Fridae

Singapore's only gay advocacy group, People Like Us (PLU), has had its second application turned down by the Registrar of Societies (ROS) last week.

In a press statement, PLU wrote that they were refused registration under the Societies Act. In a letter dated 31 March 2004, "the ROS said, '...the registration of the proposed society is not approved under Sections 4(2)(b) and 4(2)(d) of the Societies Act."

Sections 4(2) states: "The Registrar shall refuse to register a society if he is satisfied that (b) the society is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore; (d) it would be contrary to the national interest for the society to be registered People Like Us has written to the ROS asking him to provide details of how he arrived at the finding that we could be for unlawful purposes, prejudicial to public peace, and contrary to the national interest."

PLU "believes that there is no basis for the ROS to make such a finding." The group, which was set up in 1993, noted that the current application for registration was made on 25 February 2004 and its first application was made in November 1996 however the ROS refused to provide any reason for its refusal despite many months of correspondence in 1997.

The statement read: "It was only in April 2000, when, with the intervention of then-NMP Mr Simon Tay, the ROS wrote to say that it had been refused under Section 4(2)(b), i.e. "likely to be used for unlawful purposes or prejudicial to public peace�"

"People Like Us believes the present decision by the ROS is completely at variance with:"

"1. the spirit of gradual opening up, and making Singapore a home for all, articulated so many times by the Prime Minister and other members of the government over the years;

"2. the implications arising from the government now accepting openly gay persons in the civil service, even in sensitive positions;

"3. the admission by the Prime Minister that "some people are born that way" and "they are like you and me", in his interview with Time magazine published last July; that being so, the government has conceded that homosexuality is a state of being and consequently civil rights must inhere to this minority;

"4. the claim by the Prime Minister that in government decisions, the default should be set at "yes", rather than at "no";

"5. the comment by DPM Lee Hsien Loong this January at the Harvard Club, "'And there will be other groups formed, I'm quite sure, to campaign for specific issues, gay rights for example, and that is a sensitive one�"

"Furthermore, People Like Us believes that such a retrograde decision by the ROS is harmful to Singapore's future. As DPM Lee said in the same Harvard Club speech, 'We will give weight to minority views, but we cannot move only when the last man or the most conservative person is willing to move.

"'Otherwise we would be restricting the options open to many others in our society, and stifling the diversity that we need to be an open, cosmopolitan people. We would eventually atrophy.'"

---

The following personal comments were also included in the press statement:

PLU has been through all these before in its 1997 application for registration. All it had from the ROS then were formalistic replies with a touch of intimidation thrown in for good measure. The intimidation is unmistakable when the ROS tells an unsuccessful applicant to stop all activities immediately or else! Seven years later, after all the official pronouncements about remaking Singapore and wanting citizen having to act out their passion - which basically is what PLU is doing - the ROS language continues to be formalistic. The intimidation is still there. Everything smacks of an establishment so used to having discretionary power to make summary decisions. If we take the quest of 'Remaking Singapore' seriously, then it would seem there is lack of conjunction between political will and actual implementation. This does not make for good governance. - Russell Heng, a founding member of PLU.

As a gay man who has worked in the social services sector for the past four and a half years, one of the key service gaps I have noticed is the lack of professional and specialised social services to meet the psycho-social needs of gay people - be they men or women, youths or adults, with or without disability. I was therefore very disappointed to note that the ROS has yet again turned down PLU's application for registration. This is an indirect message to me that Singapore is not yet able to recognise that gay people in Singapore also have psycho-social needs that have to be met, just like any other Singaporean." - Leow Yong Fatt, Yangfa

For years now, the government has been going on about opening up and benefiting from diversity. In reality, the intransigence is unchanged from seven years ago. The gap between what the government preaches and what it does is so huge, one is left with only two possibilities: they are either incompetent or insincere. Either way, it's empty rhetoric. The world can rightly perceive us to be an intolerant place, refusing to move with the times. Our attempts to attract talent and capital are less fruitful than they should be. We have to overcompensate with financial inducements to get talent to come. We keep losing our best and brightest, straight and gay, to more attractive pastures because they are sick of the conformity and restrictions here. The pity is no one in government seems to realise we're losing one or two percent economic growth each year because of our disrepute. - Alex Au, PLU spokesman

It is most regrettable that ROS has denied PLU registration for a second time. While Singapore seeks to take its place in the forefront of modern nations, its authorities ironically continue to pursue a stone-age policy by denying gays and lesbians a voice. The relevant authorities must explain why they have refused PLU registration. Gays and lesbians, like other Singaporeans, expect a valid explanation from those whose mandate to govern is derived from the people. The days when the government is assumed to know what is best for us is a thing of the past. The Singapore government must live up to its responsibility of recognising the legitimate interests of gays and lesbians, and accommodating them within the larger national framework. It is sad that the Singapore government, which in the past has never been afraid to take the lead in matters of policy, often times ahead of public opinion, when it believes that such a lead is good for the whole country, is today uncharacteristically timid when it comes to pushing the interests of the gay and lesbian minority in the face of an assumed opposition from the larger society. - Martin Loh, artist