Monday, March 03, 2003
Book Review
People Like Us – Sexual Minorities in Singapore
Edited by Joseph Lo and Huang Guoqin
Contributions by David Birch, Debbie Han, Thomas Ng, Desmond Sim, Christopher Low, Jason Wee, Tan Kim Huat, Au Waiping, William Peterson, David Yew, Jimmy Ong, Russell Heng, Lawrence Wai Teng Leong, Mark, Joseph Lo, Huang Guoqin
Publisher: Select Publishing
To understand any Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) working for a cause in Singapore, one has to have a minimal understanding of the current state of civil society. Unlike many other democracies, Singapore government holds absolute authority in the public political arena, and for many NGOs, they often had to “work with” and within their framework or agenda if they want to push for changes.
In such an environment, it is unavoidable that fringe groups with perceivable opposing interests to the government will find difficulty in publicising their cause or issues make known to the public. One of the many issues that one can think of and relevant to this review is gay rights.
People Like Us – Sexual Minorities in Singapore (PLU) is perhaps the first book that tries to provide an insight into the local gay community. I am quite sure that there were no precedents in such documentation though articles and works of fiction have been published.
In any case, it is applaudable that the editors, publishers and contributors have made this book possible despite media silencing or sensationalism, and government reluctance to allow gay activists to form a proper society or company. Receptivity and quality of the book is however another matter.
Divided into three sections, the book is mainly a collection of articles and exchange of views presented at the Millennium project Forum I and II. The staggering quality of papers presented in this forum do no justice at all to expectant readers.
“Civil society and the cultural politics of being gay in Singapore” by David Birch tries to present a wider scope of the current state of civil society in Singapore, raising fundamental questions of building up social capital for gay people and communities (not just being gay). In theory, it sounds good but one cannot help wonder what he means by “not seeing change through activism publicly – until we have fully understood who we are and perhaps more importantly – sorting out what it is we want” or “reorient the politics of gay identity to reconceptualise our identity in non-erotic, non-sexual terms – to redefine our identity in terms of egalitarian relationships with ourselves and others – to redefine ourselves and have others see us beyond sexual activity”. Early in his paper, he also “believe Mr Lee is absolutely right in rejecting the advocacy of an aggressive gay rights movement in Singapore, the sort that has achieved so much (but also so little) in other parts of the world.” The more I read, the more confused I am.
Lest anyone thinks I’m being critical, I cannot help but think Mr Birch is not thinking clearly or either that, holding his tongue as he is afraid of a lawsuit from the powers to be. He calls for the strengthening and building of a gay community that should try to integrate into acceptable mainstream society as a minority by not drawing on sexual differences but rather social contribution and cohesiveness.
This is unfortunately a fundamentally flawed outlook because mainstream society knows gay people exist, work and contribute to society. What they find objectionable is that these people choose to have gay sex. In fact, the reverse is the truth. People have to be educated about gay sexuality as being healthy. If we take Birch’s advice, and take sex out of the equation, the whole gay notion collapses because what unites the gay community is their sexual preference in the first place.
Contrary to what he believes, Singapore has its loose and informal networks of gay related communities including sports, business and religious groups, online or otherwise. The support is there and maybe young but not non-existing. The question hence, is more a matter of publicising, building larger networks, integration, consolidation and sharing resources.
My Journey by Debbie Han is her personal take on being a lesbian and how she confronts that publicly. While she is entitled to her views, one cannot help question what she means by “not simply adopting any other model e.g. American or Australian and feels that she is still proven right” or when she says “we have to be educated on our rights so that we are empowered and are aware of the means to fight for our rights. With this knowledge, we have to learn to accept our responsibilities“ . My question is “how is she proven right when we did not adopt the other models”. With regards to the second question, what does she mean when she says we have to be “educated on our rights” By whom and who shall say it is right or wrong?
