Ambivalently Singapore : studying discourses and subjectivities of gay individuals

(1)

Ambivalently Singapore

Studying Discourses and Subjectivities of Gay

Individuals

Joyce Ong | 6802777

Master Thesis (24028 words)

Sociology: Gender, Sexuality and Society

Graduate School of Social Sciences

University of Amsterdam

First supervisor: Margriet van Heesch

Second supervisor: Gert Hekma

(2)

Cover photo depicts the annual LGBT event in Singapore, Pink Dot

(3)

Acknowledgements

The journey of writing my thesis was a long one. It could not have been completed without the support and encouragement of those around me. I would like to extend my gratitude to Margriet for her ever-encouraging feedback along the way and to Gert for his input at the start of this project, not forgetting his kind generosity in lending me many books to review.

I am grateful to my parents for having faith in my ability to complete this academic journey. I thank my brothers, Kelvin, and especially Edwin, for providing me with a listening ear and offering much-needed advice. Thank you Yingxuan, Jerry and Ranjani for travelling miles to visit me, bringing me so much joy during your stay and for always being there when I need you. Appreciation also goes out to Anne-Sophie and others who have worked together with me, helping me along the way for my thesis.

Special thanks goes out to all who took part in helping me find informants, you know who you are! Last but not least, a big thank you to my 18 interviewees for sharing your stories with me. It was a real pleasure to have met with such inspiring people who took the time out to offer me help even beyond the interviews.

(4)

ONE

The Ambivalence

1.1 Introduction: Being Gay in Singapore

While conducting literature review for my thesis topic, I came across one of the first few books that documented the voices of sexual minorities in Singapore, People Like

Us: Sexual Minorities in Singapore (Lo and Huang 2003). In particular, I was struck

by a story written by Debbie Han (2003), a lesbian activist for the main LGBT equality lobby group in Singapore – People Like Us. Han (2003) wrote about her personal experiences with her group of friends as lesbians in Singapore: When they first graduated from school, they felt like they had the right to be visible as lesbians even in the public realm. They had heard about the proverbial glass ceiling but others, even their bosses, would just have to accept them as they are. They were young and unworried about the marginalization they might face as a result of their open identity. A few years down the road, however, Han (2003) noticed that many of them had returned to their closets: they come out at lunchtime every day but retreat into their closets upon returning to their offices for fear of what they might lose should their colleagues or bosses find out. They had worked too hard to lose all they had built up in their careers…

I have never really been able to identify myself based on any sexual identity category. After reading the story that Han (2003) wrote, I wondered: how would I understand myself and negotiate the heteronormativity in Singapore should I be with a woman some day? I thought about the possibility of those around me experiencing the same situation as Debbie’s friends – have to suppress their sexual identity because of the heteronormative environment they are embedded in, an environment that suppresses identities that deviate from the ‘norm’ through a number of ways, including a legal constitution that criminalizes homosexuality.

I am not advocating that ‘coming out’ should be an obligation, as if it is ‘ethical’ to inform others about one’s sexual preferences for whatever reason. It just saddened me to think that many who want to open up about their sexuality dare not do so. I could not comprehend why something so personal should interfere with someone’s advancements in public life or be subjected to state control.

(6)

My own standpoint on sexuality, coupled with this nugget of information about the lives of lesbians in Singapore, led me to the conception of this research question: How

do gay men and women in Singapore understand themselves and life in Singapore? In

addition, I was also aware that the Singapore state’s ambivalent approach, which is simultaneously marked by an increase of gay spaces and the explicit rejection of their “lifestyle” by the government (Lim 2004; Lee and Tan 2007; quoted in Tan 2013). Therefore, more importantly, this paper is an attempt to answer: How do gay men and

women in Singapore experience and narrate the contradictory discourses on what homosexuality entails? Before attempting to answer these two questions, a number of

relevant sub-questions will first be addressed in the first few chapters: How is

sexuality regulated in Singapore? How do gay men and women narrate their identities and experiences in Singapore? How do gay men and women perceive the social and political climate of Singapore in relation to homosexuality?

1.2 Background and Relevance: A Brief Overview of Singapore

Singapore is a sovereign city-state and island country located in South-East Asia. Singapore, as we know it today, is an economically prosperous city that has been ranked the second-most competitive economy in the world (World Economic Forum 2013). It can be said that much of Singapore’s economic prosperity should be accorded to the nation’s orientation to trade. With its strategic port location, Singapore was ranked the second busiest port in the world by cargo tonnage in 2011 (American Association of Port Authorities 2011). By gaining revenue from exports, then, Singapore purchases the natural resources that it lacks.

Despite being a highly economically developed state, the Human Rights Watch (2014) has stated its concerns regarding the government’s continued imposition of “wide-ranging restrictions on core civil and political rights”. Indeed, Singapore is infamous for its strict regulations, earning the title of being a ‘fine’ city – that is, it is home to a fine environment but also a harsh fine system (Antonio 2012). Its fine system and strict laws are effectively representative of a larger phenomenon: the state’s preoccupation with social order. The official historical narrative seeks to address the mechanisms through which the state has come to be fixated with social order…

1819 was the year that marked the beginning of the modern history of Singapore. Sir Stamford Raffles from the British East India Company arrived on the

(7)

island and made an agreement with the local Malay official to develop Singapore into a trading post (Library of Congress 2013). Among the chief ethnicities that constitute the country today, it was the Chinese who gradually made up the ethnic majority when they came to Singapore in search for work1. By 1824, Singapore officially became a part of British property (Library of Congress 2013). This situation sustained all the way until 1942, when the Japanese invaded and occupied Singapore during World War II (Library of Congress 2013). The reign of the Japanese was short-lived since 3 years down the road, the Japanese surrendered and the British resumed control. However, by then faith was lost in the colonial relationship and the local population started to demand for self-rule (Library of Congress 2013). In 1963, Singapore was granted independence from the British when it joined the Federation of Malaysia (Library of Congress 2013). Two years on, after much disagreement, it was expelled from the Federation, becoming a sovereign nation-state for the first time. Once sovereign, then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and other members of the leading political party (People’s Action Party) faced a number of problems: Singapore was small and lacked natural resources, the British were withdrawing their military bases which meant a loss of 25% of the gross national product, and there was much social disorder, including labor disputes and strikes (Library of Congress 2013).

