How have OB indicators surrounding the topic of homosexuality changed over time? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Out-of-bounds markers, or OB markers, will be defined in this essay as an arbitrary structure denoting what is permitted for public discussion in the Singapore context. Rather than what is established in black and white about what is acceptable or not, passing an OB indicator is measured by the degree of offense suffered by the state or society, which is something that cannot be determined until such offense is not expressed. . OB indicators are often exceeded when an unpopular opinion is expressed on public grounds and is deemed to disturb the integrity of the national consensus on the issue. Therefore, it can be inferred that the lack of dialogue on the elephant in the room issue may suggest its sensitive and consequently divisive nature. After all, the discussion is almost always expected to end in a final conclusion or compromise, something that the state or society at large may want to avoid or delay. Homosexuality has been and still is one such problem in Singapore. The position of this essay is that the OB indicators surrounding homosexuality in postcolonial Singapore were narrow from the start, indicating an equally narrow and inconsistent discussion on the topic, which can be gleaned in superficial media reports or lack of conversation . Later, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, OB indicators were made more distinguishable with the government's publicized position, meaning that even though the elephant in the room has been addressed, the discussion it doesn't necessarily extend to the public and the state's words seem to be golden. In more recent years, however, several factors contribute to the broadening of OB markers, such as the advent of the Internet, a growing community of pro-LGBT groups, external influences from abroad, or even important local figures who have made themselves heard. This means that the debate on homosexuality in Singapore has gained traction and OB markers are expanding to accommodate the discussion. Postcolonial Singapore society, underexposed or not exposed to the topic of homosexuality, had a limited understanding of the concept of being gay. Homosexuality, seen as a distant and unnatural sexual lifestyle, was covered but the articles did not extend to the civic debate about homosexuality. rights of a gay individual. The first significant mention of Singapore's LGBT community in the news was made by a tabloid newspaper called The New Nation. The headline is “They're different…” with bait-and-switch subtitles like “Who are Singapore's homosexuals? Our investigative team reveals their lives, problems and attitudes after a 4-month investigation” reveal a tendency of press agents to mystify the topic of homosexuality (Singapore's first newspaper articles on the LGBT community, n.d.). Given the implicit consensus that homosexuality was unnatural and against the nature of things, homosexuals themselves preferred to keep to themselves and there was no notable support group calling for debate or recognition, which meant there was no there was no push for conversation from the start. OB indicators have therefore remained narrow along the lines of conservatism for society at large and secrecy within the gay community. However, as the years have passed, homosexuals have become more aware of their lack of rights andrecognition within society, and have increasingly questioned such discrimination. public platforms. This spurred a discussion about homosexuality in which the government also had an interest. For example, in a 1998 CNN International interview with then-senior minister Lee Kuan Yew, an anonymous caller asked him about his lack of rights in the country as a homosexual and a possible future. for people like him, to which Lee replied that Singaporeans are “overall a very conservative and orthodox society”, and speaking on behalf of the government: “let them people live their own lives as long as they don't interfere with other people. I mean, we don't harass anyone." (Lee, KY, 1998). The government's position is most evident in a 2007 parliamentary speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong addressing the retention of section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalizes anal sex between two consenting males. He states that “discussion and debate will not bring (polar groups advocating opposing causes) closer together and instead of creating a consensus, we will divide and polarize our society,” suggesting that any further pressure to openly discuss rights of homosexuality in the law would be counterproductive to the stability and peace of the nation. He recognizes that the party was “right to adapt, to welcome homosexuals into our society, but not to allow or encourage activists to defend gay rights (as) they do in the West” (Lee HL, 2007). Parliamentary speech has probably had the effect of establishing a clear standard on the approach to the issue of homosexuality: as mentioned by Lee Kuan Yew, the government does not “harass”. ” none since the law has been made unenforceable, and this becomes a kind of unilateral compromise asserted by the government. By setting a certain tone for what can be tolerated by legislation, Singaporean