The one-sided moral outrage of the Ivy Leagues–and in particular of my alma mater, Yale, where I received an MA in history–is a sight to behold. For decades, Yale and the other Ivies refused to host ROTC on campus because of the military’s discrimination against gays. That stance was only reversed last year after the lifting of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Yet now Yale is opening its first-ever foreign campus in Singapore in cooperation with the National University of Singapore. This, in a country with an authoritarian political system that not only criminalizes homosexuality but even political protests and political speech.
Singapore is not the People’s Republic of China but nor is it Taiwan; it is rated by Freedom House as being only “partly free.” Freedom House notes: “Academics engage in political debate, but their publications rarely deviate from the government line on matters related to Singapore. The Societies Act restricts freedom of association by requiring most organizations of more than 10 people to register with the government, and only registered parties and associations may engage in organized political activity. Political speeches are tightly regulated, and public assemblies must be approved by police.” In keeping with this policy the new Yale campus “won’t allow political protests, nor will it permit students to form partisan political societies.”
Moreover, as Wikipedia notes, the Singapore armed forces discriminate against gays, who are grouped in a legal category known as Category 302, which applies to “homosexuals, transvestites, paedophiles, etc.” and further classified into those “with effeminate behavior” and those “without effeminate behavior.” Gays are put through modified basic military training and after graduation have severe restrictions on their military occupations, which limits their access to sensitive information.
Little wonder that many Yale professors are protesting the new campus. But Yale’s management appears not to care that the university is giving a graduate-level class in hypocrisy.
What did you see in that Wikipedia piece that was not factually correct?
As I have said the categorisation is not a discriminatory process and I have suspect reasons as to why it exists. But I am not the policy maker in the army so I can only guess that it is the same reason as to why female regulars have to sleep in separate bunks. n nNote that, I have known of cases where people pretended to be gay to escape BMT and also cases where people pretended(only in front of the medical officer) that they are not – note that everyone else knew. Case in point, you do not get persecuted in Singapore as gays unless you are talking about social discrimination which is really more of a cultural thing. n nBtw, do you know that oral sex is illegal in Singapore? Now do you think anyone is ever going to get arrested for that in the way it is falsely portrayed in the Wikipedia article with 3 footnote?
Okay somehow my previous comment didnt go through the moderation process…So heres another try. n nAs I have said the categorisation is not a discriminatory process and I have suspect reasons as to why it exists. But I am not the policy maker in the army so I can only guess that it is the same reason as to why female regulars have to sleep in separate bunks. Malays are also(?) not allowed to work in the Ministry of Defence for again suspect reasons, not much hoo-haa over here. n nI have known of people who have pretended to be gay to escape BMT and the opposite, gays who pretended not to be(only in front of the medical officer) so as to serve the country(not to escape some form of legal persecution as the Wikipedia article imples). I have also worked with a gay in the Ministry of Defence. So as far as I know, there have been no persecution legally but as for social persecution that is pretty much cultural. n nAlso, do you know that oral sex is illegal in Singapore, do you think anyone ever got caught for that?
Why don't they open a campus in a tolerant, democratic county like Israel? nJust asking…
"For decades, Yale and the other Ivies refused to host ROTC on campus because of the military’s discrimination against gays." n nYeah- that's the reason they GAVE- it wasn't the initial reason- and I suspect keeping military types off campus was the primary reason.
I love how Grandice Sze uses "military occupations are dreaded in this country" as a parting excuse. Perhaps Grandice would better get an undertanding of the authors intent by looking up Section 377A of the Penal Code of Singapore n n"Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years." n nThere's your fact.
It's not a parting excuse, I'm just stating that military occupations are not as glamorous over here as opposed to in the U.S. n nI'll admit I can't argue over the blatantly discriminatory law over there. But the fact of the matter is there has been no prosecutions using that law and there are definitely "indecencies" with gays. nI have even been surprised by the gay pride run in the central Orchard area. n nNow, I can agree with the author's point of view that Singapore is relatively "less free" than America but if he brings up gay discrimination and quotes Wikipedia as points, I can't really see that in Singapore. Yes there are archaic laws but they aren't practiced. n nAlso, there are no severe restrictions on their military occupation, this however does apply to Malays due to our neighbouring countries(though I doubt this would gain as much sympathy from US readers). nPolitical freedom on the other hand is definitely stifled.