Silenced by a cautious media and with the lack of any 'activist' judges, Singaporeans - and the GLBT community - are denied an opportunity to assess its standards of public and private morality and to resolve such issues for themselves. Fridae's new political columnist, Paul Tan, highlights the importance for the GLBT community to be politically active.
There is nothing conservative about denying homosexuals, transsexuals and transvestites equal benefits and equal protection of the law. And there is nothing liberal in advocating that we receive the same privileges as any other normal human being in society. It is about recognising that the state's legitimacy derives from its people, that homosexuals are people, and that what we do in private, or as an assertion of our conscientious beliefs, are not subject to majoritarian bully.
But of course it is much easier to stick a label - "liberals", "left-winger", "special interest", "unnatural", " them" - on the GLBT community because that means you don't have to look at the substantive merits of our claim for the precise reason that you cannot deal with them, or you won't.
So it was totally expected that when People Like Us (PLU) in late January wrote to Singapore's Members of Parliament urging them to consider dropping the ban against oral sex between consenting homosexual adults (nothing even very extreme), the immediate response was, "Please, respect our space." No, respect our space.
The fact is, that despite Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's protestations at the Harvard Club of Singapore Anniversary Dinner, which I attended, that the government will "stop being all things to all people" and allow a civil society to flourish, the signs are that this is more talk than action. After all, if part of allowing a civil society to grow involves devolving freedom so that individuals may speak, associate and engage in rigorous debate, the last thing any politician should be doing is to preempt that discussion by saying they are "unconvinced."
Clearly there are problems in the way public discourse takes place (or doesn't) and I thought it would be a good way to start this column by looking at what some of these are.
Generally speaking, two recurring problems plague the way in which discussion on gay rights takes place. The first is simple intolerance. Debate cannot take place if the only argument the opponents of gay rights have is that "society is not ready." Let's admit it: the majority will never be ready to change as long as they continue to hold on to irrational stereotypes. No amount of discussion is going to change their mind. The only way to disprove those stereotypes is to actually make them confront the reality that their paranoia is based on false premises. The dominant whites would never have accepted interracial marriages or integrated public spaces were it not for the United States Supreme Court handing down decisions saying that such practices were not legal.
Hopefully, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's uber-heroism will make opponents of gay marriage see that homosexuals loving each other do not cause heterosexual marriages to break up. And that stable homosexual relationships don't lead to bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia and space missions going bad.
Perhaps more frustrating, though, is the sheer intellectual dishonesty that pervades discussion. Take for instance Assistant Professor Tan Seow Hon's response to my article, "Oral Sex Law Demeans the Individual" (The Straits Times commentary, Nov 11, 2003). She spent considerable effort explaining (wrongly) the philosophies of several legal scholars while completely leaving unanswered my central argument that private choices should remain outside the ambit of the law. Often, arguments about "tradition" are also couched in secular terms when, in truth, they are a disguise for religious ideology. It's not that religious tradition is not an important consideration, but if are to have an open discussion, the least we can do is to be honest. To abuse our intellect in an attempt to obfuscate is a great disservice to the discourse of civil rights and is downright insulting to its participants.
The way in which public discussion takes place, however, is only half the problem. The other half is who takes part in it.
The thing that worries me is that - more often than not - arguments advocating GLBT rights seem to come only from the community itself. But that makes it much easier to demonise the argument: "You're gay - of course you would ask for rights." It makes it easier when it's only the PLU who's doing anything because you can paint them as a renegade, no-good, emotive bunch.
No civil rights movement has ever succeeded without the help of those outside the discriminated class. It is much more powerful when a heterosexual says that he believes in according respect and dignity to gays. This explains part of why Newsom's initiative is that much more poignant.
It says a lot about any majority that prefers to keep silent than to try and involve themselves in the fight. How the state treats an individual should be of concern to all of us. When the state abuses its power against the weak, it should matter to all of us.
History has taught us that a government who believes its people to be pliant will soon extend its power against anyone who dissents. In the antebellum period in the United States, not only were blacks enslaved, but even whites had their freedoms taken away: no one could speak, no one could associate. For long periods, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had to fight to keep their membership list secret because even the whites themselves were afraid of reprisal.
Singaporeans complain everyday that the government is not listening to them. You know why? Because the government has no interest in being interested unless you are. If the government thinks it can get away with superficial improvements it will do just that. What is the connection between this and minority rights? Well, a failure to deal with any issue is a manifestation of the government's underlying chronic unwillingness to cede autonomy to individuals and to respect the intelligence of society.
But it's also a question of how important you see yourself as being. If you believe that you're an individual who thinks, reflects and formulates positions, you would want the government to recognise your right to conscientious belief. People who say rights don't matter imply that they don't matter.
