The recent police reports filed by 85 people against Rony Tan for his anti-gay speech right after he was rapped by the Internal Security Department bemoans the sad state of affairs in our laws on this subject. In a more democratic society, where the law does not discriminate against LGBTQs, this would not happen. This is because criticisms and discourse would have been generated in the press once his anti-gay speech is known. This is likely to be when Kenneth Tan’s article, “Singapore Pastor Castigated for Offensive Remarks Against Buddhism Should Apologise to Gays and Lesbian Too”, has been published on www.fridae.com and not when the story of the 85 complaints was broken by same site. He would have already been censured publicly and no legal recourse against him will be considered necessary.
In the short run, the AG will have to inform Singapore on how he is going to handle the speech which has incensed a part of our nation. As it has obviously created ill will and hostility, it could possibly be seditious. At the very least, the AG will need to inform the 85 complainants, which can now be more, his decision on what to do. This is a substantial figure. One that the police has not refuted.
As the incident show, Singaporeans no longer take what they consider disinformation or misinformation sitting down. In the long-run, we need to decide whether to have greater state intervention against such inappropriate remarks or to change its laws regarding the subject of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Freedom of speech guards the common space which all Singaporeans share. As society morphs, our rules on fairplay should enable this to take place in an orderly manner. Therefore, changes made should level the playing field. Let the likes of Rony Tan continue what many consider as ill-informed rhetorics. However, balance them with accurate information and healthy opinions. In a democratic society, we need to create a marketplace of ideas and allow them to be exchanged.
Discriminatory Legal Scenario
Whilst the good Pastor can be prosecuted under the Penal Code for his speech against the Buddhists and Taoists under s298A, Penal Code, the same cannot apply to his speech against people of different sexual persuasion or gender identity. Strangely, this section, made law in October 2007, could have accommodated the LGBTQ community had it remain the same as the draft in the Consultative Document published by the Ministry of Home Affairs for public feedback in November 2006. The Consultation Paper version reads:
“Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony
298A. Whoever —
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, knowingly promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion or race, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious or racial groups or communities; or
(b) commits any act which he knows is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious or racial groups or communities and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both. “
At the bill’s first reading, the words “or communities” went missing.
Section 298A was introduced to replace the use of the Sedition Act for situations such as Rony Tan’s. This Act was exhumed to prosecute some bloggers for making inappropriate comments against the Muslims. However, the Sedition Act has never been used where the bane of the remarks is a person with different sexual orientation. Though the phrase promoting “feelings of ill-will and hostility between different … classes of the population of Singapore” is broad enough, it is not defined in the Act or by cases. We are, therefore, in uncharted waters.
On the other hand, not only do we have s377A, Penal Code, the section retained in October 2007, which criminalises sex between men, Singapore’s censorship laws gag most healthy depictions of gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transsexuals. A look at the Internet Code of Practice and the Free-to-Air Television Programme Code testifies to this lopsided situation.
Unhealthy Soundbites
Our discriminatory laws have led to the likes of Rony Tan passing inappropriate remarks and misinforming the public. He has likened gays to monkeys and donkeys. His is the most recent in a string of such comments. The most infamous is, of course, Thio Li-Ann’s speech in Parliament when debating the repeal of s377A.
In the same sermon, Rony also obfuscated homosexuality with paedophilia. This is misinformation. Another example of misinformation I have witnessed was made by another pastor, Derek Hong.
When a bill on equal employment opportunity in USA was being tabled in 2007, Derek took this opportunity to scare his congregation. In that year, Bill No. H.R. 2015, “Employment Non-Discrimination”, which clearly excluded religious organisations from its ambit was mooted in the US legislature. However, Derek decided to paint the bill as a tool to be used by gay activists, who according to him were used by Satan and were going to bankrupt churches and other Christian organisations. In his own words:
“The gay activists lobby is actually being used by Satan to undermine the gospel and the word of God …There’s a bill now … and this is carrying it to its Nth degree … before the American Congress … And they twin this bill that relates to equality in employment so nobody is to be prejudiced whatever their religious background, whatever their sexual orientation … and if this bill gets through, this is what the gay activists are going to do. They are going to target every church, every Christian church … every gospel preaching ministry with this strategy. They are going to go in, openly declare themselves as gay …, with their lifestyle … and they are going to apply for positions … child care, child minders, youth pastors, and if they are turned down … on account of their declared sexual lifestyle, they are going to sue this organisations. And you know what the judicial system can be like in America. Their goal is to bankrupt churches and Christian organisations … so what we are facing, brothers and sisters, is an issue that all of us should be aware of …”
You can listen to it on http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2007/son-788a.mp3
On the other hand, the strict censorship laws against the “promotion of homosexual lifestyle” have led to healthy information being censored.
