Hi all, Really enjoyed reading your posts on your views on Singlehood. As we move on to the next topic on Homosexuality, I've no doubt that the exchange of ideas will be more lively and interesting. Read the following articles from Washington Post on how Singapore was loosening up in the year 2003 and from our own local Senior Correspondent Chua Mui Hoong on various perpsectives on local policies related to our liberalisation. Then, comment on the question, 'Homosexuality: Blessing or Curse?' Examine the perspectives of various parties involved, and the impact of it at different levels. This assignment will be graded for both content and language. The deadline for the assignment is 2359hours on 10th Feb, Sunday. Enjoy the discussion and debate. =) Have a good Chinese New Year hols =)
Mrs Wong
-------
INSIGHT: Gum, gays and the goggle box: Time to consider a U-turn Chua Mui Hoong THINKING ALOUD CHEWING gum, gay rights and satellite dishes. It's time for a U-turn on these policies.
Not only because gum-chewers, homosexuals and television viewers stand to benefit from the changes. Rather, the whole of Singapore society will benefit. Gum, gays and satellite TV can be considered 'leading indicators' of Singapore's socio-political climate. Changing these signals to Singaporeans and foreigners a sea change in the environment. The long-standing policies that restricted all three have several things in common. First, they curb minority interests for the sake of the majority. The import and sale of gum in Singapore was banned in 1992 because of the cost of cleaning up gum spat out in public transport systems. In one fell stroke, an administrative headache for public transport operators, which was also a public nuisance for the majority, was cured by the ban on gum. Criminalising consensual sexual acts between gay adults is another example of sacrificing minority interests to satisfy the majority. The other common thread: The paternalistic assumption that the state must be an arbiter of the public's morals. Privately-owned satellite dishes are banned because of concern over access to unsavoury entertainment and information. Legal strictures against homosexual behaviour aim to 'protect' the majority from being offended by such behaviour. But should the state determine private morals? Should minority interests be set aside for the majority? Instead of lending its coercive power to support intolerance by the majority, which would be quite alien to Singapore's tradition of social harmony, the state should instead consider taking a lead in supporting tolerance and openness by reversing the three bans. The advantage of changing tack on these issues, which have become icons, extends beyond Singapore's shores. The ban on chewing gum put Singapore in the news a decade ago, and continues to be cited as an example of an authoritarian regime and communitarian society. The ban on privately-owned satellite dishes represents the state's attempt to regulate and censor content, another bugbear among liberal-minded commentators. Icons are symbolic and represent more than themselves. Changing icons signals to the world at large, and Singaporeans themselves, that a new epoch is in the making. For example, the decision to allow a Hyde Park-style Speakers' Corner was interpreted by Singaporean and foreign observers alike as a harbinger of a more open society. Sceptics will ask: Why bother to change icons unless the whole tenor of society changes with it? Isn't there moral hypocrisy in relaxing a few bans, unless there is a deep-seated change in mindset? The answer: Icons matter in shaping perceptions, and perceptions matter in the battle for talent and investments. As PricewaterhouseCoopers' Marcel Fenez noted recently, in response to the announcement of the $100-million fillip for the media industry: Singapore must loosen censorship rules if it wants to be a global media city. It may have the right ingredients, but must also contend with 'external perceptions' when attracting investors. Just what are some of those external perceptions? Well, one quick way to figure this out is to look at the indices published by respected think-tanks, much in the same way that you would look at global competitiveness reports and GDP per capita rankings when assessing how investors view an economy. The best-known freedom survey is devised by Freedom House, a leading democracy advocate group founded by Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of former US president Franklin Roosevelt, nearly 60 years ago. The latest 2003 Freedom House report ranks Singapore once again as a 'partly free' country, with a score of 4.5 (1 being most free and 7 being not free) that puts it in the company of Kuwait and Nigeria. It has dismal scores for political freedoms (5) and civil rights (4). Hitherto, poor perceptions of Singapore's socio-political climate have not hindered its ability to generate real income growth. But the negative perceptions may exact a higher cost in future, as they will certainly mar Singapore's ability to position itself as a creative talent capital and as a centre of innovation. Changing external perceptions of Singapore will take a long time. But every journey begins with a small step. And small, significant steps are a good way to start. As it is, the three policies highlighted have already been modified. Selected brands of sugarless chewing gum will be imported and sold over the counter from January, in a compromise settlement reached under the Singapore-United States Free Trade Agreement, after gum-maker Wrigley's executives reportedly lobbied US Congress to insist on freer conditions of sale. Instead of a partial relaxation, why not scrap the ban altogether, and see it as an opportunity to allow a more open - and hopefully more mature and less gum-littering - society to blossom? Similarly, the ban on satellite dishes has already come under review by the Economic Restructuring Committee (ERC) last year. Removing this barrier, and the implementation of other ERC recommendations for the infocommunications technology industry, could see jobs double to 227,000. As for the policy on homosexuals, as Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong disclosed in a recent Time magazine interview, the public sector as an employer has stopped discriminating against gays, and has hired them even in sensitive positions. There are grounds for taking the next step - allowing residents to use satellite dishes, and scrapping the archaic statute criminalising sexual acts between consenting adults. Reversing these policies requires acts of leadership. They need not happen all at once, but rather after time and effort has been spent explaining the change to those perturbed by it. After all, this Government has never been shy about exercising moral leadership. In the three examples, the changes are incremental but significant, and have the potential to become rallying points to generate debate about a new, more open Singapore. Change will turn the policies on chewing gum, satellite dishes and gays from being icons of intolerance and restrictions, into icons of openness and tolerance in a new, remade Singapore. There are dividends to be reaped from the change.--------------------------------------------------------------------
