Salt * Wet * Fish

Its a sad fact of life that people who are never discriminated throughout their lives will never know how it feels like nor understand why such people demands an end to the discrimination. There are, of course, exceptions who could understand plights of the discriminated. And it doesn’t help that our so-called government feedback unit (www.reach.gov.sg) only listens and hears what it wants to hear.

Just yesterday, the feedback unit had an invite-only focus group to discuss about the proposed penal codes changes. Below is reports of it. If this is how feedbacks are being conducted, then I fear that its going to a long hard road ahead before the government truly live to its promise of equality for everyone.

Dear Friends,

For the first time as a gay youth do I feel the terrible discrimination we face in this country we call home. First I need to apologise to Yawning Bread and several others. They tried to join the session but was rejected on the condition that they were not invited. I must acknowledge that this session is mainly for religious leaders, in fact I wonder am i the only non-religious person there. In my conversation with the organiser who happened to be my friend, some people have been classified as ’safe ones’ and are welcomed to join anytime, some are considered ‘ok’ while some are ‘dangerous’. In his words, I guessed that religious leaders might have put Yawning Bread and company as dangerous and unwelcomed. For that part, I am deeply sorry for what have happened.

Just to report on what have happened inside. When I asked the speakers whether section 377a is a tyranny of majority, their response was that the law at anytime is the reflection of the public sentiments. So indirectly he admitted it is a tyranny of majority. That we gays deserve to be prosecuted like this. When asked about the issue of female homosexuals, some religious leader felt that there is a rise in number of lesbians and they want to criminalise lesbians, the speakers’ responses were that it is relevant and they will bring it back to consider.

When asked about whether gay man having sex outside singapore, and whether they will be prosecuted when they return. Their stand is yes. They claimed that it is a bit extreme. But the public do not accept homosexual acts, so the first step is to criminalise. In future, they will follow the public opinion and further strength the penal code against homosexuality!!!\

Then some girl raised the point on Gay Saunas in town. Their first reaction is they don’t know. And immediately, they felt it might lead to the increase in HIV cases and wanted immediate action from ministry of home affairs. So gay sauna owners out there, be prepared for raids and police in disguise.

As I was sitting in the room listening to all these, I was on the verge of bursting, yet I was upset. I wonder what can we do to reverse this trend. What can we do to reach out to the public and change people’s mindset. The Government wants diversity, but obviously this don’t seem the case. We are at a very crucial point in our struggle for acceptance. We need to get together, discipline ourselves and fight for our rights. The government will not give it to us, we need to fight for it.

To Yawning Bread, I apologise again for what have happened, I was totally unaware that the religious leaders made such a restriction. If any of you have been sitting inside listening to all those, I bet you will burst up as well.

This is a follow-up post from the same author:

Refering to the part on religious leaders, if the information from the organizers are correct, most of those present are religious. And others have been allowed to sit in. In fact, one of my friend did not receive the invitation but was in the room. I don’t really understand the definition provided by REACH on ‘religious leaders’. I believe that anyone who has a faith and is actively involved in its activities should be considered religious leaders, leaders not as in the top of the hierachy but as persons of influence.

After this feedback session, our opinions are being analysed and considered back at MHA. According to another friend of mine who works in that department and was present there during the session, he informed me that most of the discussion about 377a is irrelevant and no further consideration will be given. As for the saunas, he gave me a smile and told me it is confidential business. Oh well….

This is a reply to the first posting above:

The call of the letter below is: “We are at a very crucial point in our struggle for acceptance. We need to get together, discipline ourselves and fight for our rights.”

His friend, the organiser of the Focus Group Discussion should have enlightened him that the participation is by invitation only. The Ministry of Home Affairs has invited representatives from youth, grassroots leaders and religious organisations. In the audience of about forty only three represented religious organisations. The audience was not well represented. It was not clear at what stage the panelists of three new Members of Parliament were speaking for themselves personally or for the government.

The first question was by a university student who questioned why lesbians was not included in the continued criminalisation of homosexual men. It was explained that the penal code was old legislation and women did not matter then. It was commented that unnecessary attention was drawn to the lesbians.

This was immediatly followed by the question about sodomy. Why is it that sodomy as a criminal act applies only to homosexual men and not heterosexual men? Why is it that sodomy does not apply to lesbians. The panelists accepted the fact and used the word “awkward.” No explanations were really given. An attempt was made to move the discussion to other issues. Later in the meeting it was admitted that decriminalisation of sodomy for heterosexuals may be viewed as a first step toward decriminalisaion of oral and anal sex. The issue is “evolving” with time and the proposed changes to the Penal Code is an indication of that. It looks like de-criminalisation will have to take stages.

