Can Singapore be a Liberalised Society?
If Singapore is fast in becoming a developed country, why are we still at snail-pace towards a liberalised society? The grotesque photograph on the left provides me the answer.The 2007 anti-smoking advertisement (left) which aired on TV at prime time last week caused a stir among some viewers, calling the image too scary and disturbing to kids. Health Promotion Board said it would review the complaints. If the noise makers prevail, the objective of nailing the health message to more people will be significantly dampened. (Read a public's letter to ST Forum, titled "Children the very group who need to see 'shocking' anti-smoking ads")
I want Singapore to be liberalised but when we made those kind of noises, we are sending a message to the Government that Singaporeans are not ready for new norms. Whether it is violence, sex, alternative lifestyles or whatever unorthodox trends, I am irked at the fact that we act like mental retards who are incapable of protecting ourselves from these invasion of new ideologies, and need an external party, such as the Government, to shield us from the so-called bad influences. If I were wrong of such perception, tell me then why the fuss over a creative advertisement that is intended to curb smoking? The Government has always balanced itself between placation and adamance in managing what is acceptable to our society; the noise makers in Singapore make their job much easier.
The issue of a 4m-tall painting of a nude woman by Beijing artist, Chen Xi, cited an example where the authority was adamant on its rule that "nude or erotic artworks cannot be displayed in venues easily accessed to the general public, including children and youths." The painting was therefore prohibited for display at the atrium of the Ministry of Information, Communications, and the Arts (Mica) building where the main exhibition organized by SooBin Art Gallery was held at its ground floor. It was, however, not banned at the gallery premises. The reason given was that Mica, being the building's landlord has to comply with Media Development Authority's guidelines. The Government may be oblivious of its ambivalent attitude towards promoting arts in Singapore, but other critics have not. Since they did not ban it totally but allowed the painting to be displayed at an appropriate location, it's hard to point finger at anybody because such a move was deemed to have relaxed the society by shifting away from censorship to classification.
While Chen Xi's work was lucky to be displayed in Singapore, local famous photographer, Leslie Kee's photography book "Super Stars" have to look for greener pasture online and in Hong Kong, where the promotional exhibition of the book was held (left). Despite the book's charity cause to the vicitm of 2004 Tsunami, it was banned for sales at local bookstores. The authority aruged that "It contains numerous pictures of Asian personalities in full nudity with pubic hair and genitals clearly visible". In both cases, the authority's restriction of access to nude or erotic artworks was across the board - meaning Singaporeans at large. It doesn't matter whether we are above 21 or below. The authority has decided for us that such materials are not suitable for our state of mind. Why do we need them to tell us what are good for our intellectual or visual consumption? They should downplay its role as the mother hen and let's her chicks roam freely.
Following Chen Xi's incident, The Straits Times ran 2 full spread of an article on the greatest nude masterpieces with photographs of the male and female genitals in its full glory. Isn't it ironical that the 4m-tall painting of a nude woman is excluded at its exhibition premise at mica building, but more are made available in the form of still images at the convenience of our home? Should parents censor the newspapers daily and remove undesirable pages from their kids? In the unfortunate case of the talented Leslie Kee, so what if pubic hair or full frontals were shown among his works? Priced at USD$300, I'm sure bookstore owners will take extra measure to protect their "Super Stars". The books will definitely be shrink-wrapped and displayed behind the staff counter with no browsing allowed (even upon request.) If the display of male pubic hair is of concern to the authority, we should also ban showering naked at the open area in the changing rooms of all swimming pools? Otherwise, young boys will be exposed to not just pubic hairs but penises and more of the same sex.
The authority is protecting us from pornographic materials which ridiculously, the "Super Stars" photography book is associated with. If pubic hair or genital is considered pornographic, we are all walking pornography in our shower room. The label 'pornographic' in Leslie Kee's artworks is a smoke screen for the homosexual innuendo projected by the naked male super stars, a lifestyle that the Government has never been in favor of promoting. The media also sings the same tune in its concerted effort to tarnish the image of our gay community. Anyway, the crux of the issue here is how does one judge if nudity is pornographic or artistic? Can't arts and pornography co-exist? Are erotic arts pornographic? I was at the Sex Museum in New York last Summer and on its first floor, the exhibition was about Japanese erotic arts. Will the authority allow such exhibition in Singapore? Does the authority perceive the illustration of the various sex positions in Kamasutra as pornographic? In my opinion, whether nudity is regarded as arts or pornography depends on how it is marketed and how the consumers think. If I insist on an argument, bodybuilding magazines have a stronger homosexual innuendo than "Super Stars". Afterall, semi-naked, muscular guys with big pecs and guns are the objects of lust for many gay men. Bodybuilders are no better than male strippers flexing on stages, and God knows how many men at the bodybuilding shows are there in the name of sports and not for the muscles candies. Get my point?
