31 - Sexual Governance and the Politics of Sex in Singapore

Summary

THE POLITICS OF SEXUALITY IN SINGAPORE

In October 2007, Singapore International Airlines proudly inaugurated the double-decker super-jumbo Airbus A380. It made international news because it was the world's biggest commercial plane with a seating capacity of 471 passengers and 12 first class private suites containing double beds. But the size factor was not the only source of newsworthiness; a “no sex” rule for the first class cabin became the topic of media attention. A seventy-six-year-old Australian who flew with his wife aboard the suite complained that the mis-en-scène for sex was set up (the double bed, the champagne and the romantic ambience) but without the possibility of “doing what comes naturally”.

The acronym for Singapore International Airlines — SIA — could have stood for “Sex In the Air”, but sex on the airborne bed was ruled out. In asking airline passengers to refrain from sexual activities on board, the company official said it did not want to offend other travellers or crew. There was also an acknowledgement that the cabins were not completely private in spite of advertising sales pitch that invited passengers to “experience unprecedented levels of privacy”. The walls, in fact, did not reach up to the ceiling, and the suites were not soundproof. This SIA episode is illustrative of several broader issues about sexuality in Singapore. Firstly, the “no sex” rule appears to be in line with the international reputation of Singapore as a highly regimented society where the authorities zealously create rules to regulate the lives of people. No aspect of human activity, including sex, escapes the clutches of the state.

Secondly, the existence of rules signals prohibition rather than allowance, restriction rather than acceptance. The People's Action Party (PAP) government has often relied on the cultural argument of “Asian conservativism” to forestall any reforms in sexual laws that were originally instituted by the British. In reality, the “ban culture” that Singapore is infamous for is rooted not in Asian civilizational history, but in state intervention in the everyday lives of citizens.