We are all fully aware of the cut on Sean Penn’s acceptance speech for his performance in “MILK” at the Oscar last year. What is more interesting is the lesser known cut on director Cynthia Wade’s acceptance speech the year before.
The director won the best director for documentary award for her film, “Freeheld”, about a dying policewoman, Lieutenant Laurel Hester’s fight for equal rights so that her partner and care giver, Stacie Andree can afford to keep their house after her death. It chronicled the alliance between “macho cops” and gay activists who fought alongside Lieutenant Hester. It showed us what humanity is.
There is also the Ellen DeGeneres Show where a 3 minute segment met the scissors on Channel 5. Ellen condemned homophobia and spoke about the fatal shooting of a 15-year-old gay student Lawrence King in school. Her remarks were a response to American (Oklahoma) state legislator Sally Kern's anti-gay remarks. In a speech addressing her fellow Republican colleagues, she claimed that "the homosexual agenda" posed a bigger threat to the United States than terrorism.
These cuts were self-censorships by MediaCorp. The scissors fell on Ellen’s remarks probably because it came in the same week where the station was fined $15,000 for airing an interior designing programme from Canada with an episode featuring the nursery of a same sex couple. This is a country which legalised gay marriage and it merely reflects its society.
Ellen’s remark was in response to a politician’s speech. This is current affairs. As for Cynthia Wade, take a look at the trailer for her documentary and decide for yourself if it in anyway glorifies or promote homosexuality. This trailer can be viewed on www.fridae.com’s article on this subject:
http://fridae.com/newsfeatures/2008/02/26/2015.docu-about-dying-lesbians-equality-fight-wins-oscar-directors-acceptance-speech-snipped
The censorship laws have not only created self-censorship, which in itself is unhealthy, it has conditioned our journalists and media to automatically ignore important information regarding equal rights
Towards a more Democratic and Healthier Society
Remarks such as Rony’s do not contribute to healthy perspectives on the LGBTs, much less a teenager awakening to his sexuality, whatever it may be. They reinforce stereotypical images of homosexuals as paedophiles, deviants and psychopaths. The 85 consider it as disinformation. More importantly, the episode shows that if left unchecked, these remarks could polarize society. It has stirred up ill-will or hostility. Such complaints take up manhours.
The question is: do we check his irresponsible conduct by hauling him in each time he makes them or do we take a step back and look objectively at our laws, abolish those which are discriminatory, those which create an unhealthy and ill-informed population? The other question we need to ask is: whether we want to be a liberal society or a democratic one?
A liberal society is one where we have lots of liberal minded people or a substantive amount of liberal minded people. I do not know if Singapore is one, given the current state of our censorship laws. However, we do have liberal minded people, yours truly included. And they will increase, given the nature of Singapore.
A democratic society is one where freedom of expression is treasured, where the laws on censorship and media promote, facilitate or allow different opinions, creating a marketplace of ideas, where creative ideas and solutions flourish. To progress as a nation, we need a plurality of voices.
We are seeing more and more LGBTQ people taking their place in society. The Nepalese Parliament has Sunil Pant, the Indonesian Human Rights Commission has Yulianus Rettoblaut (also known as “Mami Yuli”), Australia has retired J. Michael Kirby in its Supreme Court and South Africa has J. Edwin Cameron in its Constitutional Court. Singapore will be no exception. As her sons and daughters of different sexual orientation and gender identity take their rightful place society, we need make room for them.
Yet, we need to reserve some space for the ultra-religious conservatives, the extreme fundamentalists.
The government can decide that Singapore is to be a liberal minded society tomorrow and shut all the Rony Tans up. This is not the solution. There will always be Rony Tans. In the long run, we cannot keep hauling Rony Tans up for intolerant remarks against people who prefer oranges and not apples.
How then do we accommodate different opinions, regardless of correctness, and accommodate change? We create a level-playing field in the media and “public arena or spaces”, where there will be public discourse, where healthy images of LGBTQs are seen and heard. To do so, we need to counter the disinformation and misinformation with accurate and up-to-date ones. Leave the insults and inappropriate remarks alone, unless they incite or cause physical harm to the victims of the remarks. Once given the correct tools, accurate information and well informed opinions, Singaporeans will be able to judge for themselves independently. They will know that what these remarks are mere reflections of the speakers and not the victims, the LGBTs.
