Friday, April 17, 2009

10th entry - Nudism in Conservative Singapore

In Jan this year (around the Lunar New Year period), a couple strolled in the buff down a famous drinking hole in Singapore. Their behaviour sparked a lively debate in several online forums such as Sgforum. Had it been caused by 2 drunks or mentally handicapped/unsound individuals, there would probably not be anything to sensationalize. What was apparently so interesting about this case was that the man was a Swedish exchange student, and the woman was a PhD scholar from A-Star, a leading local agency that drives Singapore's R&D sector. This couple knew what they were doing, and probably knew what they were getting themselves into (read more details in the Asiaone news article).

When I first came to know about this incident, my first reaction was: what on earth were they thinking?! Were they trying to make a statement, and if so, what?

In another more recent case, a Norweigian man was caught having sex in his car with his girlfriend and going at 100kph down a motorway in the UK. The woman was reportedly sitting on her boyfriend's lap and causing him to swerve about because he could not see what was in front of him while driving (obviously!) (read the details in a UK Telegraph article).

We must have read widely about "lewd acts" taking place in all sorts of public places - in swimming pools, on airplanes and trains, even in libraries and playgrounds. Many teenagers find it amusing to "moon" other road users from their car windows and speeding down a highway. Streakers have frequently appeared in the middle of soccer and golf games; some of them are protestors for a cause like environmentalism but most are usually just attention seekers or party spoilers. Due to modern technology, some of these incidents have been digitally filmed using high-resolution mobile phone video cameras and uploaded onto the Internet. Some advertisers even exploit such phenomenon to promote their client's brands.



Many people find exhibitionism rather offensive and would like to see perpetrators punished for their "perverse" behaviour. I would agree with these people in the case of flashers - men who expose their private parts to women to embarrass them or "outrage their modesty" - because I see them as being mentally unstable and therefore a potential threat to society. They should be treated for their mental illness or put away to prevent them from causing harm to others. One day they might expose themselves, but another day they might commit molest or even rape. Similarly, I feel that people who become exhibitionists due to intoxication should be punished not only because of the potential harm they might cause to others as a result of irresponsible drinking or drug abuse, but also because of the harm they inflict on themselves.



I feel that apart from those who are mentally ill or socially irresponsible, other forms of nudism such as those who desire to walk around naked in their own home (away from public view), those who merely want to tease others (i.e. they know that they are being silly) or those who want to make a social statement ("its ok to be nude" or "its my freedom to be who i want to be") should be allowed to do this. In some cultures, it is socially acceptable to appear in the nude in public.



In some specific situations, it might even be beneficial to encourage nudism, such as among children, as part of their education. In the book, Totto-chan: The Little Girl at the Window by Tetsuko Kuroyanagi, pupils at Tomoe Gakuen were encouraged to swim in the school pool "without a stitch on" because the revolutionary Headmaster Sosaku Kobayashi "wanted to teach the children that all bodies are beautiful":

And why did he let them swim in the nude? Because he thought it wasn't right for boys and girls to be morbidly curious about the differences in their bodies, and he thought it was unnatural for people to take such pains to hide their bodies from each other.

Among the pupils at Tomoe were some who had had polio, like Yasuaki-chan, or were very small, or otherwise handicapped, and he felt if they bared their bodies and played together it would rid them of feelings of shame and help to prevent them developing an inferiority complex. As it turned out, while the handicapped children were shy at first, they soon began to enjoy themselves, and finally they got over their shyness completely.

(Page 55, 1999 Asian edition, Kodansha International, Kinokuniya Company)

Coming back to the case of our somewhat courageous but at the same time thoughtless nude couple, in view of the current context of conservative Singapore, what they did was apparently wrong in the eyes of our laws as stipulated in the Miscellaneous Offences (Pubic Order and Nuisance) Act, Cap 184:

Part IV, Section 27A - (1) Any person who appears nude — (a) in a public place; or (b) in a private place and is exposed to public view, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both. (2) For the purpose of this section, the reference to a person appearing nude includes a person who is clad in such a manner as to offend against public decency or order. (3) Where an offence under this section is committed in a private place, it shall be lawful for a police officer to enter the private place without the authority of the owner or occupier of the private place to effect the arrest of the offender. In effecting entry under subsection (3), it shall be lawful for a police officer to use such force as may be necessary to enter the private place. It shall be lawful for any person whatsoever to arrest any person found offending against this Part and to deliver him to any police officer.