Singapore Shakes Loose -- a Little Bit Rules Eased to Foster New Image By Ellen Nakashima Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, October 10, 2003; Page A21 SINGAPORE -- In a country where Cosmopolitan magazine was banned as too racy, a trio of comely young ladies, thong bikinis peeking above their hip-huggers, climbed onto a bar top one recent weeknight and began to shimmy and shake as the deejay spun. "I'm too sexy for my love, too sexy for my love. . . . I'm too sexy for my shirt, too sexy for my shirt. . . ." A young man, lured to the varnished bar top by the waitress-dancers, whipped off his shirt and joined the fun. Singapore is loosening up. A little. In this notoriously strait-laced country, a lusciously green, crime-free and litter-free island where spitting chewing gum on the sidewalk can draw a $500 fine, bar-top dancing became legal in August. Last month, censorship rules were relaxed, and now Cosmo can be sold and the American television show "Sex and the City" can play on cable TV. Beginning this week, bars in some neighborhoods will be able to stay open 24 hours. The moves were announced by the police and by the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts. But Playboy is still banned, strip clubs are illegal and the government, wary of social discord among the population of 3.2 million ethnic Chinese, Malays and Indians, continues to censor movies, plays and public commentary addressing issues of race, religion and politics. In the 38 years since it became an independent republic, Singapore leapfrogged from Third World poverty to great prosperity. But former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, who led the city-state for most of its history, also tried to shape social behavior with strict laws and a series of social campaigns. The result, say many Singaporeans, has been a limiting of free expression. "If you ask me whether this is the kind of Singapore that Lee Kuan Yew and the first generation envisioned, the answer is no," said Kevin Tan, a constitutional law expert. "What they clearly wanted is a less rambunctious society, ordered and controlled, but I don't think they wanted one that was totally bereft of imagination, gumption and flair." As Singapore struggles to emerge from the Asian economic crisis of the late 1990s, the government is trying to foster an image of a more relaxed place, with a climate conducive to attracting creative minds. "Even as we strive to become a more creative and entrepreneurial society, we still have to safeguard core community values," said Lee Boon Yang, minister for information, communication and the arts, at a news conference last month when announcing the easing of censorship rules. "We have to work out a balance for ourselves based on the fact that we are a multiracial, multireligious and multicultural society." The ministry made changes -- the first in a decade -- after a 17-month study by a censorship review committee. For example, it now allows people who are at least 18 to see some movies previously restricted to those 21 and over. But it dashed other proposals, including one from an artists' group to designate areas where plays and movies could be shown regardless of content. Artists say the government is handicapping society. "Singapore won't advance as fast as we should in an intellectual and cultural sense," said Low Kee Hong, associate artistic director at TheatreWorks, a stage company. "In the last five or six years, there's been a lot of talk about a Singapore renaissance. But it's very difficult for Singapore to go through this radical change because people are still very conservative." The government says that Singaporeans are not ready for more freedom. The censorship review panel conducted a survey that found that 70 percent of respondents were satisfied with current censorship standards. "We are moving in tandem with what society wants," said one government official. But Alfian Bin Sa'at, a Singaporean of Malay ethnicity who has written plays about the Malay experience, said he does not believe the government is interested in listening to the people. A government panel last year cut or changed several lines in a play he wrote, in one case insisting that the Singaporean character have the final word in an argument with the Malaysian. The dispute referred to a real-life controversy over whether Muslim head scarves should be allowed in public schools. They still cannot be worn. "How much does the government intend to control these things?" Sa'at wrote in an e-mail interview posted on a Singaporean Web site for the free exchange of ideas. "Why this paranoia that any kind of activity which gives Singaporeans some kind of outlet to speak out . . . will by default result in something anti-establishment?" To Singaporeans such as Annie, a 30-year-old office assistant who insisted that only her first name be used, legalizing bar-top dancing is trivial. The government has helped stitch the straitjacket that traps people's creativity, she said. "Your path is predetermined by the government," she said, alluding to the state's rigid educational system that emphasizes passing exams. "To be successful, you need to have a university degree. If you do not take this orthodox path, you will most probably go nowhere, by the government's definition. A kid can't say, 'Dad, I want to be a plumber.' " Sitting at a club called Coyote Ugly, the first in town to showcase its bar-top dancers, Gary Goh, a 40-year-old salesman, watched the scene and said, "It's no big deal for me. It's nothing compared to Bangkok." He said that what he values most in a country is the opportunity to express himself and to earn a living. "The world is very small nowadays," he said. "If Singapore doesn't loosen up, people will go away." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