They affirmed that homosexuality (for MSM) is still legally regarded as criminal. . In the course of the meeting reference was made to the fact that the majority of the people in our society due to deeply rooted religious and cultural factors still regard homosexuality is wrong and offensive. This is where the question of tyranny of the majority was raised. It was pointed out that to use the majority and minority rationale in such situations is a weak defence. Reference was made to the issue of safe sex and the use of condoms. The majority is for abstinence and condom/safe sex is regarded by them to be promotion of promiscuity. One young girl confessed that abstinence is not the real solution. But the reality is that there will therefore be unsafe sex of heterosexuals and homosexuals which is one of the main causes of the rise of HIV infections. We cannot use the majority when it supports one’s views and dismisses it when it opposes.

The question remains whether the decriminalisation of sodomy for the heterosexual is a majority or a minority view. It would seem that the majority who is opposed to sodomy would still he opposed to the act even of the heterosexuals. The distinction made between heterosexual and homosexual and between gay men and lesbians is false and artificial.

Reference was made to bi-sexuals. This one person can be a criminal or not depending of the choice of the form of the sexual act even with the same partner!

On the question of extra-territoriality in the committing of sexual offences the suggested repeal of the provisions is directesd to sex against minors outside and sex tourism. Questions were raised about MSM in countries which have de-criminalised sodomy.

The issue of marital rape is specifically for the benefit of the wives who are not aware of existing legal means of protection It is yet another evolvoing step taken towards it.

When a question was asked about “gay bathhouses” which appeared in the newspapers one of the panelists wondered what kind of bathing places she was referring to and whether they are some sort of “Roman baths!”

The gay community as a minority should put their act together and continue to fight for decriminalisation of sodomy. There is increasing acceptance of homosexuality by the public. It is an issue whose time has come.

In a previous post, Why the govt’s reason for 337A does not bite, I posted a documentary called “A class divided”. Its a very good documentary about how a teacher teaches her students about discrimination. Recently, I’ve found out that the full video is available from PBS website via http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/view.html

Please do take time to watch it.

You could see immediately the change in attitude and sadness the comes over the children the moment they were branded a “brown-eyed kid” (the inferior kids), even though its just a class lesson for the day. I could immediately empathize with those kids and tears formed as quickly.

Its truly sad that such an experiment that happened at least 30 years ago still have implications now and such discrimination is still active within the PAP government and they continue to enforce such discrimination. Have we not learned anything about humanity after so long?

The true-blue PAP supporters are like the white kids who talks about Indians and black people and their “dumbness”. I hope that they get to play the oppositions supports or gay people (maybe some are gay), to understand what the government have in their campaign of structured hatred, political barriers and discrimination.

Lastly, here is a rather good report from the women’s focus group on the proposed changes to the penal code from Sayoni:

Last Thursday, gathering my Sayoni mates and a whole lot of courage, I went to the MHA Focus Discussion Group for women. Coincidentally, or maybe not, it was held at Ang Mo Kio Grassroots Club, right in the bastion of the PM.

Upon registeration at the welcome-desk, one of our members refused to give our IC as identification, which caused some amount of confusion for the desk-helpers. Apparently, no one had ever tried to hold on their privacy before]. She was eventually allowed to pass. We went inside, and waited for quite a long time for the event to start, even though we had arrived after seven. During this time, we went through the amendments like we were mugging last-minute for an examination.

Click to read more…

Another one…

As the Penal Code is being updated, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has been soliciting feedback from the public about this proposed amendments. One of the avenues was through focus group discussions for welfare, grassroots, religious and women’s groups. I attended one of them by prior registration.

MHA’s Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry@ Home (REACH) officers had organised the focus group meeting well. Light food and beverage was catered before the meeting, as it was to begin at around dinner time. At the registration table, attendees were asked to record their Identity Card (IC) numbers on the list, to indicate attendance. It would no doubt be easier to monitor a person through this number.
Click to read more…

And finally, Yawning Bread take on this feedback thing

On the front page of Singapore’s ‘Today’ newspaper, 6 December 2006, was the story, ‘Hong Kong spits out its bitter pill’. It carried the news that Finance Secretary Henry Tang had just announced that the proposed 5% Goods and Services Tax (GST) was dead.

This was just halfway through the 9-month consultation period.

Click to read more…