December 2007

First-World Sexism, Singapore Style

I’ve always said that it’s scary to be away from Singapore because it’s so important to be here as an insider to know the societal ‘pulse-beat’, or you’ll have to take the Straits Times’ perspective as the only correct perspective. Case in point – I was away for just a week and, upon return, I hear that nominated member of parliament (NMP) Thio Li-Ann made a police report, saying that someone sent her an e-mail containing “obscenities and a threat to defile her grave” (ST, Nov 4, 07). Local poet & playwright Alfian Sa’at was quick to own up and was subsequently questioned by the police. Thio, a professor and university-lecturer, said on Oct 31 that she would not sue the poet. Kind of odd that the full text of Sa’at’s message to her was never revealed in the press. But thank God for the Internet, one can read it there and it’s all but four lines.

“I think you are absolutely fucked up. As long as you exist, with your hate-mongering and your vicious crusades against sexual minorities, I will never leave Singapore. I hope I outlive you long enough to see the repeal of 377A and on that day I will piss on your grave,” Sa’at wrote to Thio after the latter’s speech in Parliament defending Section 377A of the penal code which criminalizes sex between men. We’re talking about the same penal system that licenses dark rooms in gay saunas. (Singapore government doesn’t know those saunas are gay? Wake up and smell the one-party government’s power!)

Wow, a government personnel who does not sue when she’s been threatened! (Technically speaking, she is not a government personnel, of course. Oh, how will you ever know the slithery innards of Singapore without splitting mighty fine hairs?!!) There must be very good reason(s) for not taking Sa’at to court and if mercy is one there must be a very interesting rationale behind that too, I assure you. The following is Sa’at’s side of the story, as declared in a police statement when he was called up. He had also posted it in a blog that spread like wildfire on the Net, I had gotten it from a third-party source. To quote Sa’at:

1) The mail (to Thio) was shot off one night after clubbing with friends. Before that, on the cab ride home, I had been told that Thio was the ‘member of the public’ who called the police, resulting in the cancellation of the ‘Pink Picnic’. The officer asked me how I felt when I wrote that letter and I said ‘aggrieved, wounded and helpless’. And then taking a cue from her Parliamentary speech, I added, ‘distressed, disgusted and upset’. (Sa’at later found out that he’d been misinformed about Thio in the Pink Picnic incident.)
2) I had sent only that one email to her, which I did not think satisfies the criteria of repetition and persistence that would constitute ‘harassment’.
3) The phrase ‘fucked up’, to my understanding, meant ‘dysfunctional’. I said I did not consider the term abusive.
4) I had not threatened her with bodily harm.
5) In fact I had not made any threats to her at all, unless she thinks being a fellow citizen with me in Singapore constitutes a threat.
6) As for ‘cursing’ her with death by talking about outliving her, I said I was merely pointing out the obvious fact of her mortality. I also said that since I was younger than her, I would naturally expect her to die earlier, barring any misfortune. The sympathetic policeman offered to change the word ‘die’ to ‘pass on’ in my statement.
7) On the part about pissing on her grave, I said that gesture was meant to celebrate the repeal of 377A. I also said that a few lawyers had told me it was not illegal to piss on graves.

Sa’at also stated in his blog: “As the interview went on, the incredulity of it all I think struck the policeman. I told him that if what I sent her constituted harassment, then it would set an impossible precedent. Anyone who has received any message through whatever form of communication causing ‘emotional distress’ can file a police report alleging ‘intentional harassment’. I asked the policeman why he was even acting on her complaint, and whether he had more urgent cases to attend to. I told him she was wasting taxpayers’ money and state resources. I said this was precisely the kind of ‘bully-boy tactics’ that she spoke of in her Parliamentary speech. I also said that… I felt harassed listening to her Parliamentary speech.
“I ended the statement by saying that I hoped she was aware that many of her actions have affected and hurt other people. I said I did not discount the possibility of her receiving other hate mail, but acting on me specifically as I was a strategic target, having written plays with gay themes.

“I am posting the ‘hate mail’ here, knowing full well that there will be those who will chide me for my hot-bloodedness and impulsiveness. I apologize to those who think that my ‘uncivil’ four-liner has somewhat sabotaged the repeal-377A cause. But I think the exposure of this woman’s pettiness, tendencies towards exaggeration, as well as her wanton abuse of the legal system, far outweighs the flak I will inevitably receive.”

So, perhaps, we can understand better why Thio was sweet enough not to sue. After all, the whole issue of repealing the 377A act, according to the ST editors, is that “The debate on homosexuality is not a big deal for most Singaporeans” (-Andy Ho, ST, Nov 3) and it made Sumiko Tan wonder “Why can’t we just live and let live?” (ST, Nov 4). Knowing that to be the ‘official’ sentiment, is there still a point in suing?

But why the simple conclusion in the press that Thio has been wronged but she’s not suing? Thio, the National University of Singapore law academic was quoted stating in the ST website on Oct 31 : “In my academic writings, I have argued, in relation to defamation case law, for more protection to be given to ‘political speech’ by requiring public figures or politicians to be ‘thicker-skinned’, in the interests of robust democratic debate. That is a primary motivation for not pursuing the matter further - living by my political liberal principles of the centrality of rigorous and vigorous debate for the health of democratic debate. I don’t believe anyone should be trigger happy with political defamation suits.” We take that to mean that ruling party leaders suing opposition leaders on General Election debate-matters is an exception to her motion.

See, I told you, there’s always got to be a ‘national agenda’ behind merciful acts. We’re ‘money-culture’ incorporated, remember? And we’ve got all the laws we need to nail anyone for the general good, to boot. Grave pettiness does pile them on in Singapore. How so?

“Heated debate over gay law: If it’s not enforced, why keep it?” That’s the headline of a New Paper report on Oct 23 reiterating an NMP’s (Siew Kum Hong) remark. The report concluded that the government needs 377A to protect the under-aged. And the debate, according to the report, ended there. I find it rather alarming that no one bothered to pursue the line of argument from there that if protecting a minor is the great concern, why don’t we compound a hefty law to safeguard the under-age rather than a sweeping one criminalizing homosexuality? Ah, cos here in Singapore, we implicitly know that if the system wants to nail you, it has more than enough laws to break your back. And still the authorities ask, why are Singaporeans so kiasu, hah?

Oh, and Chua Mui Hoong wrote in the ST for an essay titled Rules Of Engagement For God & Politics (Nov 16), “… Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalizes sex between men”. I take it that she is factually precise and that Section 377A does not criminalize sex between women. For a country that claims to be First World, I find it ludicrous that not one person has publicly mentioned the sexist partiality of the Penal Code.

Actually, come to think of it, I don’t. This is uniquely Singapore! And we all know that. - X’ Ho