Therefore, we need to lift the censorship on “homosexual lifestyle”. It is gagging important and healthy information from coming through. It results in the likes of Rony Tan creating unhealthy images of your neighbours, fostering intolerance and disrespect in our pluralistic society. Almost every straight person in Singapore knows an LGBTQ person. We need to abolish s377A. Not only is it unconstitutional in our secular society, it does not conform to international human rights standards on non-discrimination. For a society based on the rule of law, it makes a mockery of it. It allows Rony Tans to justify themselves. It confuses Singaporeans.
If we are to progress as a democracy, where we live as one united people regardless of race, language, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, we need to be able to agree to disagree. We fight free speech with free speech. The current one-sided law does not facilitate this.
By George Hwang
About the Author:
George Hwang is a Roman Catholic lawyer whose practise includes Entertainment & Media Law. He is a member of the South East Asia Media Legal Defense Network and a Steering Committee member of the International Media Lawyers Association.
Read More →
Supporting Chee Soon Juan's café I refer to The Independent Singapore’s news, “Singaporeans urged to support Chee Soon Juan's café despite their political preferences” (July 16).
The underlying objective of doing any business is to ensure it is viable and profitable. Otherwise, there is no point of undertaking risk for it.
It is natural for...
Will PM Wong address the astronomical ministerial salaries? I refer to The TR-Emeritus opinion article, “Will PM Wong address the astronomical ministerial salaries” (June 14) by Mr Yoong Siew Wah.
It has always been a controversial topic which concerns about our top political leaders who receive their salaries that are many times higher than those foreign political leaders.
Our...
Steering with stability in transition times I refer to The Straits Times’ Editorial, “Steering with stability in transition times” (May 16).
Let us analyze and interpret this specific subject from a broad perspective, how Singapore should respond and adapt to the evolution of the entire international situation and formulate its foreign policy that is extremely...
Chinese villagers living on cliffs In the Liangshan Mountains of Sichuan Province in China, there is a small isolated village on a cliff 1,400 meters above sea level. This is the village of Atuler, known as the Cliff Village with 72 families who has been living there for almost 200 years.
All travel is by a ladder that leads to the sky at almost right...
Ukraine will cease to exist thanks to the west Scott Ritter is a former Marine intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union, implementing arms control agreements, and on the staff of General Norman Schwartzkopf during the Gulf War, where he played a critical role in the hunt for Iraqi SCUD missiles. From 1991 until 1998, Mr. Ritter served as a Chief Inspector...
Bride's family asked for RMB 500,000 in bride price Contrary to popular beliefs, many couples in China are unable to afford to get married. With the exception of rural villages, those in the cities mostly asked for hundreds of thousands in bride price (聘礼/彩礼).
According to our techie who has been in China for over a decade, the bride price may include monies intended...
Higher salaries lead Singapore to become top pick for Asian... I refer to the Independent Singapore’s Featured News SG Economy, “Higher salaries lead Singapore to become top pick for Asian workers looking to move” (Feb 22).
In this era of rapid technological advancement, all countries are faced with the dilemma of being hungry for talent. Therefore, top talents in respective...
Where Romance Meets Finance Sugarbook was launched by Darren Chan in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. It is a luxury dating website designed to resolve financial issues through emotional support. It provides a platform to grow your relationships through mutual benefits that are not restricted to mentorship, companionship, wealth and emotional support.
It...
Marriage, children and practical concerns A couple bows before their parents and offers them tea, as is traditional in Chinese weddings.
I refer to The Straits Times’ Editorial “Marriage, children and practical concerns” (Feb 5).
Since the history of human civilisation, the formation of individual family and the issue of procreation have become two...
Not in my backyard I refer to the TODAY’s Commentary, “'Not in my backyard' — when some groups can protest more loudly, the most vulnerable ones suffer” (Jan 25, 2024).
A few good points from the article are worth to be probed further and discussed.
In December 2023, the announcement of plans by The National Environment Agency...
Educating the next generation I read with interest the Straits Times’ Editorial, “Educating the next generation” (Jan 5, 2024).
Any form of spontaneous learning should provide you with a happy, positive, and memorable experience. However, only a small number of children are in exception.
Therefore, based on this, parents should realize the...
GST increase in 2024 On 1 Jan 2024 GST rises 1% from 8% to 9%; this is a 12.5% increase in GST. I am not convinced that this is necessary. It will contribute to inflation, and cause economic hardship. The handouts to mitigate this are temporary and the increase is permanent.
In 2015, when the possibility of GST rising was an election issue...
Race relations in Singapore I refer to the Today’s “Commentary: In 1954, David Marshall spoke about race relations in Singapore. Have we made real progress since then?” (Dec 15).
For any country to be prosperous and powerful, it must first achieve political and social stability, and its people must live in harmony and be united. Only in this...