It was in the light of this tumultuous history that Singapore managed to emerge as an economically successful nation today. The Singaporean leaders emphasized pragmatism, the focus on survival and economic growth to reach where it is today. Simon Obendorf (2013: 234), an Australian academic in Asian gender and sexuality issues, noted that Singaporean policy makers “prioritized the maintenance of domestic political and social stability as a necessary precondition for safeguarding Singapore’s independence and ensuring national economic growth.” As a result of this, even up to today, “potential social or political liberalization, assertive individualist rights claims and abrupt changes in social and political mores are presented as threatening to the very security and survival of the nation, as well as to the population’s continued enjoyment of the fruits of economic growth” (Trocki 2006; Zolo 2001; Chua 1995, cited in Obendorf 2013: 234-235).

Unsurprisingly, the advocacy of gay rights has also been presented as threatening to the stability of the Singaporean society. In 2007, Singapore Prime

(8)

Minister Lee Hsien Loong responded to gay activists’ petition to repeal Section 377A of Singapore’s Penal Code, a statute that criminalizes homosexual acts between two men as “gross indecency”2_{. He stated that the official stance on what ‘family’ means}

is “one man and one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit” (cited in Oswin 2009). “Strong and cohesive” nuclear heterosexual families, who “impart positive values,” are also regarded by the state as “crucial to the success of [Singapore’s] social development” (Ministry of Community Development of Singapore 1995, cited in Oswin 2009). The state rhetoric of ‘family’ implies that a proliferation of alternative ‘lifestyles’ by following the Western model of decriminalizing homosexual acts, poses a threat to the vision of the heterosexual family as the “building bloc” of society (Agence France-Presse 2007).

As much as the above signals that the Singapore government’s stance is clearly against homosexuality, it becomes less clear-cut when we consider other signals from the government. For example, in 2003, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong declared that the government would hire openly gay civil servants in ‘certain positions’, even the sensitive ones, as long as they declare their sexuality (Tan 2009). The controversy over the retention of Section 377A of Singapore’s Penal Code has also driven the state to assure that the law will not be aggressively enforced and it has also been observed that sexual minorities are given more space to thrive in as compared to the past, especially because of the importance of the ‘pink economy’ (Lim 2004).

Considering Singapore’s ambivalent way of handling the issue of homosexuality in Singapore, it is then worthy to understand how such a schizophrenic environment has affected gay individuals’ lives. I find this especially important because gay individuals have to negotiate heteronormative assumptions and expectations within dominant discourses that do not coincide with their experiences. Foucault (1976) has stated the study of discourses is intricately connected to the study of power relations. Discourses not only act as platforms that enforce power through regulatory regimes, but also provide platforms for resistance (Foucault 1976). The accounts of gay men and women will illuminate the various discourses that are

2_{Section 377A states: Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of,}

or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two

(9)

imbued with power. Hence, these are also the same areas in which they can begin to display resistance by challenging the constructed ‘norms’ and advancing their rights. Since their positions as gay individuals means that they have already resisted some aspects of heteronormativity, I find that their accounts will be exceptional in revealing the taken-for-granted assumptions about gender and sexuality that the Singaporean society has imposed on them. Ultimately, I hope that this paper serves to give a voice to the sexual minority in Singapore and offer a way towards the advancement of gay rights in Singapore.

1.3 Research Methodology

To answer my research question, I employed a constructivist-interpretivist methodology (Schwartz-Shea and Yanow 2012). That means to say that I was fully aware that the narratives of the respondents differ according to their political, cultural, experiential perspectives. I also recognized that my own positionality played a role in co-generating data. I understood that my personal attributes, my role as a researcher and my interpretation of respondents’ narratives influenced the data collected. Because of this, throughout my paper, I seek to be reflexive about my own positions as much as possible. I also adopted an abductive logic of inquiry to this research (Schwartz-Shea and Yanow 2012). I conducted research in an iterative and recursive process by continually adjusting my approach and expectations to my growing understanding throughout the research process.

My initial goal was to acquire respondents through snowball sampling. Such a sampling method was beneficial for touchy subjects like homosexuality as it allowed me to reach the hidden population through referrals. However, at the beginning of my data collection, I realized that I could not locate enough gay women. Therefore, I also employed purposive sampling. I reached respondents through referrals, an advertisement that I posted on a Facebook page Lesbian SG Confessions3 and an advertisement that was placed on my behalf on a gay forum4 (Annex A).

I aimed to interview as many people as possible until similar, but varying, accounts became clear. I ended up with 18 respondents, among which nine were men and nine, women. By using the term ‘gay’ to characterize my respondents, I do not mean to impose any identity category on them. I use the term for all respondents

3_{www.facebook.com/Les.SgConfessions}

(10)

because I found out that for them, it was the most inclusive term that could characterize their experiences. ‘Gay’ in this case refers to anyone who does not solely experience same-sex attraction. My interviewees’ ages ranged from 22 to 36 and all of them were ethnically Chinese. With the exception of one interviewee, respondents were either born into the Singaporean environment or had resided in Singapore for most of their lives. At the time of the interview, not all of my respondents were residing in Singapore. However, I included them in the study nevertheless because I felt that their prior experiences were relevant and they were still rather in touch with the goings-on in Singapore. Almost all of my respondents were university-educated or undergraduates.

All the interviews were conducted using technological means. My preferred method was unstructured interviews over Skype video call, as I wanted to conduct real-time interviews in order to take note of the facial expressions and responses to the questions asked. However, because of the sensitive nature of my topic, I also did not want to exclude participants who were not comfortable with a real-time interview. I concluded with 18 interviews. 14 of them were done over video calls, 1 interview over a phone call and 3 email interviews. The real-time interviews mostly took from 1.5 to 2.5 hours and the mail interviews were conducted over back-and-forth e-mails until I felt like I obtained enough information for analysis. With the permission of my interviewees, all except two interviews were recorded and transcribed. I also assigned pseudonyms to all but one respondent. For ethical considerations, I obtained verbal consent from interviewees to record the video and audio interviews and asked e-mail respondents to acknowledge consent to the use of the e-mail transcripts in this paper. I also made sure to let participants know that they were not obliged to answer questions that they were uncomfortable with.

