Ng Yi-Sheng

In my last article, I mentioned that two things had happened recently that made me shocked and angry at the Singapore government. The first was MDA’s imposition of a fine on Mediacorp for showing a wholesome gay family on TV, a case credibly reported by official news sources. The second is a rather more sordid affair, receiving only underground coverage thus far.

Last Friday, 25 April 2008, there was a police raid at a gay sauna named One Seven. Though none of the clients were arrested, the 74 year-old owner, Sam was injured by the supervising officer and arrested and jailed overnight for allegedly having assaulted the officer, a charge that he denies. No explanation was given for the raid – on being asked, the officers refused to produce a warrant and simply repeated over and over again that they were conducting a “spot check”.

This is the first time this has happened to a sauna here since 2001. I’d been led to believe that such raids were things of the past, like gay club raids or entrapment in cruising spots, back before the government reaffirmed that they wouldn’t prosecute anyone based on Section 377A. But now I’m scared that this recent raid represents a new backlash against gay institutions. The bad old days of police harassment might be back.

What the hell happened?

I’ve read several online accounts of the sauna raid on One Seven that happened on Friday, 25 April. A few conflicting details have come up, and I’m unsure of the accuracy and objectivity of reports, but here’s my potentially-flawed reconstruction of what happened that evening. (To refer to the sources I’ve used, please look here. Anyone with further details or clarification is welcome to post below.)

Around 8pm, a team of plain-clothes officers from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), including two women officers, stopped at a gay sauna named Raw for a “spot check” of an undisclosed nature. They searched the premises and behaved discreetly; ultimately, nothing of note occurred. Later, they (or another similar team) turned up at another sauna, One Seven.

Around 10pm, the staff at One Seven discovered that their water supply had been turned off. When they opened the back door to check what was going on, the CID team demanded entry. When Sam tried to stop them and asked for a warrant, they refused and only repeated that they were doing a “spot check”. About four other police cars also turned up during the scuffle.

An alert was made to the patrons of the sauna: all the lights in the dim areas came on. (This is a standard signal of a police raid in gay entertainment spots.) However, when a woman police officer insisted on entering the space, Sam insisted it was a men’s club and forbade her entry, becoming agitated in the process. The supervising officer then threw him on the ground and twisted his arms behind his back to handcuff him. When he continued to shout, the officer instructed his men to take down the identities of patrons present and to make a video recording of the event.

By now, most patrons had gotten dressed and left the premises without interference. Some noticeably foreign patrons (a Japanese man and a Caucasian man) were questioned and were asked for their identification details. The actual video recording does not seem to have been used as a threat against patrons; the cameraman often seemed more interested in the floor than the people.

As far as we know, no clients were arrested. Several DVDs were removed by the officers, however, and Sam was charged with assaulting (by pushing) the officer who handcuffed him – though he says he never laid hands on said officer – and had to spend one night in jail. He sustained cuts to his wrist and bruises on his left rib, for which he was later brought to Singapore General Hospital for treatment.

Why did it happen?

We don’t know why the CID turned up at Raw and One Seven. For all I know, they’d received a tip-off that Mas Selamat was hiding out at a gay sauna – but more probably, they were investigating based on suspicion of drug use, pornography or prostitution.

Yet the procedure of the raid at One Seven throws up a host of questions. First: why wouldn’t the police explain why they were there? I’m not surprised they didn’t produce a warrant – they probably didn’t have one, since Singapore laws allow police to enter establishments without warrants to check on licences or stolen property. But shouldn’t they have explained what they were after – unless they were intent on hiding something?

Second: why did they resort to such violent means of investigation – shutting off the water mains, bursting in through the back door rather than the front door, and calling in additional police cars? They know about the function of the gay saunas – it’s no secret – so why did they bring along women police officers?

What these actions suggest is that one motive for the raids – a secondary motive, if not the primary one – was to chasten and humiliate the operators of gay saunas; to ensure that they were as compliant and obedient as the operators of Raw and to punish them further if they were as recalcitrant as Sam.

(Doubtless, Sam behaved unwisely in protesting the entry, but what happened to him reeks of injustice – though I’ve no way of knowing the truth behind the assault charges, I’d find it quite believable that the police fabricated them as they did in the case of Chee Siok Chin.)

Third: why, really, did the police start recording people’s identities? The fact that this happened only to a few patrons at only one sauna suggests that it was driven more by spite than by procedure. But the fact remains that although Section 377A wasn’t enforced – i.e. men weren’t prosecuted for gay sex – they were still being persecuted for it.

Is this what we’ve fought for? Is this the quality of the government’s assurances that the law’s only there for ceremonial purposes?

What does it mean?

The police in Singapore have a recent history of harassing owners of gay establishments – it happened in both 2006 and 2007 in conjunction with the IndigNation Pride Festival. (See http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-631.htm ).

And yet, this case is worse. You see, before this, I’d been able to correct my friends abroad whenever they exaggerated Singapore’s levels of homophobia. Yes, I’d tell them. We’ve got stupid laws, but no-one gets charged. We’ve got ignorant citizens, but very few of them are violently bigoted. We’ve got stupid censorship rules, but they’re slackening.

On the whole, I’d tell my friends, we’re getting better. Queer visibility and queer community-building are improving every year – ten years ago, we’d never have believed we’d have the levels of acceptance we do today.

But now – bam. We’ve got a sauna raid. This reverses seven years of progress in Singapore’s gay rights. Is this part of a new official policy? We don’t know. We’re back to living in fear.

