I am sure by now most Singaporean bloggers or blog readers would have heard about Sir Ian McKellen's famous interview on Channel NewsAsia (see end of post). Unknown to some (including me), he had also said something "controversial" (to use his own words on Channel NewsAsia) on Class 95 FM (as reported on Fridae's feature) and on page 3 of Wednesday's Life! section of the Straits Times.

If you're still unsure, yes, Sir Ian McKellen is gay and a veteran activist who's involved with a few LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bi-Trans) organisations and charities in the UK. So it's natural that he's cued in to what's been happening here recently over the debate on repealing Section 377A - "those dreadful laws that we British left behind," says Sir Ian.

I think what's interesting about all this is the timing.

First, you have the statements made a few months ago (and also recently) by MM LKY on the need to progress and in time, decriminalise homosexuality in Singapore. Then you have the moving (as reported by friends and strangers who have seen it) new play by Alfian Sa'at entitled "Happy Endings - Asian Boys Vol 3" which also addresses some of these issues. And just last Sunday, the forum that was organised as part of the play to addressed the issue of repealing Section 377A where one PAP backbencher (Baey Yam Keng, MP for Tangjong Pagar GRC), one NMP (Siew Kum Hong) and a retired former Bishop of the Methodist Church for Malaysia and Singapore (Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao) sat as part of the panel (see previous post).

And now, we have Sir Ian adding his weight and fame to the issue in a very public way. Which I think is sorely needed as no one has either addressed these issues on the broadcast media or been allowed to do so.

Of course some smartass might have a fit and rebuke him for "daring" to meddle with local politics while forgetting that we have the proxies of American evangelical fundamentalists trying to hijack the local agenda here.

But you know what? The issue of public acceptance of homosexuality that has always been used as a reason by the government to retain that law has not changed much.

Of course the term "majority" or "public" is rather vague as no one has really quantified this segment of the population. It's up to different people to draw their own conclusions about the size of this group in a way that suits their agendas. To me, this seemingly "huge" segment of the population is just a very vocal Christian minority that makes the loudest noise. So who's right? That's another topic altogether.

Anyway, while I was having coffee with a friend in Jurong West just now, he brought up a very salient point about the artfulness or stupidity (depending on how you look at it) of this government.

On one hand, you have the "public" not being accepting. And on the other, you have the government (through MICA, home of the censorship board) refusing to allow anything that seemingly portrays "homosexuals" and the "homosexual lifestyle" in a positive light - I'm using the quotation marks here because these are the official terms used by the government and not something I necessarily agree with (especially the all-encompassing term of ignorance, "homosexual lifestyle").

So if all they allow are negative portrayals on broadcast media and ignorant generalisations by civil servants and their mouthpieces, how can the "public" (as if tax-paying and NS-serving gays exist outside this sphere) progress to a point where decriminalisation is not a controversial issue anymore.

Or perhaps repeal is not even part of the plan and the whole exercise of MM LKY's pronouncement and the attendance of MP Baey is just a public relations exercise to show the world that hey! Surprising Singapore is indeed moving forward after bar top dancing *yawn* and Integrated Resort (read: casino).

As long as this government refuses to allow any sort of positive portrayals of gays and allow the very vocal Christian fundamentalist minority to commandeer the debate and agenda, this society is never going to be ready for progress.

But then again, is society's readiness for progress and acceptance really the issue here? The integrated resorts (not one, but TWO casinos might I remind you) was unacceptable to the seemingly large and very vocal segment of the population. And regardless of that, construction works are progressing at full speed in Marina Bay and Sentosa despite our "unreadiness".

I guess it's all a very "chicken and egg" question. Which comes first? In the case of repealing Section 377A, you have the chicken waiting for the egg to be laid before it could be hatch and the egg waiting for the chicken to lay it.

But for the integrated resorts, one of them said "fuck it" and made the first move.

So really, is it all PR or is it the real McCoy?

The interview of Sir Ian McKellen (if you haven't seen it) below:

Labels: law, lgbt, politics, singapore