Before the interviews, I prepared a topic list (Annex B). My first question was deliberately crafted to be very broad: I wanted to find out their life stories, with emphasis on their experiences with sexuality. This was in order to tease out the realms of life that were deemed the most important to them. The topic list involved two sections: their experiences of homosexuality in Singapore and their opinions how it is like to be ‘gay’ in Singapore. I was interested in acquiring: stories of same-sex attraction, romance and relationships, identification with the terms ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’, stories of ‘coming out’, involvement with the ‘gay’ community, opinions regarding identity categories and the socio-political climate, and improvements that

(11)

would be relevant to their lives. The guiding questions were not strictly adhered to in a certain order and whether I asked the questions depended on what information I received from individual respondents. I also added certain questions that were not in my initial list of questions when I found that themes emerged that I wanted to explore. For example, I added questions on the relevance of online dating platforms and whether or not my female respondents identified with the term ‘lesbian’.

To analyze the data that I collected, I used narrative analysis. Chase (2005) mentions that the focus of narrative analysis is life stories that talk about personal, social and cultural experiences. According to Reissman’s (2008), there are four analytical approaches within narrative analysis. What I employ in my research is a thematic analysis, which focuses on categorizing the accounts that are told. For me, themes captured important details in data that related back to my research question and were somehow patterned across the accounts of interviews (Braun and Clarke, 2006: 82). I understood that themes were both implicit and explicit ideas in the accounts that I collected (Guest et al. 2012: 10). I identified themes based on their repetitive nature and exercised my own judgment to identify themes based on the relation to my original research question. The analysis I did was also in relation to Foucault’s theories, as will be outlined below. However, I also identified themes that are not theoretically relevant because I did not want to ignore novel material (Hayes 1997:113).

It is also important also to note that the data that I present in the following chapters are an interpretation of what my respondents had told me. Quotes have been edited in order to make them more readable. However, since interviews were conducted in acrolectal Singlish, a local creole of English that is used in more formal contexts by locals of a higher educational background (Platt and Weber 1980), I kept the particle ‘lah’ in some of the quotes. Acrolectal Singlish resembles Standard English in many ways except for interjections in other languages. The particle ‘lah’ will appear in the some sections of the paper and serves to simultaneously emphasize a position and entices and reinforces solidarity (Kang 1992/93).

1.4 Theoretical Framework

Probyn (1997: 134) has expressed that “it is hard to imagine writing about sexuality without the work of Foucault.” Indeed, French philosopher Michel Foucault has contributed much to the literature on sexuality, especially through his work The

(12)

History of Sexuality (1976; 1985). However, I refer to Foucault’s works as the

theoretical framework for my analysis, not solely because of what he specifically wrote on sexuality, but also because of his insights into ‘technologies of domination’ and ‘technologies of the self’. What is especially important to my analysis is the recognition that while individuals are influenced by technologies of domination, they also exhibit a fair amount of agency in their use of technologies of the self to constitute themselves as ethical subjects.

The concept of ‘technologies of domination’ will be used in relation to the Singapore state’s discursive control. Foucault (1977) was interested in how we become subjects. He noted a shifting emphasis from sovereign power to disciplinary power from pre-modern to modern societies. While sovereign power tends to be associated with the control of subjects’ bodies, disciplinary power is something that is exercised upon not only the body, but also the mind. This is where the concept of ‘discourse’ is important. ‘Discourse’ is an institutionalized way of thinking that is embedded in language and shapes how people think and act (Spickard, 2007:132). Discipline is enacted through discourse, consciously or subconsciously produce and reproduce hierarchical types of power/knowledge, hence normalizing certain forms of conduct as ‘natural’ or ‘good’ while labeling other forms of conduct ‘abnormal’ or ‘bad’ (Foucault 1977). Through disciplinary regimes that punish the people who deviate from the set norm, individuals are pressured to conform to a single model (Foucault 1977).

Technologies of power “determine the conduct of individuals and submit them to certain ends of domination, and objectivizing of the subject” (Foucault 1988a: 18) while technologies of the self are “the specific practices by which subjects constitute themselves as subjects within and through systems of power, and which often seem to be either 'natural' or imposed from above” (Shawver 2006). By these definitions, it seems that Foucault (1988b) did not conceive the individual as on who is able to exhibit agency since both techniques produce effects that constitute the individual self and allow the state to exercise governmentality, a type of power to produce useful, docile, practical citizens. However, Foucault nonetheless saw individuals “as self-determining agents capable of challenging and resisting the structures of domination in modern society” (McNay 1992: 4). He stressed that technologies of the self are a way in which individuals are always constituting themselves as ethical subjects (Foucault 1977). Technologies of the self have the potential to free one from

(13)

disciplinary, discursive body practices since they “permit individuals to effect by their own means or with the help of others a certain number of operations on their own bodies and souls, thoughts, conduct, and way of being, so as to transform themselves in order to attain a certain state of happiness, purity, wisdom, perfection, or immortality” (Foucault 1988a: 18). Yet, it is also important to note that individuals are constrained by the resources available to them in self-formation.

In the following chapters I not only look at the technologies of domination through the state discourses, but also tease out the technologies of the self through the accounts of my interviewees. I believe that individuals are able to break out of oppressive discourses using their own agency. In particular relation to sexuality, I base my analysis on Foucault’s theories where he problematized pleasure, desire and sexuality, the regimes of power-knowledge-pleasure, and understood them as discourses that reveal the ‘truth’ of our sexuality, and hence of ourselves. It is through these discourses that we shape the construction of ourselves (Foucault 1985: 12). Foucault’s ideas were against the position the body and its desires – its sexuality – would reveal the truth about the self. I take a Foucauldian stance in that I do not believe that an inherent essence constitutes one’s identity. I believe that labels were constructed in mainstream discourses for the sake of categorizing and controlling and have eventually paved the way for the emergence of an alternative discourse by the labeled themselves. That is to say, the people who are ‘othered’ have made use of the same constructed labels to create self-identities, allowing them to form a community that demands legitimacy in the “reverse” discourse (Foucault 1976).

