Singapore's moral panic: The Ben Johnson Effect

Now enough has been said about the case of the 17 year old prostitute in Singapore - I'm not going to go over the facts in the case. What I want to talk about instead is the response by the netizens. The further the witch hunt went, the more netizens poured over each detail with each post getting angrier and more judgmental whipping themselves into a major moral panic. Here are some of the posts from other blogs on on the topic:
http://www.hollyjean.sg/2012/04/teenage-prostitute-hoohah.html
http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/underage-prostitution-scandal-offenders.html
http://lohandbehold.com/2012/04/23/shame-that-slut/
https://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/sex-the-state/
http://www.nowhere.per.sg/?p=1724

There are plenty more but those are just a small selection. Now everyone's entitled to their opinion on the issue, but let me ask you this: Geylang is the famous red light district of Singapore. It has been the red light district of Singapore since the 1960s, maybe even before that and prostitution is not illegal in Singapore. Geylang didn't spring up overnight guys - and more to the point, it never seemed to bother any of you guys previously. You simply chose to look the other way and allowed consenting adults to do whatever they wanted to do there. But suddenly, everyone wants to condemn those involved in this case - what gives? This stinks of hypocrisy.

You have heard the saying: prostitution is the world's oldest business. Let's focus on the word 'business' and apply some basic principles to it. It doesn't take a genius to work out the principles of supply and demand. The prostitutes and brothels wouldn't be there if there wasn't a demand by Singaporean men to pay for their services. Ironically, Singapore is quite progressive in that prostitution itself isn't illegal per se, but there are certain laws governing prostitution, such as the minimum age of 18. This actually puts Singapore more in line with countries like Germany, Argentina, Spain and Canada where prostitution is legal, but organised activities such as brothels, soliciting and pimping are illegal.

Prostitution is actually illegal in most countries of the world including Russia, China, USA (except Nevada), Norway, Indonesia, Sweden, Malaysia and all of the Middle East. Here's the greatest irony of them all: prostitution is illegal in Thailand. Yes, I almost fell off my chair. Technically speaking, it is illegal in Thailand but the sex industry is massive there anyway with famous places like Patpong and Soi Cowboy. Why they didn't just legalize prostitution in Thailand I don't know - maybe some of my Thai readers can help us out there. But even in places like the Middle East, prostitution still goes on.

In Dubai where I had lived - it was all kept very quiet, very underground. Prostitutes were flown in on tourist visas by their pimps, put up in hotels where they served customers and left the country before their tourist visas expired. Bribes are paid to the relevant people to look the other way. Heck, there was even one hotel (which I shall not name) which had one entire floor dedicated to Russian prostitutes and the Russians pimps ran the show there. It was an open secret amongst the expatriate community and the local Arabs simply chose to look the other way.
                                                                        
Now the anger in Singapore seems to stem from the way the media has named and shamed the 44 men who used the services of this 17 year old prostitute. There was public outrage and widespread condemnation of these men and the greatest shocked seemed to be that these men were not the typical kind of "chee koh pek" (dirty old men) one would associate with prostitutes. Hardly! Amongst the 44 were men as young as 21 - like really, why would a 21 year old need to pay for sex? I can understand if an old man at 71 year old decides to go out with a bang (pun intended), but a 21 year old? Like is he so freaking ugly that he can only get laid if he pays for it? Likewise, there were highly educated, highly skilled professionals like a naval officer, a former senior legal counsel for the National Environmental Agency, an ex-head of strategic planning at Police Training Command, a former executive director of the Singapore Environment Council, a private banker, a former teacher and a former school principal. Most of them were under 40. This really does challenge one's perception of the kind of men who would pay for sex - heck, even I found my own perceptions challenged. Let's face it - given that the pimped charged each of these men between $450 and $750, she didn't come cheap; so she was hardly going to get unemployed men with no money as her customers. Welcome to the world of high end prostitution and we're merely touching the tip of the iceberg here.

These 44 men are but the tip of the iceberg...

The list of names of seemingly respectable individuals have shattered your image of the kind of society you want, the kind of school principals and teachers you have, the kinds of husbands and fathers you have. The question that some of us asked ourselves was this: if such respectable members of Singapore society were frequently this prostitute, how many more are using other prostitute? Remember that these men were only caught on a technicality - this prostitute was 17 at the time she served these men. Had she been 18, none of these would have come to light and there wouldn't be a court case at all.

