From wikileaks
Classified By: Ambassador Patricia L. Herbold for reason
1.4(d)
Lee Kuan Yew: the Liberalizer?
------------------------------
2. (C ) 2007 turned out not to be a breakthrough year for gay
rights in Singapore, disappointing advocates who had hoped
for a major change. Since Prime Minister Lee Hsien
Loong
came to office in 2004, the Government of Singapore (GOS) has
consciously loosened social controls in an effort to give the
country a reputation for "buzz," even as the government has
maintained tight political controls (Ref B.) The
government
has promoted the arts, licensed casinos, permitted racy
billboards, and even allowed topless
revues. This could not
have happened without at least the tacit approval of Minister
Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who still towers over Singapore public
life seventeen years after passing on the premiership.
Still, some have wondered how comfortable LKY is with these
changes, given his reputation for "Victorian" sensibilities.
3. (SBU) So it was a bit surprising when LKY helped spark a
public debate through a series of public comments about
homosexuality, beginning with a meeting early this year with
young ruling party activists at a popular night
club. As
reported in the press, LYK told the group, "You take this
business of homosexuality. If in fact it is true that
you
are genetically born a homosexual because that's the nature
of the genetic random transmission of genes, you can't help
it. So why should we criminalize it? You have
to take a
practical, pragmatic approach to what I see is an inevitable
force of time and circumstance." In August, LKY told
New
York Times interviewers that liberalized policies toward gays
in Singapore was a "matter of time." But due to
the
sensitivities of "conservative older" Muslim, Chinese and
Indian segments of the population, Singapore would take an
"ambiguous" position, he added. "We say, O.K., leave
them
alone, but let's leave the law as it is for the time
being."
Petitioning the GOS
-------------------
4. (C ) Notwithstanding LKY's foreshadowing of the outcome,
activists and bloggers quickly took up the cause in an effort
to have Article 377A, banning sex between men, repealed as
part of the broader penal code reform. (Note:
There is no
provision of law in Singapore that bans sex between women,
but the idea that Article 377A involves gender discrimination
against men did not become a significant issue in the Article
377A debate. End Note.) An on-line
petition appeared on a
gay rights group website, Global Voices Online, and was
widely circulated by email, eventually garnering nearly 3,000
signatures. While political apathy is the norm in
Singapore,
many noteworthy citizens signed the petition, including
multinational company executives, engineers, teachers, local
media celebrities, as well as civil society
activists. Alex
Au, co-founder of the gay rights organization "People Like
Us", told us he was pleased with the public response, and
noted that previous on-line petitions had not been
particularly effective in promoting change.
No Repeal
---------
5. (SBU) However, in the weeks leading up to the
parliamentary session, local media began to carry stories on
the conservative views of Singaporeans and their strong
support for traditional family values. The
government-influenced Straits Times newspaper published a
survey reporting that over two-thirds of Singaporeans held
negative attitudes toward homosexuality. MP Sin
Boon Ann
observed in the article that the survey reflected the
traditional values of Singaporeans. After a long
period of
public comment, the GOS submitted to Parliament in October
the final draft Penal Code revision bill, which retained
Section 377A.
6. (U) When Parliament debated the Penal Code revision
bill
and NMP Siew Kum Hong's petition later the same day,
nine
ruling People's Action Party (PAP) MPs joined the debate to
support retention of Section 377A. The MPs said the
petition
had prompted residents in their wards to contact them to
express their support for keeping the ban. MP Dr.
Muhammad
Faishal claimed the Malay/Muslim community wanted to preserve
the traditional family unit at a time when it is threatened
by rising divorce rates, single-parent households and work
pressure. MP Ong Kian Min insisted that,
"Singaporeans
simply are not ready to change their family values and
endorse homosexuality as normal." MP Hri Kumar agreed
with
keeping Section 377A, but noted that it was "virtually
impossible" to enforce (There were only eight
convictions
under 377A from 1988 to 2003, according to press reports.)
The
marriage institution is a private arrangement between two
individual parties. So long as it does not bring about any harm to
the individuals concerned or to society at large, laws against
homosexuality or same sex marriage should be repealed. Secular laws
should be there for the benefit of all in a multi-racial society
and not to be use by some as a tool to hold other hostage on issue
that is not even of their concerns whether it is for reasons of
their own personal moral values or because of their religious
beliefs or teachings.
More importantly, by giving approval and recognizing to
same sex marriage, it would give these people the same rights and
access as normal married couples to such rights as subsidized
housing and the right to adopt children to form their own nuclear
family unit.