Those who think that this is just about gay people getting it on with each other totally misconceive what is at stake. It is about the state regulating who you can form intimate relations with, and how you express yourself in those relationships.
The good fight has yet to be won, and in some senses, it has yet to start. When it does, we should all approach it with open and honest minds.
Often labeled a left-winger, Paul Tan looks forward to a career that involves, at various stages, litigating constitutional and criminal cases, teaching, politics and being a restaurateur. He can be reached at tanpaul@hotmail.com.
读者回应
I've been seeing this cute guy for about 3 weeks. He's good looking, has abs you can do your laundry off, and makes chicken soup for his mother once a week. Not only does he have a stable job and a convertible, he doesn't smoke, doesn't snore, and best of all, knows how to use his god-given gifts like a pro.
Now comes my problem. I found out that he is planning to vote for the PAP in the upcoming General Elections. Come on - what's that about? This is like having a Log Cabin Republican for a boyfriend! How can any self-respecting gay man even contemplate voting for a government that doesn't treat us like equal citizens? It's ok for us to work for them (the civil service), but not ok for us to enjoy ourselves (and have a party?).
So what should I do?
I was brought up by my wonderful parents to understand that I should never be made to feel like a second class citizen. They taught me to hold my head up high and stand up to any bullies (whether in the school yard or in life). Yet, this "Prince Charming" is displaying all the signs of someone who has his head shoved deep in sand. I would even go so far as to say he's a masochistic self-loathing gay man with internalised homophobia.
We're not talking to each other anymore...even though we still meet up for quickies. But the sex is soul-less and empty. Must I now add "political affiliation" to my list of pre-requisites in a man?
Help me!
If you really like him and even thinking of loving him. Does it matter who he give his vote to?
a young reader of fridae's advice column.
I suggest you put politics in the backseat, and kiss and make up(out) with him.
Something as ridiculous as politics ISN'T WORTH throwing away the love of your life.
I remember a saying from a movie "You love someone not despite their flaws, but quite often because of their flaws."
More boys to play with out there. . .
politics. . .way of life. . .one's belief. . .important to dig the whole package . . .otherwise become kinda disjointed. . . and as you call it 'empty' sex (which is ok but kinda like fast food) . . .not quite fulfilling. . .
happy fishing
From what you wrote, this guy is a dream come true. From a very experienced guy like me
1. Make sure the 1st rule of Pure top and btm exists and you like your roles.
2. Communication is very important when you are talking about a good relationship. Make sure you guys try to put yourselve in each other's shoes. Agree to disagree will avoid alot of pains and bring the relationship to the next height.
Most important, being gay doesn't mean he need to appear gay or be a gay activist. I am gay, go to gym, clubs and sex etc. But I don't wear a T-Shirt shouting "Hey I am Gay". I am not a merchandise and no need to advertise. My bearing already attract many and makes the guy I am with proud.
I have Democrats and Republican gay partners in the US and they have been together for 25 years. They should be role models for all of us.
i'm new to here about a week and i 'm very exciting for met a Bi_women to be friends and sex action with, could you introduce someone who are nice and charming interested find a girlfriend ?
my ID Yvonne31
Best
Yvonne
It ain't difficult to know ur sex partner HIV status. Produce the slip that comes wt the blood test that u suppose to take every 3 mths.
It is our moral obligation to tell our sex partner whether u know the status or not and let him made the choice.
And how do you suggest we end AIDS once and for all?
SEX IS NEVER SAFE!!!
And follow our old Asian traditions for love and sex , and not for fun then you will always safe of infertions
The problem with relationship is trust which is transient when one gets infected. Unless U start a relationship with safe sex at the onset all the time regardless, most will be offended to introduce rubber somewhere into the relationship. See how many couples U know that have safe fun. Most dun. So Houston, we have a problem.
This sounds harsh but given the hardcore jaded nature of promiscuity itself, guess it may seem the only way the safe sex message can be hammered into the consciousness of players is when one gets infected with STI and/or HIV the old fashioned way, that is, U earn it! Then again, like the article says, unsafe is still prevalent even after being infected. So it sure looks like it's more a problem of reckless values more than just practices. No one can force U unless u agree to it. So say NO - Can U?
Bottomline: Don't risk it regardless how close your partner is. Trust is now a cliche, overly used and wrongly practised. Take good care everyone.
Be informed that handing out condoms is a very effective and real way of reminding you to use it and putting one in your hand, puts that decision to use it or not squarely in your hand.
Often indecisive people have sabotage the effectiveness of condom campaigns by confusing the issues. Let's get this straight, when you get a condom (FOC or not) you can choose to use it or not. Period.
