Still not solving the "AIDS problem"

"AN APPLICATION for a permit to hold a fund-raising concert for Action For Aids has been turned down by the Media Development Authority (MDA) because it features a gay couple as the main performers.

The MDA confirmed with The Straits Times that it received an application for a concert next week featuring an American couple, Jason & deMarco, as the 'main performing artistes'.

'Based on the duo's website and reports of their performances in the United States, it is assessed that their performance will promote a gay lifestyle which would be against the public interest,' the MDA said in an e-mail reply. 'Their application has therefore been turned down."

Note: Since the ST online now requires paid registration to access its original articles, I decided to copy and paste some of its relevant content for future entries.

The background of this fund-raising concert is interesting, to say the least. First, the organisers are "members of a Christian bible study group called Safehaven, [which] is, in turn, part of the Free Community Church, which does not regard homosexuality as a sin". This fact had to be mentioned in the article, not only because it is a curious and unexpected finding, but probably to highlight this to more orthodox Christian fundamentalists, who may retaliate and possibly oppose this particular oddity in their circle.

The other interesting issue is the background of the main performing artistes, a homosexual male couple. Although it wasn't mentioned in the article, apparently they are a monogamous couple, hence the rationale from the church group to promote them. As Peter Goh from SafeHaven puts it, "we wanted to send forth the message to the gay community that a monogamous relationship and responsible attitude towards sex should be the approach to take." (Ref: MollyMeek's entry which is hilarious as usual). I highly suggest reading SafeHaven's reply themselves where you can get a more informed view about their intentions for the concert.

Here then comes the part where we question the ST's (and more broadly, the media and the government) agenda. Even if we assume that they are right, that the increase in AIDS is attributed to the attendance of homosexuals in promiscious parties, what then, besides clamming down on parties, do you expect to do about their individual sex lives? You can't force them to have practice abstinence, neither can you force them to sit down, marry and have kids. What would a reasonable solution be? No doubt, the state, if it doesn't wish to intervene further into the private lives of its citizens, will appeal to moral values, but if even messages such as monogamy can't be preached, what then?

I have no doubt, the most capable people to lead the charge against this oppression, and ignorance are the targeted social group itself. That's why I decided to quote from Au Waipeng, who succintly expresses the problem (check out his interview at the Void Deck):

If the government wants effectiveness in reaching out to the gay community, the government must first examine why they and their "campaigns" are held in such disrepute by their desired audience. And it's damn simple: After decades of homophobic laws and policies, nobody trusts them, nobody believes them.

They have to reverse that. They can begin by repealing the anti-gay laws and conceding that it was a mistake to dismantle the condom booth at the Nation 04 party.

Reading Balaji's recent emails, my impression is that because of the official anti-gay policies, he knows the government cannot quite reach out to the gay community to promote safe-sex education and rational
behaviour. So he seems to be asking for gay people themselves to do the government's work for him. But why should people whom you condemn do your work for you? Why would anyone invest time and money, e.g. to
organise a condom booth, print leaflets and stock up supplies, only to have the authorities come in and tell you to pack up or else face arrest for "promoting homosexuality"?

My message to the minister is this: get real.

Don't be a mere technocrat and work only within your unquestioned confines. Find some courage. Question your government's limiting parameters.