How many Singaporean men are using prostitutes regularly? How many husbands and fathers play behind their wives' back? Can a wife ever believe her husband again when he says, "I have to work late tonight, please don't wait up for me." This shatters an image of the happy Singaporean family man, the faithful husband and good father. This begs the question: even if she was 18, what about the wives and children involved in these cases? How do they feel about their husband and father paying for sex like this? How many Singaporean wives and children are wondering if their fathers have ever done anything like that as a result of this case?

How many fathers out there are like these 44 men?

During my time in NS, I remember how we were getting ready to send a group of reservists to Taiwan for a military exercise. The SAF were issuing these men with a number of things for their trip to Taiwan including condoms. Of course, we were laughing about it - a friend even blew one up like a balloon and we were playing with it. But I asked a question which seemed silly at the time, but it was still worth asking. "Why are they giving them condoms? What are the condoms for?"

One of the older soldiers explained. "Many of these men will go visit a prostitute when they are in Taiwan. The local Taiwanese prostitutes target Singaporean soldiers because they know they have money and are there in Taiwan without their wives or girlfriends. These prostitutes serve many men and may be unclean, so we don't want our men to catch something and come back to Singapore with a disease. The MO at the medical centre doesn't want to treat all these venereal diseases and we are also protecting the wives and girlfriends in Singapore like that."

He said it like it was a matter of fact - yeah these men are abroad without their wives, of course they are going to visit a prostitute, like it was 理所当然的事, like whadaya expect? Of course this is what happens. Really? I don't know. Now personally, I have never paid for sex before and I don't think I ever will.  I'd like to think that I'm still attractive enough to not have to pay for sex if I want to get laid. Hey, I work out regularly, I take care of myself and I dress very well - Limpeh can still turn a few heads okay? I style myself after my favourite K-pop icons. Perhaps it's a question of pride, but I think that if you have to pay for sex, then it's admitting to yourself that you're quite unattractive and no one would be interested in you sexually unless you offer money. Well, I have faith in my sex appeal! Besides, it's not like I'm as rich as some of the men involved in this case and to pay that much money for a prostitute just seems like a waste of money. Nonetheless, I am a liberal - as long as it is a private transaction between two (or more) consenting adults, I don't have a moral issue with prostitution. It's fine by me but I do draw the line when it involves people too young to make an informed decision about what they are getting themselves into - which is the law in Singapore is trying to protect this 17 year old.

I do wonder why they are naming and shaming these 44 men though and locking them away for what they did. Are they a threat to society? Surely the real villain here is the pimp who controlled and manipulated this 17 year old - and hey, he's not the only pimp in Singapore. There are plenty of other pimps in town, so why not direct your anger at the pimps who run the sex industry rather than the customers?

If you were to look at the wider picture, this episode is also an affront to the morals of Singaporean society. After all, Singaporeans consider themselves a morally conservative society - we're not Dutch or Thai and the liberals amongst Singaporeans are in the minority. This "morally conservative" argument has been used time and again to justify issues like keeping S377A and the hopelessly inadequate sex education syllabus by the MOE. These 44 men were not those at the very margins of Singaporean society, but they are respectable and admired men with good jobs. What kind of society are we really? Are we the kind of society we think we are if these 44 men are the only the tip of the iceberg? Take the former school principal for example - can you imagine what the students at his former school are talking about now? Role play time:

Student: Teacher, do you visit prostitutes?
Teacher: Don't talk rubbish lah, it is wrong to visit a prostitute. I am a married man!
Student: Yeah, but remember our principal? The one on the news all the time now? If he can do it, why not you? He was a good principal. Why did he have to resign?
Teacher: Erm... Complicated. Prostitution is wrong.
Student: But it is not illegal, right?
Teacher: No...
Student: So why is the principal in court for visiting her?
Teacher: Because she is only 17 - she should be in school studying!
Student: But if she is 18, then it is okay?
Teacher: Yes...
Student: Teacher, it doesn't make sense.
Teacher: Well... erm... I cannot explain lah. You go home and ask your parents okay?