attitudes towards the issue are influenced by acceptance of the status quo, marking OB markers quite narrowly even if there is a veneer of discussion. In reality, the OB markers surrounding homosexuality do not go beyond the government's position at the time. The state-sanctioned Singapore Media Development Authority (MDA) prohibits the "promotion or glorification of homosexual lifestyle", which sees legislative restriction of content about homosexuality circulate on media platforms, by extension also limiting conversation. We also consider the Pink Dot SG, a major event that has taken place almost symbolically at Speaker's Corner in Hong Lim Park every year since 2009. The event has garnered strong support both locally and from foreign companies enthusiastic about holding a potential role in breaking Singapore's stubborn position. on homosexuality. The event may promote the right to freedom of love, but this is probably an understatement, considering how, after all, the event is sanctioned by the state. Of course, the event promotes the debate on same-sex love, pushing the community to address the issue of homosexuality. However, another way of looking at it would be that the event is another way of compromise between the state and the gay community: the event is not so much a stimulus for conversation, but a recreation area where the community gays are allowed to safely carry out the symbolic celebration of their existence in society, just as ethnic groups are granted public holidays to celebrate their respective cultures. That doesn't necessarily mean society is eager to celebrate. More recent years see the progressive widening of OB markers as there is a general desire to denounce or talk about homosexuality in Singapore. External influences havecontributed to this, such as the U.S. Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage in all fifty states in 2015. , and most recently, in early September of this year (2018), the Supreme Court of India undoubtedly came to the decision to abolish the ban on gay sex, the same section of the penal code that Singapore retains from its colonial legacy. Pro-LGBT groups, energized by this encouraging turn of events, have used their growing influence and voice to demand the same for Singapore's legislation. This has come in the form of petitions, a newly initiated constitutional case against 377A by a disc jockey, Mr Johnson Ong, and a series of independent opinion articles on social media, such as that from Swing Mag, an online gay magazine on Instagram. The nation was then rocked by debate over the repeal issue, signaling that the OB markers have seriously expanded to accommodate such heated debate. Certainly some groups, primarily religious and pro-family groups, have reacted, indicating the passing of a certain OB marker. For example, the anti-LGBT Facebook group Singaporeans Defending Marriage and Family (SDMF) has fiercely rejected the repeal on social media platforms and does so in the cruelest manner among other anti-homosexuality groups. However, other organisations, such as the Catholic Church of Singapore, have taken a more nuanced position which allows for further discussion: Archbishop William Goh stated that section 377A "should not be repealed in the current circumstances", referring to family unity as foundation of society (Goh, 2018). This suggests recognition of the ongoing debate and does not appear to be seriously offended by the possibility of repeal, but participation in the ongoing debate. This willingness to participate is also another strong indicator of the expansion of OB markers, as groups are not afraid to talk openly about homosexuality. Furthermore, the initiative of eminent and respectable academic figures who formally spoke about homosexuality actually strengthened the relevance of the issue at hand, situating the OB markers even broader. Veteran diplomat and professor Tommy Koh postulates in an opinion piece that there is a "difference between a sin and a crime" and, as a secular nation, "it is not the state's job to impose the dogmas of those religions." In Singapore, there is a separation between religion and state. Church leaders and Islamic leaders should respect this separation." (Koh, 2018). The respect afforded to Koh has its benefits: his words are considered logical, even academic, and contribute to the debate without crossing OB boundaries, even if the content of his opinion piece may well offend Singapore's religious groups in a different context. i.e. being whispered about by a less respected person). In judging the issue of homosexuality and its sensitivities in Singapore, we can look to the slew of memes that poke fun at the debacle without consequence: satire is allowed for both state and society to thrive, strongly indicating that the reach of OB markers they've really expanded since the conversation about it started. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Therefore, this essay postulates that OB markers have greatly expanded to accommodate the debate on homosexuality in Singapore society. While there are minority groups who fiercely reject even the notion of discussion, they do not have the burden of deciding for the entire society what is acceptable to say and what is not. Once Singaporeans got rid of the phrase.