently based on the political climate and economy at that time. As George (2000, p. 130-131) argues, civil society activists in Singapore “by force of habit… are inclined to see opportunities, not just obstacles.” Hence, when the state dropped several hints that it is a matter of time – and necessity – that homosexuality will be decriminalized, civil society strategists had been able to pick up these “shifts and nuances in the public rhetoric of their political leaders” (Tan & Lee, 2007), and act upon them. On the contrary, the civil society activists in Hong Kong seemed to have suffered from a reciprocal apathy relation with the state. In essence, some see more obstacles while some see more opportunities. Nevertheless, these lenses are not static and may change when the political climate and the economy shifts. References 365gay.com (2006, March 10). Hong Kong pressed over gay rights. Retrieved from http://www.globalgayz.com/hong-kong-news.html. Ammon, R. (March 2006). Gay Hong Kong: New hope from an old closet. Retrieved from http://www.globalgayz.com/g-hongkong.html Chou, W.S. (2000). Tongzhi: politics of same-sex eroticism in Chinese societies. New York: Haworth Press. Collett, N. (2008, September 17). What the recent polls mean for Hong Kongs LGBT community. Retrieved from http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=2300&viewarticle=1 Collett, N. (2008, June 25). Back in business: Hong Kongs LGBT coordinating body. Retrieved from http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=2251&viewarticle=1 George, C. (2000). Civil society: Rewriting the laws of Singapore politics. In Singapore: The air-conditioned nation (pp. 127-132). Singapore: Landmark Books. Goh, C.T. (1997). Singapore 21 – A new vision for a new era. Speech by the prime minister in the debate on the president’s address in Parliament, 5 June. Retrieved from http://www.singapore21.org.sg/menu_speeches.html. Heng, R.H.K. (2001). Tiptoe out of the closet: The before and after of the increasingly visible gay community in Singapore. In G. Sullivan and P. Jackson (Eds.), Gay and Lesbian Asia: Culture, identity, community. New York: Harrington Park Press. Kong, T.S.K. (2004). Queer at your own risk: Marginality, community and Hong Kong gay male bodies. Sexualities, 7, 5-30. Kor, K.B. (2008, November 1). “Gay protest postponed. Speakers’ Corner event on Nov 15 postponed to cater to strong response.” The Straits Times. Lau, Siu-kai (1982) Society and Politics in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. Lee, M. (1983, June 21). “Unanswered questions.” South China Morning Post. Leong, L.W.T. (1997). Singapore. In D. J. West & R. Green (Eds.), Sociolegal control of homosexuality (pp. 127-144). New York: Plenum Press. Mah, P. (2000, June 16). “Letter – No proof society tolerant of gays.” The Straits Times. South China Morning Post (2000, September 2). “Gay lobby presses Legco for rights laws.” South China Morning Post (2000, December 13). “Majority against gay rights law.” South China Morning Post (2004, July 27). “Quest for gay equality in Hong Kong.” Tan, K.P. & Lee, G.J.J. (2007). Imagining the gay community in Singapore. Critical Asian Studies, 39, 179-204. Tan, S. (2008, August 27). Outdoor gay events permitted from Sept: Singapore authorities. Retrieved from http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=2286&viewarticle=1&searchtype=all. The Straits Times (2003, July 4). “Govt more open to employing gays now.” The Straits Times (2003, July 9). “It’s not about gay rights – it’s survival.” Time magazine (2003, July 7). “The Lion In Winter”, p.4. Read More