Last week, I met up with my boyfriend and his co-workers from the US and Australia. A few of them told me that there was nothing much to do in Singapore - translated into a less polite way, we are boring. For the past 2 weeks, there had been extensive reports in the newspapers written with a clear objective to sell Singapore to foreigners. We may have all the edges over most countries, especially in area of safety, but we are still far from the big cities like New York and London, which the government is trying to emulate. The plain fact is that to emulate the success of these cities, we need to look beyond its economical and infrastructural development and start liberating our people in other intangible areas like freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of lifestyles. Before we even get close to become the eastern Big Apple or Big Ben, we should first try to emulate Hong Kong first. Like Singapore, the population is predominatly Chinese but it is not at all conservative - both the citizens and their government. I saw gay and straight porn magazines for sale on the street and at conventional or GLBT bookstores. The community even published their gay porn magazines and have offices in Hong Kong. Singapore will forever be an orthodox society if the Government continue to think that we can never accept such deviation from a "clean" image (devoid of pornography or alternative entertainment) which we have uphold for 42 years. I am not saying that we should become the 'sex in the city. However, we should be on par with developed countries in relaxing rules on adult entertainment. This could be another source of revenues for Singapore besides cigarettes.
In the CNN interview on 11th Demeber 1998, our then Senior Minister, Lee Kuan Yew was quoted as saying this in reply to an unnamed gay caller:
"Well, it's not a matter which I can decide or any government can decide. It's a question of what a society considers acceptable. And as you know, Singaporeans are by and large a very conservative, orthodox society, a very, I would say, completely different from, say, the United States and I don't think an aggressive gay rights movment would help. But what we are doing as a government is to leave people to live their own lives so long as they don't impinge on other people. I mean, we don't harass anybody".
This was a diplomatic answer and I totally agree that our society plays an active part than the government in the gay matters. However, the Government should take a bold step and adopt the similiar approach to that of the casino's issue: Singaporeans aired their objection against the building of a casino but the Government still went ahead. In the same way, the authority should also allow sale of "Super Stars" and other books alike locally. If alternative lifestyle fiction or non-fiction books are available here under the category of "Gender Studies", why can't it exemption be extended to gay lifestyle magazines like "Gay Times", "Instinct", "Out", "Advocate" etc? Does it mean that books with all words and no photos, pictures or graphics are not viewed as promoting alternative lifestyles or pornographic in nature?
Attracting foreign talents or tourists to Singapore also means attracting gay men and women, who are highly talented and professionally gifted. Since the Government has already allowed gay men to work in the public services, it is time to revamp Singapore into a fun and liberalised society to attract professionals at large, gay or straight. The authority should start relooking into relaxing rules in such areas:
1) Allow exotic dancers or strippers, male or female to mingle with the crowds and not just restrict them on the stage. However, house rule is no sex on the premise.
2) Allow stores that sell all adult merchandises, gay or straight, inclusive of porns and sex toys.
3) Allow porn industry with regulations on employment of actors and models. An example would be a Federal compliance statement like this:
"All persons that appear in any visual depiction contained on this site were eighteen years of age or older at the time said depictions were created. All sexually explicit images on this site are being published pursuant to 18 USC 2257."
4) Allow gay parties and parades.
Surely the above move will shock the world and Singaporeans. We are an affluent, educated and civilised nation. It is not hard to push liberalisation to the majority who are already imbibed with western ideologies. As for the minority who are adverse to change, their hullabaloos, if any, will soon die a natural death just like the casino case. With people travelling places, the comparison between Singapore with other liberalised countries is inevitable. Relaxing its regulation and guidelines on censorship will not only make the locals happy but will also change the foreigners' impression of Singapore from 'boring' to 'Xciting'.