What would these students think about their teacher/principal visiting prostitutes?

There is also the concept of 'othering' - let me explain to you what it means. It is a process of choosing your identity by defining what you are not, rather than what you are. Let's take a new restaurant for example: they need to establish a new identity. The manager is giving the brand new team a pep talk and trying to define their brand identity on the first day and makes the following points:

• we do not use cheap ingredients (we only use the best ingredients) 
• we are never rude to our customers, we're not rude like Wild Honey (we're always polite) 
• we never keep left overs overnight, we never serve stale food (we always serve fresh food) 
• we never have a dirty restaurant (the restaurant is always very clean and tidy) 
• we do not serve cheap instant coffee (we only serve quality Barista style coffee) 
• we do not serve tap water (we only serve bottled mineral water) 

Now I made the basic points first in a negative statement, then the brackets is the same point in a positive statement. This is called 'othering' - it is defining yourself by stating what you are not, through a series of negative statements rather than affirming what you are through a series of positive statements. Singaporeans do a lot of othering in the process of establishing their identity. As a relatively young nation, Singapore has worked hard at building a national identity since 1965 - compare this to much older countries like Japan, Iran, China, Spain and Turkey who have a much clearer idea of their identity as their histories goes back centuries. 

How Singaporeans have used 'othering' to define themselves in this context is to label everything that is negative as a foreign problem, such as sexual immorality. Let me give you an example: Madonna's 1992 Album Erotica has 14 tracks but if you had bought it in Singapore - it would only have 13 tracks. They almost banned the whole album given the title, but eventually the MDA agreed for it to be released as long as track 13 "Did You Do It?" was censored as this kind of provocative sexual innuendo was unSingaporean.  Oh no, we're a nation of of conservative family values, we do not want to listen to such immoral filth, we don't want to listen to Madonna singing about having sex in a car. Hahahaha, MDA, so much for censorship in the age of the internet, especially for my Singaporean readers, here's Madonna with "Did You Do It". Please play the youtube video below - honestly, it's so mild compared to some of the songs these days.

Sexual immorality was considered a western thing, a negative foreign influence - it was not Singaporean and many older Singaporeans genuinely believe that. So imagine their reaction when amongst these 44 men, only two are foreign nationals and the rest are locals. It basically rips apart their concept of sexual immorality being a non-Singaporean trait as this is a local scandal involving local Singaporean men using a local 17 year old Singaporean prostitute. There's nothing foreign about this - the whole story is very Singaporean and this has challenged our image of what morals define our society. If this is the tip of the iceberg (remember, these men were only caught because she is 17 and not 18), then what kind of sexually permissive society are we where Singaporean men regularly pay for sex with prostitutes? Have we all been hypocrites all this time by imagining that we're so morally upstanding that we cannot bear to listen to Madonna's raunchy songs about sex? What are our values really and can we have an open and honest discussion about it for once?

This is reflective of the tension in Singaporean society - these married men are coerced into marriages to make their parents happy when they are hardly ready or prepared for commitment so they creep around behind their wives backs because they never ever had any intention to be monogamous in the first place. Whose fault is that? It's everyone's. The parents for imposing their will on their children. The men for not having the balls to say "I am not ready for marriage" and the women for being stupid enough to enter a marriage with a man under such circumstances - everyone is guilty and everyone is at fault.

Why do we have this image of happy families of husband and wife plus two happy children? It's a combination of what the government and the older generation preaches to us because they think this is what will make us happy and what will create a stable society. The government goes out of its way to reinforce that idea from a young age through the education system and if you are still single by the time we're 30, that's when they set the SDU on you. Even the HDB flat allocation system discriminates against singles and heavily favours married couples with children. The government is very clear about what they want: they want you Singaporeans to get married and get breeding, fast. And they're trying to convince you that this is the path to true happiness in Singapore. If that is clearly what you want then fine go for it, but what do you think will happen when men who are clearly not interested in 'happy families' get dragged into that?