While Foucault will be the meta-framework for my thesis, I also refer to Singaporean sociologist Audrey Yue’s (2012) concept of illiberal pragmatism to frame my understanding of the contradictory state discourses. Yue (2012) argues that the Singapore government represents itself as accepting towards the gay community despite explicitly rejecting gay persons with state rhetoric. The overall tone is that of disapproval. However, on the outlook, Singapore tries to look remain open because of the benefits that can be derived from the gay community, especially economic ones.

It is also worthy to note at this point that I will look at discourses in Singapore by assessing them through the concept of ‘heteronormativity’. This means that there is an implicit assumption of heterosexual orientation that is then worked into institutions and laws, going further to affect everyday practices (Tolley and Ranzijn 2006; Chambers 2007). American political theorist Samuel Chambers (2007) further

(14)

explores heteronormativity as an expectation that regulates how people think, speak and act according to social requirements. Linking this back to Foucault’s idea of ‘discourse’, heteronormativity is a discourse that regulates individuals’ self-concept and understanding of the world.

My interviewees’ experiences will also be understood through the lens of American philosopher Judith Butler’s ideas on gender and sexuality. For Butler (1990), gender and sexuality are regulated performances. Like Foucault, she believed that discourses of gender and sexuality discipline bodies through repetitive behavior that conform to the norms that have been set. Butler (1990) also does not believe in an inherent essence that constitutes identity. Instead, gender and sexuality are performative identities bound by the dominant discourses (1990). These performances are extremely important since they are what make people intelligible as humans (Butler 2005). Gender and sexuality discourses have become such important regulatory regimes those that do not conform to the norm are punished (Butler 1988).

I also juxtapose my interviewees’ accounts to American philosopher Ladelle McWhorter’s (1999) understanding of ‘coming out’. She argues that even though ‘coming out’ is important to many queer individuals, it is not an act that unilaterally sets them free when they tell the ‘truth’ about themselves. This is because people assimilate those who self-assign the label ‘homosexual’ with the notions of what a “homosexual” is. Labeling then makes one a plain target for the imposition of oppressive discourses.

Having stated the framework for my theoretical analysis, my next section will conclude all that I have written so far with an outline of each chapter.

1.5 Thesis Outline

In this chapter, I have stated my research interest in gay individuals’ lives and how they experience and narrate the contradictory discourses on homosexuality in Singapore. Having given an overview of the background of Singapore, my research methods and the theoretical framework for my analysis, I will now provide an outline of each chapter. Chapter 2 is dedicated to uncovering the discourses on homosexuality in Singapore, with emphasis on state narratives on the subject matter. The discourses highlighted are analyzed in accordance to Foucault’s theory of the technologies of domination. In Chapter 3, I outline the summary of each respondent’s interview and look at the main themes that depict their identity and experiences. I further explore

(15)

their perspectives on issues of homosexuality in Singapore in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 is where I merge theories and local literature with the accounts of my interviewees for the purposes of analysis. I conclude in Chapter 6 by asserting that gay individuals are able to break out of oppressive discourses, which marginalize almost all citizens of Singapore.

(16)

TWO

Foucauldian Singapore

2.1 The Unenforced Statute

In 2003, a court case involving consensual oral sex between a heterosexual couple triggered an extensive revision of the Singapore Penal Code, in order to filter our old-fashioned irrelevant laws. However, much to the dismay of gay activists, Section 377A, a statute that criminalizes male homosex as acts of ‘gross indecency’ was retained5_{. What followed was a two-day parliamentary debate involving the petition}

for the repeal of Section 377A but this was eventually unsuccessful (Tan 2011). In the wake of this incident, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stepped forth to justify the decision not to decriminalize male homosex. He stated that the Singapore society was still conservative and valued the traditional family as the building bloc of society. Lee further added that the people of Singapore ‘do not approve of [gays] setting the tone of the mainstream society’, but he assured that gay men are free to pursue their social activities, as the statute would not be aggressively enforced (Agence France-Presse 2007).

Particularly interesting about the Singapore case, then, is the presence of this largely unenforced statute against homosexual acts between men. If not in place to exercise punishment on bodily acts that do not comply with prevailing social mores, what function does this statute then serve? In this chapter, I answer this question by looking at the broader question: How is homosexuality regulated in Singapore? In this chapter, I will further use Foucault’s theories to look at the Singaporean narratives of homosexuality. I argue that discourse has an increasingly distinctive place in Singapore and that this unenforced statute serves as a symbolic marker of the state’s ambivalent approach towards homosexuality. An extensive review of current literature will reveal the various discourses on homosexuality and the government’s ambiguous approach. This chapter will serve as the foundation of my analysis in Chapter 5.

5_{By 2007, Section 377 of the Singapore Penal Code was repealed. It previously stated: “Whoever}

voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.” In its place was Section 377A, a statute that criminalizes sex between two men, as already described in Chapter 1.

(17)

2.2 The Place of Discourse in Singapore

As previously mentioned, one of the fundamental insights offered by Foucault’s works pertains to the importance of discourse as a medium through which disciplinary power is exercised in modern society. I will now elaborate on Foucault’s works further and relate his theories to the state’s approach to homosexuality in Singapore.

Foucault’s first works were concerned with the mechanisms of power. He observed a major shift in the mechanisms of power from pre-modern to modern societies (Foucault 1977). In pre-modern societies, sovereign authorities exercised a top-down form of social control through policies or laws that control people via threat or execution of violence. As societies progressed, states became increasingly concerned with the administration and management of ‘life’. This formed what he called ‘bio-power’, a mechanism which not only allowed the government to control the population as a whole, but also to ‘discipline’ individual citizens into subjects with ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault 1977). The power to discipline individuals – disciplinary power – was remarkable in the sense that it not only disciplined the body, but also the mind. He illustrated this with the example of Bentham’s Panopticon – a nineteenth-century prison system with a central watchtower (Foucault 1977). The spatial arrangement of surveillance obscured the vision of the prison warden. Because prisoners could never be sure of when their behavior was being watched, they started to regulate their own behavior over time. The modern subject is, hence, one who is self-aware and self-regulating as a result of the internalization of constant surveillance.