I wonder if this legislation needs to be reviewed. It seems to criminalize a whole lot of socially unacceptable behaviour that are being committed possibly hundreds or even thousands of times on a daily basis all over Singapore, and yet it is difficult (if not impossible) to be enforced by the Police:
1) spitting in public place like a coffee shop, market, eating house, school house, theatre or public building; on mass transport, or on any five-foot way or sidewalk of any public road [Section 11, sub-section (1)(f)]
2) burning materials [Section 6, sub-section (1)]
3) using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour in public [Section 13A, sub-section (1)(a)]
4) creating a ruckus (what about people who blast loud music from their car stereos or MP3/4 players on trains?) [Section 14, sub-section (1)]
5) being drunk [Section 18]

The impetus for reviewing the law is the changing norms in Singapore society - law/policy-makers should re-look at whether something socially acceptable or unacceptable decades ago is still relevant now, and whether it is worthwhile to have such laws when enforcement is impractical or even undesirable. Who or what are we really protecting with such laws?

Take "excessive noise" for example (Section 14). What is considered "moderately loud" to some is deemed "deafening" to others. I have a colleague who cannot stand people who talk loudly around her in the office or in public. She would not hesitate to ask someone who has a radio on to turn it off, when everyone else in the room is enjoying the pleasurable distraction. Needless to say, she is hardly popular with anyone, but it is not unimaginable for the law to rule in her favour if she charges her colleagues under the Act (Cap 184).

Yet, when people burn joss paper and all sorts of things during certain religious or cultural festivals or rituals, and produce choking fumes, air pollution, dirty the environment, destroy public property (if grass or concrete floors are burnt), and might even present a fire and safety hazard, we do not see Police enforcing Section 6. Are there double standards in the way we apply the law?

Compared to the foolish and horny Norweigian man and his girlfriend, the brainy Swede and his bright girlfriend were not endangering the lives of others by their "nuisance" behaviour. However, they have been charged in court and most likely to be convicted under the law, and their beautiful future as intellectuals would be over (see latest update by Channel News Asia). For the record, I am not suggesting that we pardon them because of their brains - that would be another set of double standards. My point is why are we so harsh on some people for expressing their views or for displaying socially undesirable behaviour?

Maybe I always like to challenge rules. For instance, I have a tendency to eat food like sandwiches or fruits on trains and buses, but this is not allowed: "No Eating or Drinking - Fine $500". As a rule, I always make sure I neither dirty the environment (e.g. by littering) nor eat something that will give out a strong aroma. Hence, I rationalised that so long as I did not litter or behaved inconsiderately to others, I am not at fault even when I broke this train rule.

However, once I was publicly humiliated by an over-zealous fellow train passenger who scolded me for eating a sandwich. It was 11pm and I was very hungry after working late, so I bought a sandwich and started eating it the moment I boarded the train home. I was observing my own rule and not causing any harm to anybody. As I unwrapped the sandwich and was about to take a bite, the man sitting next to me said "Are you going to eat that?". I said yes, whereupon he shouted at the top of his voice "You dont know how to read the sign is it?" I felt he didnt have the right to behave in that way towards me, and that the rule should only apply to people who littered or were inconsiderate, so I asked him "Why can't I eat in the train?"

Instead of explaining, the man shouted "You educated right? Cant read English ah?". I was puzzled and embarrassed, so I asked him why did he have to shout so loudly. Infuriated, he screamed "Why shouldnt I?!". At that moment many heads turned to look at us, as if we were a quarrelling couple. To end the matter, I apologised to the bully, but he continued his relentless tirade against my flagrant flouting of the rule. I could never understand why he was so harsh, but I ignored him. Nevertheless, this incident taught me a lesson - to be vigilant in reading the expressions of fellow passengers before eating on the train...

For more forum views and opinions on the hapless nude couple, read another fellow blogger's write-up.