Ironically, one medium which the government has used to promote this concept of 'happy families' is the media and the most prolific film maker in Singapore is none other the Jack Neo. Many of his movies celebrate Singaporean family values and he often casts himself as a father figure in his movies. In return, he receives a lot of funding from the government to make more films celebrating 'happy families'. Oh talk about irony, Jack Neo admitted to a two year long affair with a much younger actress and was accused of sexually harassing two other young actresses.

Why are Singaporeans so angry? Well, firstly this has little to do with prostitution given how they've managed to happily look the other way and ignore Geylang's existence for decades. They are angry because their fantasy of happy families are threatened - the fact is, most of us are scared about our futures. We're worried, will we be happy? Will we be lonely when we grow old? Will someone love us? What will happen if I get cancer? What kind of future will I have? And so we're given this simple formula by our parents and the government - have a family and everything will be fine. Really? Is it really that simple? Hell no, far from it. There are so many conditions - I have seen so many friends who have had their marriages break down, only to be forced to stay together as a family unit for the sake of the children. I bet you nobody told you that when they nagged at you to get married eh?

Having a family brings so challenges and is a terribly difficult undertaking- but yet those who have chosen to go down that path cling on to it the same way people cling on to a religion. These people are defending their way of life and they see it under threat by reality knocking on their doors. Heck, Christians react the same way when I tell them I am an atheist and why I reject religion. They fly into a rage and get defensive. Why? These people are insecure already, they need people to tell them, "it's okay, you've made the right decisions in having chosen the path you did" and when anyone tells them the contrary, or when they are faced with evidence that shatters their illusion of 'happy families', they get angry. They don't know how to express it or even define what it is.

Well let me define it for you if you're lost for words: "If even someone like Howard Shaw who is held up as a role model, whose recent marriage made the front page of Singapore Tatler as a fairy tale romance, heck, if even his supposedly ideal marriage can crash and burn like that - then what hope do average, ordinary guys like me have when even my 'happy family' role models have failed?" My older readers will remember Canadian Ben Johnson who won the gold medal at the 1988 Seoul Olympics, only to be stripped of the medal three days later when he tested positive for doping. The euphoria of his Canadian fans turned into shock, anger and bitter disappointment when they found out that Johnson had taken illegal performance enhancing steroids. Johnson went from national hero to public enemy no. 1 instantly. I say we're witnessing a very similar reaction in Singapore right now with these 44 men - I call this the Ben Johnson effect.

Few people know how to deal with a situation like that. Many people need that reassurance that other people who have taken the same route and have made the same choices will turn out fine because they simply do not trust their own choices. In short, they're insecure. They need to be prescribed a winning formula for happiness and success (ie. get married, have a family) and be assured constantly that this formula will work not only for them but for everyone who has chosen that formula. They don't have the confidence to say, "it's okay if someone else's marriage has failed, or if someone else's husband is visiting prostitutes, that has nothing to do with me or my marriage." Instead, their insecurity prompts them to worry, "if they have failed, then what hope do I have of succeeding?" And this then turns into, "damnit, why did you have to fail? I was relying on you to give me hope, now I have no hope and I am angry."

This lack of confidence is endemic in Singaporean culture unfortunately and it is a bad thing. There is a word for it: kiasu. It means "afraid to lose" in Hokkien and I think it is a bad thing. I was incredibly kiasu as a student. I would be afraid to miss a class in case the teacher would be teaching something that would come out in the exam, I would never miss a lecture in case there was something important in that lecture. I trained harder than anyone else on the national team when I represented Singapore because I was so afraid to miss a single training session. I was kiasu personified and that was bad, very bad. If I had the chance to speak to my 16 year old self, I would say this: hey, relax will you? You're going to be alright. Stop comparing yourself to others. Don't worry about studying so hard, don't worry about training so much - just relax. You're smart enough and you don't need to doubt yourself. Yeah you may fuck up a few things on the way but you have got to learn to shrug off those mistakes and not doubt yourself. Stop caring about what others do and stop caring about what others think of you - just follow your heart and believe in yourself.

I finally got there in my late 20s. I was happy to make mistakes and not worry about them, I was happy to see my peers or role models fail and not let that affect me. Most of all, I learnt to believe in myself and stopped being kiasu. And let me tell you this - life is a lot easier when you stop worrying about losing.

Limpeh is happy to dive backwards into the unknown without worrying.