And this comes right after that MDA censorship of a gay couple with a kid. As a gay man, it feels like I’m being attacked on both sides. The government doesn’t want me to be mature and have a stable relationship with a family. The government doesn’t want me to be slutty and have sex in saunas. What am I supposed to do? Turn straight? Go celibate? Or – more practically – emigrate?

We can emigrate, you know. Many of us gay men and women have skills that make us desired abroad. Imagine if we all left tomorrow: the arts scene, the design industry, the advertising companies, and a good lot of our sports teams – they’d break down. Bye-bye, Singapore the creative hub; hello, Singapore the dullest city in Southeast Asia.

Hopefully, I’m wrong. The problematic events of 25 April might not be driven by new homophobic policies, but simply by a few unprofessional, prejudiced individuals. Of course, that’d still mean that our police force doesn’t have enough checks and balances to address its abuses.

In the meantime, Minister of Home Affairs Mr Wong Kan Seng, do please keep your boys and girls in blue focused on important affairs like missing alleged terrorists and rapists and murderers and, oh, maybe even a little effort on petty crime would be a good idea. Why send them over to rough up a sauna? Let them behave with a little dignity.

And don’t give us gay people shit. You know this country needs us, and we can vote with our feet. Give us some respect.

Addendum:

A gay sauna, for those of you who need clarification, is a place where gay and bisexual men meet to have sex. And yes, before you ask, I’m aware that many people (gay and straight) find them disgusting.

Putting individual systems of morality aside, however, saunas cause no harm. These establishments are locations where consensual sex takes place, usually private and almost always with protection, presenting a safe alternative to outdoor cruising. Prostitution does not occur inside; social bonding and casual conversations do.

There are a number of gay saunas in Singapore, and several media exposés – tabloid newspapers and TV – have been done about them. The truth is, they’re old news, and they don’t get shut down because the government itself recognises their harmlessness.

(Yes, I myself have patronised these places. This of course means I am biased, but I wish to stand as a witness to their acceptability in society.)

Read also: Homophobia Part 1: The MDA censors the family

About the author:

Ng Yi-Sheng is a full-time freelance writer of poetry, drama, fiction, journalism, criticism and corporate hype. He is the author of the best-selling non-fiction book “SQ21: Singapore Queers in the 21st Century”, which was the first book of coming out stories in Asia to feature the real names and photographs of ordinary gay, lesbian and bisexual people.

—————–

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

告《网络公民》读者书:诚挚呼吁读者们襄助

各位网络公民读者你们好: 诚如各位所知,《网络公民》最近正蒙受政府加大力度打击,对我们提出法律诉讼,或不断作出各种责难、指控,亦针对我们的员工指控相关“正当性问题”。 此外,主流媒体与当局合力诋毁我们之时,试图抹黑致力去揭露真相的我们。 然而,这只是冰山一角,即使现在的你正在阅读这篇文章,默默支持着我们,但在外头仍然有许多亲行动党的群体或网军正在企图撕裂我们。 尽管我们再怎么坚定不移,努力不懈,接下来我们仍然逃不过面对一场艰苦战役,特别是如你所见,我们拮据的财政状况(如图所示)。你可以想象一个坐拥数百万的政党与媒体,正在轰炸一家如今银行存款仅剩不到1000元的良心出版刊物,可见期间的辛酸与无奈。 因此,我们诚挚地呼吁忠实的读者与支持者,来协助我们打赢这场战役,可以对我们伸出援手,目的是让《网络公民》持续运行,并长期保持运作,直到即将来临的大选(可能是11月底或是明年的4月至5月之间)。 倘若得不到经济上的支持,我们可能会在大选前,面临支付员工的薪资与其他设备,也无法尽可能扩大我们的新闻的覆盖面(估计预算为4万元左右)。 非用于总编面对总理诉讼 再次重申,本次捐款并非用于本社总编辑许渊臣与总理的法律诉讼,而仅仅是为了来临大选的运营开销。 而群众们的善款,将用于支持本社英语和中文独立新闻网站的运营,希望能藉此继续为读者们提供独立、主流媒体忽略的报导和视野。由于今年年初曾创建马来语网站,但因资金短缺,只能被迫终止。 若想要长久支持本社,每月只需6元或每年60元,注册成为本社的订户(显然现在是没有明显好处),以支持我们在新加坡创立独立媒体,坚守中立报导的使命。 以下为本社的注册网址:www.theonlinecitizen.com/membership…

被指未提出具体应对冠病计划 陈清木:直接电视辩论!

针对人民行动党候选人陈振声的言论,新加坡前进党秘书长陈清木表示,若要就冠状病毒19疫情的应对进行辩论,必须是通过电视直播正式辩论。 日前,原贸工部长陈振声表示,并没有看到在野党针对冠病困境提出任何计划。 对此,陈清木今早(6日)也回应,是陈振声应该要先对在野党作出回应,而且是以直播的方式进行辩论。 陈清木也表示,该辩论必须公开进行,双方能够即时回应。 陈清木亦在5日时曾回应,要陈振声和卫生部长颜金勇同他和新加坡民主党主席淡马亚公开辩论应对疫情的计划。 另一方面,针对非选区议员制度,有者表示原副总理王瑞杰指国会在1984年辩论非选区议员制时,当时担任议员的陈清木投下支持票。 陈清木则回应,他并不反对该制度,而是反对行动党以该制度为由,暗示选民勿投票给在野党。

Online media shouldn’t hide behind the veil of anonymity, says Dr Janil Puthucheary

Online publications should not make use of pseudonyms to hide behind the…