Viewpoints like this confuse the reader. It is these lack of non- justification, beat around the bush and at times vague points made at the forum that makes reading and understanding this book difficult. While the discussion with audience towards the end of the section clarifies certain grey areas, one cannot help feel a sense of remaining in ground zero. How can a gay community be built without bonding and activism? without active support from others? How can visibility be achieved without public demonstration? How can sodomy laws be decriminalized if without the strong support of professionals (such as lawyers and doctors)? It is rather pointless to talk about things such as identity and values because they are often individualistic and collective byproducts of interaction and progression within the society. People who wants to change do not just do soul searching and wait for history to happen.
The staggering quality of the collection is also worth noting. For example, Of Rice & Potatoes” The Dynamics of Interracial Gay Relationships by Laurence describes a phenomenon solely based on personal observation and deduction at best; without any research (secondary or primary) support. Besides, the whole article did not mention anything specific about Singapore. The email exchanges between Russell Heng and Jimmy Ong does not seem to serve much purpose except small talk between two friends in the same art circle.
It is the well-researched articles that makes PLU more enlightening. William Peterson’s, “The Queer Stage in Singapore” for example, details gay anecdotes and characters in theatre though it is outdated. It fails to mention plays such as Alfian’s Asian Boys which is an adaptation of August Strindberg’s The Dream Play; a frivolous but campy satire staged a few years ago. Mark’s “Christian and Homosexuality calmly considered” tries to map out the Bible teaching and its stance towards homosexuality but leaves the ending for the reader. Christians might find this thought provoking.
People Like Us – Sexual Minorities in Singapore is an uneven collection of articles and exchanges culled from various sources. It falls into the pit trap of shoe gazing and having an unfocused goal of what it wants to bring to the reader. It avoids confrontation and specificities on how or what we can do by going in a roundabout way.
That brings me back to the point of absolute public political dominance by the government. To the point where civil society actors have learnt to restraint themselves. Even in writing a book with a controversial theme.
Writer’s Note: I have no personal grudge, intention to be demeaning, condescending or malicious towards any contributors in this review but the highly PC (read Politically Correct) tone in this book of many articles is just too Singaporean for my taste.
People Like Us – Sexual Minorities in Singapore
Edited by Joseph Lo and Huang Guoqin
Contributions by David Birch, Debbie Han, Thomas Ng, Desmond Sim, Christopher Low, Jason Wee, Tan Kim Huat, Au Waiping, William Peterson, David Yew, Jimmy Ong, Russell Heng, Lawrence Wai Teng Leong, Mark, Joseph Lo, Huang Guoqin
Publisher: Select Publishing
To understand any Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) working for a cause in Singapore, one has to have a minimal understanding of the current state of civil society. Unlike many other democracies, Singapore government holds absolute authority in the public political arena, and for many NGOs, they often had to “work with” and within their framework or agenda if they want to push for changes.
In such an environment, it is unavoidable that fringe groups with perceivable opposing interests to the government will find difficulty in publicising their cause or issues make known to the public. One of the many issues that one can think of and relevant to this review is gay rights.
People Like Us – Sexual Minorities in Singapore (PLU) is perhaps the first book that tries to provide an insight into the local gay community. I am quite sure that there were no precedents in such documentation though articles and works of fiction have been published.
In any case, it is applaudable that the editors, publishers and contributors have made this book possible despite media silencing or sensationalism, and government reluctance to allow gay activists to form a proper society or company. Receptivity and quality of the book is however another matter.
Divided into three sections, the book is mainly a collection of articles and exchange of views presented at the Millennium project Forum I and II. The staggering quality of papers presented in this forum do no justice at all to expectant readers.
“Civil society and the cultural politics of being gay in Singapore” by David Birch tries to present a wider scope of the current state of civil society in Singapore, raising fundamental questions of building up social capital for gay people and communities (not just being gay). In theory, it sounds good but one cannot help wonder what he means by “not seeing change through activism publicly – until we have fully understood who we are and perhaps more importantly – sorting out what it is we want” or “reorient the politics of gay identity to reconceptualise our identity in non-erotic, non-sexual terms – to redefine our identity in terms of egalitarian relationships with ourselves and others – to redefine ourselves and have others see us beyond sexual activity”. Early in his paper, he also “believe Mr Lee is absolutely right in rejecting the advocacy of an aggressive gay rights movement in Singapore, the sort that has achieved so much (but also so little) in other parts of the world.” The more I read, the more confused I am.