In The History of Sexuality Volume I (1976), Foucault claims that the exercise of over repression is no longer required in the modern disciplinary society because social control can be achieved through subtle strategies of normalization. Discourse was one of the ways in which normalization took place. In his book, discourses portrayed sex as an instinctual biological and psychic drive (Foucault 1976). Sex was also inextricably linked with identity, hence, having pervasive effects on the sexual and social behavior of the individual. Because of the discourse that sex drives could operate in ‘healthy’ and ‘normal’ ways, categories were established to label certain behaviors as ‘normal’ and others as pathologically ‘deviant’. The government, citing individual and social interests, then emphasized treating and reforming ‘deviant’ behavior. Foucault (1976) believed that even identity was discursively constituted and it did not portray the ‘essence’ of someone. He argued that individuals make use of

(18)

‘technologies of the self’, which include techniques of contemplation, self-disclosure and self-discipline, to relate themselves to prevailing discourses (Foucault 1988a). This means to say that individuals constitute themselves as subjects by participating in discourses and accompanying power relations. Identification with the term ‘gay’ then implies a participation in ‘gay’ discourses through subjectivation instead of being intrinsically ‘gay’.

Why do I argue that discourse has such an important role to play in Singapore? This is because the Singapore government seems to be transitioning towards using ‘disciplinary power’ rather than ‘sovereign power’ in the recent years. It has been noted that harsh punishments, like the death penalty, are decreasing, as evidenced by the pardoning of a drug trafficker from the death penalty for the first time in many years (Leechaianan and Longmire 2013; Armstrong and Laurence 2013). In particular relation to homosexuality, explicit policing behavior to enforce the anti-homosex law has decreased. No longer are there incidents such as police raids on homosexuals engaging in sexual activity (Ng 2003; Hor 2012). The only way to make sense of the presence of the unenforced statute criminalizing male homosex is to understand it as a symbolic mechanism as there is no rational need for it (Hor 2012). The result of this is then to evoke a state of acquiescence with respect to what lifestyles ought to be celebrated. Yue (2012: 21) echoes such a sentiment by viewing the continued existence of the legislation in section 377A as a tool that is used pragmatically to “insinuate fear and shape compliant subjects.” These understandings are very much compatible with the idea of disciplinary power’s ability to create ‘docile bodies’ through dominant discourses that prescribe what is acceptable and normal in society (Foucault 1977).

Theorizing Singapore in relation to Foucault’s concepts has been done before. For example, geographer Lim Kean Fan (2004: 1771) observes that there is a perception that a “panoptical system of surveillance” exists in Singapore and claims that this is not unfounded. He further justified this claim by referring to the police records back in the 1980s, where there were numerous arrests and convictions of homosexuals from police undercover activities (Lim 2004). Referring to Southeast-Asianist Russell Heng’s (2001:87) contention that the purpose behind these activities was to make an example of homosexuals, Lim (2004) goes on to propose that this perception shapes homosexuals’ ‘techniques of the self’ as they refrain from expressing their sexuality too overtly. Shining the light on homosexuals’ techniques

(19)

of self is especially important because the governance of subjects is no longer a top-down form of domination in modern society. Rather, the technologies of domination takes the form of disseminating expert sociomedical discourses about the ‘deviancy’ of homosexuality, to the extent that homosexuals’ self-regulation and self-censorship are affected (Danaher et al 2000, cited in Lim 2004: 1763). Finally, Lim (2004) theorized that the government’s apparent loosening control of homosexuals, characterized by the growth in queer spaces, could be a subtle form of governmentality to keep homosexuals ‘in check’. These spaces were said to allow a pinpointing of where they were for ease of monitoring.

Having looked at how to theorize Singapore in relation to Foucault’s concepts, I look at how the Singaporean government has intervened in the regulation of discourses through the different platforms.

2.3 The State’s Discursive Power

The way in which media is regulated demonstrates the pervasive presence of the state in Singapore. Media outlets in Singapore are predominantly state-owned and therefore, serve as platforms through which the state is able to produce and reproduce discourses in line with government agendas (Ang and Yeo 1998, as cited by Yue 2012: 22). In Singapore, the media is primarily divided into Singapore Press

Holdings and MediaCorp (Ho 2012). These two institutions represent print and

television media respectively and are both statutory boards owned by the state (Ho 2012). Obendorf (2013) suggests that many regulations are aimed at obscuring the presence of homosexuality in the Singaporean society. The Media Development Authority’s (2013) website provides a long list of what types of programs are permitted and prohibited to air on television. Television stations are prohibited to air programs that “promote or justify a homosexual lifestyle” since such a program “undermines national interest or erodes the moral fabric of society” (Media Development Authority 2013: 11d, 7). Failure to adhere to these rules incurs a hefty fine6. The state also exacts scrutiny upon films and theatre productions in order to demarcate the acceptable from the unacceptable. Films are required to be submitted to the Board of Film Censors for classification and censorship. Again, a few theatre

6_{For example, a television station, which broadcasted an imported program featuring a same-sex}

(20)

companies have experienced the consequences of noncompliance as productions that invoke political and sexual issues triggered a loss of funds (Obendorf 2013).

The perception of state surveillance on many platforms had produced self-censorship to the extent that in 1996, the gay support group People Like Us was unable to find more than ten people who would allow the use of their names in the process of registering to become a society (Ho 2012). This signaled to me that they had regulated themselves corresponding to what the state has desired up to today – for homosexuals to remain in interstitial spaces in order to remain as unnoticed as possible (Lim 2004; Goh 2008). Because self-surveillance led few to acknowledge themselves as ‘gay’, it was hard for alternative discourses to emerge.

However, with the rise of the Internet in the 1990s, Singaporean gay individuals found a new platform for a “reverse” discourse to emerge (Offord 2011). New Zealander cultural academic Baden Offord (2011) noted that the Internet was crucial in aiding the lesbian and gay movement in Singapore gained momentum. This posed a threat to the state’s control of discourse and surveillance was nonetheless prominent online as a boy who declared his homosexuality online was threatened by his school that the Singapore Broadcasting Authority would “taken action” against him unless he remove the webpage (cited in Lim 2004: 1774). Despite the constant surveillance on these grounds, it was remarked, “Cyberspace remains the hardest space for the government to control” (Kadir 2004: 347, cited in Offord 2011: 138). Indeed, the Internet has emerged as a new platform of information for issues relating to sexuality as websites. As observed by Offord (2011: 138), local websites have flourished as “key conduits of political, social and cultural commentary and dialogue about homosexuality in Singapore.” He further argued that it is evident that these discussions have had a direct impact on everyday Singapore as “robust discussions on sexual rights and citizenship are sophisticated and informed.”