I think we gotta stop condemning HIV positive people as people who are going to die soon, and thinking of HIV as a death sentence. It is not. HIV Positive people can live long and productive lives...
From a review of the 45th Annual ICAAC in 2005
"As we enter the third era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), the rules of the game have changed. We know that suppression of HIV is possible in the vast majority of patients with a wide variety of regimens. Data now show that suppression can be maintained for 7 years or more (the period during which such therapy has been available), and some researchers project that this will translate into a restoration of an HIV-infected person's lifespan to that of age-matched HIV seronegative individuals."
Whilst many AIDS activists may not like the idea of too many people thinking of HIV/AIDS as a manageable chronic disease, thankfully, this is now fact. People have essentially stopped dying from AIDS if they have access to medication.
Of course this is no reason to be reckless. Therapy is expensive, the stigma is stifling, and side effects are plentiful. So being HIV positive is no walk in the park. But it is no longer a death sentence! All the more we should consider treating those who are HIV+ with respect and compassion. Cos there are more and more HIV+ people living around us...
Motives
- revenge : You Bastard!
- equality : let's all be in the same boat
Education
- lack of sex education
- will be sad if the victim is a teenager
Vulnerability
- guys with low IQ
- guys who are vulnerable, e.g. deaf, mute
- guys with unsound mind
- guys who are minors or younger
Drugs/Alcohol
- even the most educated or intelligent guy will lose his sense of judgement
Care-less attitude
- risk taker
- bottom is riskier than top?
- not easy for me to be infected?
Habits
- die hard
- enjoyment comes first
Outlook of gaylife
- pessimism : I always think gays dont wish to live longer life because most of them think that there are no golden years for gays; so why care to live longer and it doesnt matter if I have HIV or other illness because I dont want to live longer
- there is very few role models of gays, especially gay couples.
- try putting your age as 40 and see for yourself the response from the chatline!
Well, these are real issues which cannot be tackled ethically or legally in isolation from the psychosocial settings.
There are now substantial literature from the public health field on the effectiveness of various intervention to induce behavioural changes. It deals not just with What the messages are, but also on Who, How, Where, When of effective delivery. One place to start is the website http://www.effectiveinterventions.org
Dr Goldstone is technically correct that no harm reduction practices are 100% fail safe. So is the religious right's point that condom are not 100% fail safe neither.
But harm reduction is not about being 100% fail safe. It is about reducing risk. Sex is more complex than seat belt. There is a considerable population who will not use or are too inconsistent with condom. Taking an absolutist position means being unable to tackle the problem of reducing HIV transmission among this population.
gah. stupid people.
I have doubts if the programme (both the radio programme and the christian programme) have any effect on the society. If I not a christian, I will not turn to be a christian solely by watching the programme. Likewise, no one can become a homosexual by listening to the radio programme.
Why cant the Society for Truth and Light (they indeed give truth and light to the society?) just accept different voices and views in the society?
You read my mind aswell as made my chuckle. Not sure if you can relate to this Kaman but my best friend happens to be female ( suprise, suprise). I miss her everytime she goes off to have sex with her fuckbuddy and when shes hanging out with him. Sometimes i feel so insecure that i think she's going to run away with him and no longer be my best friend (sounds so gay, and yes i do have a great boyfriend).
I've known her longer than my boyfriend and i feel like i can communicate more with her than my boyfriend. I think what we are feeling is a strong emotional connection with our friends but we can never feel that sexual attraction towards them. We are the needy gay men that has to have their fag hag next to them.
AJ
People at the Splash/Squirt in Bangkok were all very nice and good reputation with Sheraton Hotel.
Let's keep up the good record and have fun too!
Michaelasia
If you have been missing Nation, do not make this your sixth. Cheers~
Goers
Will be staying longer this time!!!
By the way guys...could there be more variety in terms of venues where the parties take place. One ballroom over and over again without much change is a little boring....but i suppose you guys at Fridae know that already.
See ya
Can we have more? They make us smile and LOL.
http://www.circuitpartyinsanity.com
Bottom guys: Do you know that you can never feel the breaking of your top's condom while he is entering you?
And gentlemen, what safe sex is there, if a condom is wrapping the body of the top's cock instead of its mushroom head from which pre-cum and cum ooze out?
Let's talk about safe sex through the use of condoms only when we have understood the material nature of this sheath.
The use of drugs/alcohol with/for sex is a time bomb for potential STIs and HIV.
the airconditioning was poor and the smoke machine made it worse. safety first please and identified medical and security persons for all to see in case of need. will be there this year
请先登入再使用此功能。