Lest anyone thinks I’m being critical, I cannot help but think Mr Birch is not thinking clearly or either that, holding his tongue as he is afraid of a lawsuit from the powers to be. He calls for the strengthening and building of a gay community that should try to integrate into acceptable mainstream society as a minority by not drawing on sexual differences but rather social contribution and cohesiveness.
This is unfortunately a fundamentally flawed outlook because mainstream society knows gay people exist, work and contribute to society. What they find objectionable is that these people choose to have gay sex. In fact, the reverse is the truth. People have to be educated about gay sexuality as being healthy. If we take Birch’s advice, and take sex out of the equation, the whole gay notion collapses because what unites the gay community is their sexual preference in the first place.
Contrary to what he believes, Singapore has its loose and informal networks of gay related communities including sports, business and religious groups, online or otherwise. The support is there and maybe young but not non-existing. The question hence, is more a matter of publicising, building larger networks, integration, consolidation and sharing resources.
My Journey by Debbie Han is her personal take on being a lesbian and how she confronts that publicly. While she is entitled to her views, one cannot help question what she means by “not simply adopting any other model e.g. American or Australian and feels that she is still proven right” or when she says “we have to be educated on our rights so that we are empowered and are aware of the means to fight for our rights. With this knowledge, we have to learn to accept our responsibilities“ . My question is “how is she proven right when we did not adopt the other models”. With regards to the second question, what does she mean when she says we have to be “educated on our rights” By whom and who shall say it is right or wrong?
Viewpoints like this confuse the reader. It is these lack of non- justification, beat around the bush and at times vague points made at the forum that makes reading and understanding this book difficult. While the discussion with audience towards the end of the section clarifies certain grey areas, one cannot help feel a sense of remaining in ground zero. How can a gay community be built without bonding and activism? without active support from others? How can visibility be achieved without public demonstration? How can sodomy laws be decriminalized if without the strong support of professionals (such as lawyers and doctors)? It is rather pointless to talk about things such as identity and values because they are often individualistic and collective byproducts of interaction and progression within the society. People who wants to change do not just do soul searching and wait for history to happen.
The staggering quality of the collection is also worth noting. For example, Of Rice & Potatoes” The Dynamics of Interracial Gay Relationships by Laurence describes a phenomenon solely based on personal observation and deduction at best; without any research (secondary or primary) support. Besides, the whole article did not mention anything specific about Singapore. The email exchanges between Russell Heng and Jimmy Ong does not seem to serve much purpose except small talk between two friends in the same art circle.
It is the well-researched articles that makes PLU more enlightening. William Peterson’s, “The Queer Stage in Singapore” for example, details gay anecdotes and characters in theatre though it is outdated. It fails to mention plays such as Alfian’s Asian Boys which is an adaptation of August Strindberg’s The Dream Play; a frivolous but campy satire staged a few years ago. Mark’s “Christian and Homosexuality calmly considered” tries to map out the Bible teaching and its stance towards homosexuality but leaves the ending for the reader. Christians might find this thought provoking.
People Like Us – Sexual Minorities in Singapore is an uneven collection of articles and exchanges culled from various sources. It falls into the pit trap of shoe gazing and having an unfocused goal of what it wants to bring to the reader. It avoids confrontation and specificities on how or what we can do by going in a roundabout way.
That brings me back to the point of absolute public political dominance by the government. To the point where civil society actors have learnt to restraint themselves. Even in writing a book with a controversial theme.
Writer’s Note: I have no personal grudge, intention to be demeaning, condescending or malicious towards any contributors in this review but the highly PC (read Politically Correct) tone in this book of many articles is just too Singaporean for my taste.