In Lim’s (2004) article, it is further revealed that the Internet has facilitated useful discussions and organization of the lesbian community. This is especially important against the backdrop of Singapore’s education system, where libraries and schools do not provide enough information. Indeed, Time (2001, cited in Lim 2004: 1774) has reported that sex-education in schools focuses “almost exclusively on heterosexuals” and the only broach of the subject of homosexuality is a reminder that it is against the law. Such a way of education has resulted in either the need to “perform the closet or face possible expulsion” (Lim 2004: 1774).

(21)

Having discussed the state’s regulation of the media, I will go on further to look at the way in which the state has constructed the ‘homosexual’ in Singapore.

2.4 The Discursive Construction of the Homosexual

As mentioned earlier, Foucault (1976) observed that in eighteenth and nineteenth century discourses, sex was deeply connected with identity. In the same way, Singapore discourses have linked having same-sex relations with some sort of inherent traits. An apt example that illustrates this is when in 2003, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong announced, “In the past, if we know you’re gay, we would not employ you. But we just changed this quietly” (Wayne 2003). This statement was intended to mark a change in the government’s employment policy, allowing homosexuals to occupy positions in the civil service, even “sensitive” ones, on the condition that they declare their sexual preference (Wayne 2003). In effect, this declaration is the government’s admittance to discriminatory employment practices based on sexuality. Sexuality in Singapore is thus not only about the sexual act, but rather, it becomes an identity that goes on to define someone as ‘gay’. Once the identity is constructed, discourse then sets in to posit ‘gay’ people as untrustworthy citizens who should not handle sensitive information within the civil service.

The discursive construction of gay people as untrustworthy or incapable is also evident in military policies, which handle the openly gay people by classifying them under Category 302 of the medical code in National Service7 (Tan 2012). Even though strictly speaking, the observed medical code does not classify homosexuality as a disease, openly gay recruits are nonetheless classified under the same medical code that lists transsexuality, pedophilia and other ‘sexual deviations’ as a disease. Openly gay recruits are usually also relegated to administrative duties that do not have access to sensitive information. This is because military policies operate based on the assumption that gay soldiers are subject to blackmail. The reason such an assumption exists is that a certain ‘lifestyle’ has been associated with homosexuality. At the National Day Rally Speech in 2003, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong stressed that he “[did] not encourage or endorse a gay lifestyle”, citing that “Singapore is still a traditional and conservative Asian society” (quoted in Tang 2012: 89). First of all,

7_{In Singapore, all able-bodied male citizens are required to serve their National Service (NS) by law.}

Full-time service extends for a period of at least two years, while part-time service is required for another ten years (Tan 2012).

(22)

the reference to the existence of a ‘gay lifestyle’ falsely implies that the choice to follow a certain way of life is in sync with all experiences of being gay (Tan 2013). However, it is still important to explore the discursive constructions of the ‘gay lifestyle’. In her analysis of Singapore news, Singaporean journalist Debbie Goh’s (2008) shows that the ‘gay lifestyle’ is often associated with promiscuity and hence, HIV/AIDS. Even as late as 2004, the then-Senior Minister of State for Health directly associated homosexual behavior with the increase in the presence of the disease (Goh 2008). The same minister also banned a social event because it would allow gays to “fraternize” with other gay men, allegedly increasing the potential spread of the HIV infection in Singapore this way (Ho 2012: 33).

Inherent in then-Prime Minister Goh’s factoring of Singapore’s status as a ‘conservative Asian society’ in the discussion of homosexuality is also a reverse-Orientalist discourse (Tang 2012:89). This idea was not a new one since back in 1993, at the United Nations World Human Rights Conference in Vienna, then-Foreign Minister of Singapore Wong Kan Seng, had already said that: “Homosexual rights are a Western issue, and are not relevant to this conference” (quoted in Lim 2004: 1765). From past to present, the ‘homosexuality-as-Western’ discourse has been continually used to justify why Singapore is not adopting a more liberal stance on the matter. In the wake of the debates on the preservation or abolishment of the section 377A, as mentioned earlier, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong also brought up the link between the ‘gay lifestyle’ and Westernization, claiming that the Singapore government made a good call to uphold the family unit in the 1960s when Western countries were experimenting with alternative lifestyles such as hippies and free love (Agence France-Presse 2007). He implied that because of the proliferation of such lifestyles, Western family structures are no longer stable. Following the liberal Western model by decriminalizing male-to-male sexual acts would then mean a threat to the vision of the traditional family as the building bloc of society (Agence France-Presse 2007). What he meant by the ‘traditional family’ had previously been specified to mean a married heterosexual couple with children brought up within that framework of a stable family unit (Obendorf 2013; Oswin 2009). Clearly, the official narrative conceptualizes ‘family’ in a narrow way that marginalizes not only same-sex kinship relations but also any other diverse kinship relations.

Interestingly enough, the state’s discursive construction of the homosexual is not exclusively negative. Former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who had

(23)

previously questioned the criminalization of male homosex (Reuters 2007), had also recently expressed, “It is probably half-true that homosexuals are creative writers, dancers, et cetera. If we want creative people, then we [have] got to up with their idiosyncrasies” (Lee, quoted in Obendorf 2013). Perhaps it is the positive association between homosexuality and creativity that is the reason for the observed increase in space allowed for the LGBT community (Lim 2004). This was to the extent that gay and lesbian parties were bigger than Australia’s Mardi Gras parades and the number of male saunas and lesbian nightclubs in Singapore were more than in Sydney (Yue 2006). However, the government sets limits to growing gay visibility since it is contradictory to the conservative moral values that the state’s leaders predicate national identity on. This the reason that there have been instances when the government used HIV/AIDS discourses and banned outdoor gay events in order to put homosexuals back in place8 (Offord 2011).

Clearly, the government adopts a rather inconsistent approach to homosexuality. This is already evident in the paradox inherent in the constitution of gay sexual acts as a criminal offence while at the same time assuring that gays are free to lead their lives. The paradoxical approach is further manifested when studying the contradictory state discourses. Through discourses, homosexual bodies have become “naturalized as symbolic bearers of the moral degeneracy of the West” (Tang 2012: 89). On the other hand, gay people are perceived as creative and are given space to grow.

In order to understand what rationale the government has behind such an approach, I refer to the concept of ‘illiberal pragmatism’ (Yue 2012). Yue (2012) argues that the Singapore state recognizes that there are definite benefits that come from the acceptance and embrace of the queer community. Instead of being a form of recognition of the queer community’s entitlement to rights and liberation, the space given by the state for the queer community to exist in represents a pragmatic response in view of the economic benefits that derive from it (Yue 2012). This is especially so because of the increasingly globalized world that Singapore is embedded in that forces the country to have to give off a cosmopolitan outlook. In addition, she had previously observed that there has been an emergence of the “new creative economy where gay entrepreneurship, gay foreign talent and gay indexes are actively wooed”

8_{The Nation Party (an outdoor gay event held on Singapore’s National Day) was banned because it}

(24)

(Yue 2006). Nevertheless, the state has built national identity on conservative moral values and a liberal attitude goes against this. Hence, limits are set to curtail the excessive flourishing of the queer community, once again representing the mixed signals that the government gives off.

Yue’s (2012) idea that the state practices ‘illiberal pragmatism’ has also been echoed by other scholars. For example, Lee and Tan (2007:199) postulate that the “second face” of the government that is “more liberal and open to sexual diversity” is meant to “attract and retain members of the creative class” by leading them into thinking that Singapore is a stimulating environment for work, life and play. It is essentially a façade of liberalization as the Singapore government is “trying to capitalize on the moral indignation of conservative Singaporeans without sacrificing the economic advantages of courting the global resource of talent and capital.” The state does not actually make real changes because of the excuse of an “imagined conservative majority.” Ultimately, everything that the government does is related to strategic calculations to maximize power, with special focus on the economic gain derived from any decisions (Lee and Tan 2007). Similarly, Tan’s (2009: 133) analysis of Goh’s statement about the government employing openly gay civil servants interprets the declared openness and tolerance to be an attempt to “market the “difference” [sic] of its sexual minorities to appear cosmopolitan and attractive to the “creative class” [sic] of professional labor.”

It is also worthy to note that there are other players within the discourse of homosexuality. Lee and Tan (2007) have recognized that the discursive regimes in Singapore have produced the ultra-conservative religious homophobes in juxtaposition to the frivolous homosexuals. The reason for the existence of the ultra-conservative religious homophobes is probably because many debates related to homosexuality are often led or triggered by religious groups, especially Christian ones. This was such as in the case of Church of Our Saviour, who posted a controversial banner about homosexuals (Lee and Tan 2007). Another example of this was when a bunch of Christian women allegedly staged a coup within the women’s rights organization, AWARE9 (Leong 2012). The reason cited for it was that there was a “gay turn” of the organization, where among other events, homosexuality was taught to students as something that should not be seen as negative (Leong 2012).

(25)

Having looked at some local discourses, the next section will look at how Singapore’s location within the transnational field in order to further understand the issue of homosexuality in Singapore.

2.5 Straddling the ‘East’ and ‘West’

Much of this paper has already pointed to the Singapore state’s emphasis on good transnational relations, particularly for economic purposes such as trade. This is the reason that Obendorf (2013) emphasizes that gay activists should take special note of transnational processes. He argues that the discourses of homosexuality are intertwined with the country’s “embrace of global economic integration and its attempts to reshape itself as an ideal destination and competitive hub for transnational flows of commerce, finance, tourism, expatriate labour and knowledge-based creative industries” (Obendorf 2013: 232) Much like the scholars aforementioned, Obendorf (2013) uses this to explain why the government permits the expression of certain aspects of queer social, cultural and sexual life while simultaneously denying concrete steps towards socio-legal reform.

Because Singapore also emerged as an independent nation against a history of British colonization, English is the lingua franca, placing its people in the position of being especially receptive towards transnational influences, especially Western ones. In Ho’s (2012) account where he described Singapore as neo-Victorian England, he found remarkable similarities between the way Singapore’s policies in relation to queer issues. What was especially interesting was his remark that Singapore’s inheritance of the English language meant the inheritance of accompanying linguistic discourses of “phallogocentrism and self-deprecating colonialist otherness” that was “deleterious to its national identity” (Ho 2012: 35).

Even though Singapore looks to the rest of the world in much of its development, this does not mean that Singaporeans have not been able to build their own sexual subjectivities within the discourses. In Singaporean sociologist Shawna Tang’s (2012) study, she questions if modern Singaporean lesbians are considered poor counter evidence to global gay colonization. Tang (2012) recognizes that even though lesbians tap onto global discourses pertaining to gay rights, desires and freedoms in forming sexual subjectivities, their ideas are reconfigured to produce unique, local identities and practices. She argues that Singaporean lesbians strategically appropriate local and global cultural resources that gives rise to their

(26)

embodiment of a sophisticated model of sexuality that mediates between the local and global in “contradictory, complicit and contingent” fashion (Tang 2012: 84). For example, the women in her study interpreted and defined Western identity categories according to their individual understanding. She used ‘lesbian’ and ‘queer’ to refer to the participants and ‘gay’ to refer to the Singaporean homosexual community as a whole. The term ‘queer’ meant little to the individual lesbian and was not perceived to be an inclusive identity as implied in global understandings and held rather negative connotations like being ‘abnormal’.

The same was showed in Singaporean anthropologist Chris Tan’s (2011) study of Singaporean gay men. He found that gay men in Singapore prefer to ‘go home’ with their boyfriends rather than ‘come out’ to their parents because of the Confucianized environment that emphasizes social positionalities over individual rights. This is in contrast with Anglo-American models that emphasize coming out in order for gay men to match their outer self with their inner self. ‘Coming out’ is done with siblings, friends or colleagues but often not with parents. Rationales for not coming out pertain to not wanting to hurt or shame their families, while at the same time also not wanting to be driven out of home. Tan (2011) posits that by ‘going home’, tacit familial acceptance is more easily gained. However, it does not challenge the heteronormative status quo and retards local gay activism.

In the next section, I look deeper into the local discourses of Singapore to question if the gender differential that exists means that gay women are not marginalized.

2.6 The Gender Differential

By now, it should be quite evident that dominant discourses on homosexuality have surrounded the male body. Ho (2012) posits that the default national body is that of the Chinese male heterosexual. This explains why the statute that criminalizes homosexuality only touches on male homosexual acts. Singaporean sociologist Laurence Leong (1995: 14) commented that the “absence of discourse on lesbianism” effectually implies that, “officially, lesbians do not exist in Singapore”. For Lim (2004: 1765), the lack of recognition of lesbianism can be construed as “even more extreme form of oppression”. Since the law does not criminalize lesbian sex acts, this also means that lesbians ‘techniques of the self’ is not as much shaped by a fear of surveillance as compared to gay men (Lim 2004).

(27)

However, lesbians are still symbolically oppressed because Section 377A exists as a mechanism for the government to evoke a state of acquiescence with respect to the definition of what kinds of lifestyles ought to be celebrated (Hor 2012). In the Singaporean case, the law symbolizes the stance of the government beyond male homosexual acts. It acts as the marker of the government’s official stance against homosexuality and influence everyday practices of lesbians too because of the ability of modern law to “operate in the perspective of the complete lives of individuals rather than just to prevent certain actions” (Tadros 1998). In fact, it is clear from the instance when a Member of Parliament, Peh Chin Hua, criticized lesbians for their expressions of sexuality through defiance of predominant gender norms by dressing up “like young boys” at a private party (Lim 2004: 1773).

In the next section, I conclude this chapter by reviewing the implications of what I have discussed.

2.7 Conclusion

I have argued that the Singapore state’s approach to homosexuality can be understood through Foucault’s concepts that relate to technologies of domination and discourse. The regulation of homosexuality in Singapore has followed a rather Foucauldian progression from a more overt form of suppression to one that is slightly more subtle. As such, the unenforced statute that criminalizes male homosex acts as part of a regulatory scheme to produce ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault 1977). While regulation still occurs in media outlets, it has become subtler and the Internet has provided a platform for the proliferation of reverse discourses. In Singapore, homosexuality is linked with “sickness, perversity, degeneration, shame, immorality and the ‘Other’” (Ho 2012: 34). At the same time, however, the state seems to be allowing more space for gay people to occupy as they are deemed to be creative individuals. As much as Singapore is embedded within transnational relations, Singaporean gay individuals have still been shown to display the ability to configure themselves according to local discourses rather than global ones. It should also be noted that in Singapore, gay women are also marginalized even though this is not explicit in the statute, which only criminalizes gay men. This is because it is there, as a symbolic mechanism to clarify its position as one that is against those that do not conform to its model of sexuality.

(28)

In my next chapter, I present the summaries of the interviews with my respondents and the themes that emerged from their experiences.

(29)

THREE

Gay Identities and Experiences

3.1 Introduction: Deconstructing Gayness

Early in the interviewing process, I was struck by one of the comments that my interviewee made. I was speaking to Moses and found out that he was attracted to both men and women but identified as gay. He said, “I still am attracted to women, it’s just that I identify myself, I just identify as gay.” At first glance, it is strange that someone who should identify as ‘gay’ should also remark that he is attracted to women. We might think, “If he is attracted to women too, he is bisexual, not gay.” Had Moses really misinterpreted the concept of ‘gay’? Or was he unaware of the concept of being ‘bisexual’? I found out that both of these were not the case. Moses had made a conscious decision to identify as ‘gay’ instead of ‘bisexual’ for various reasons, which I shall state in the following sections. The main point that I am trying to make now is that, like Moses, many of my gay respondents have problematized identity issues. I regard this as a display of reflexivity about the dominant discourses that intertwine with homosexuality in Singapore. The main question that I pose in this chapter is: How do gay men and women narrate their identities and experiences in

Singapore? I will look at the summary of the accounts of each of my respondents in

order to give each of them a face and tease out themes to talk about their experiences in this chapter.

3.2 Meet The Gay Men And Women

For this paper, I conducted interviews with 18 participants. In the following, I present the experiences I had with each of them by looking at the key factors that I found were important to their lives.

Jason

My interview with Jason was conducted over Skype and lasted for 4 hours. Jason is in currently in his mid-thirties. Throughout the interview, he emphasized the difference that he felt as compared to his peers from a young age. For him, being ‘gay’ has a lot to do with an all-rounded difference. He first felt a strong connection to the gay community when reading a book regarding HIV/AIDS discourses but he doesn’t

(30)

identify as ‘gay’ as much as before. Shortly after, he came out to his family and friends. He currently does not have any concerns with being out and is living with his partner and his son. Being a Christian himself, he started a support group for gay Christians, which eventually developed into a church. His biggest concern is family diversity policies as he finds that this is the most possible change in the near future.

Jerald (pseudonym)

I conducted the interview with Jerald over e-mail. Unfortunately, this interview was only half-done as he stopped replying. His earliest memory of same-sex attraction dated back to a young age. He entered a stage of self-denial by identifying as asexual and only came to terms with being gay years later. This was mostly because Christianity was a big part of his life in his teenage years. He started to explore his sexuality while he was travelling overseas and is currently out to his friends and a few family members but not his parents.

Jia Kai (pseudonym)

The Skype interview with him took a total of 2 hours. A sociology graduate in his mid-twenties, Jia Kai said that he only made sense of why he never felt comfortable with identifying with ‘gay’ when he came across sociological theories of gender and sexuality. He is not an active participant in the gay community as he finds that problematic discourses are sometimes invoked. He only identified as ‘gay’ when he was studying in Japan for the sake of the visibility of the community there. He is currently in a relationship that his mother does not know of because he feels like the relationship is not stable enough yet. He does feel that his mother will accept him even if he comes out to her about it.

Kai (pseudonym)

Kai is now in his mid-twenties. My two-hour interview with him was conducted over two separate occasions on unrecorded Skype video calls. He started to identify with being gay in his mid-teens when he discovered the name for men who like other men. Kai characterized his anguish with same-sex attraction as a phase that did not last very long. In school, sex education and his peers’ attitudes led him to understand the Singapore climate as non-approving towards gays. He first came out to his mother when he did not deny that the ‘friend’ he brought home was his boyfriend. Now, his

Ambivalently Singapore : studying discourses and subjectivities of gay individuals