Mormons in the Lion City: Grassroots Diplomacy on Race, Gender, and Family, 1968- 1995

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Keshia Shu-Hui Lai

Graduate Program in History

The Ohio State University

2017

Dissertation Committee:

Paula Baker, Advisor

S.R. Joey Long

Katherine M. Marino

Mytheli Sreenivas

Copyrighted by

Keshia Shu-Hui Lai

2017

Abstract

In 1968, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the

Mormons, began missionary work in Singapore. I use oral history interviews, and archival and library sources to examine the informal, non-state sanctioned grassroots diplomacy that took place between Mormon missionaries and expatriates, and local converts in Singapore. These intercultural interactions had a profound impact on the way

Singaporean Mormons conceptualized race, gender, and family, more so than on expatriates. Expatriates Mormons viewed Singaporeans and the local culture through a

“Cold War Orientalist” lens that bordered on racism. But they were also eager to share their religion, traditions, and other Western cultural elements with Singaporeans, and openly expressed their affection for the local friends they made at church. Their genuine intentions and peaceful efforts to build friendships across racial lines ameliorated the tinges of racism underlying their actions.

For Singaporean Mormons already eager to break away from their traditional

Chinese and Indian religious beliefs and become Christian, the Church served as the vehicle for their religious conversion. The warm hand of paternalistic guidance and friendship extended to them by the expatriate Mormons, only endeared local converts to the Church, and broke down their reservations toward white people. Church membership also gave them access to American culture in ways that other Singaporeans did not experience, without the parts that Singaporean Mormons deemed immoral, such as sexual ii promiscuity. This multicultural experience in the Church allowed them to assimilate parts of their Singaporean heritage and traditions with the values and practices they picked up from the Church and expatriates. In their minds, they were getting the best of both worlds. Furthermore, the Church instilled in them life skills through Church assignments and missions, and provided opportunities for higher education through Brigham Young

University. Church teachings also gave women the rationale to advocate for greater gender equality within their marriages, and strengthened their bonds with their spouses and children. Thus, Singaporean Mormons felt that Church membership improved many aspects of their lives, and explains their loyalty to a church that struggled with a history of racism and sexism. The Church in Singapore also serves as a case study to help scholars better understand how non-Americans at the grassroots level perceived the rise of American global power and hegemony during the Cold War.

iii

Dedication

To my parents

&

The Mormon pioneers in Singapore

iv

Acknowledgments

They say it takes a village to raise a child. I say it takes several villages to get a history doctoral student through the program. I’m still awed and humbled by how far I’ve come since my disastrous first year of graduate school. I would not have survived this grueling and unrelenting journey without the help of these people:

Paula Baker—I had no idea how fortunate I was to have her as my advisor when I started graduate school, and thank my lucky stars that she accepted me as her student. She spent countless hours critiquing my (horrendous) drafts and writing letters of recommendation, and more significantly, saved my sanity with her mentoring and generosity.

My committee members—Katherine Marino, Judy Wu, Robert McMahon, Joey Long, and Mytheli Sreenivas. I could not have asked to work with a finer group of scholars.

The faculty members and the administrative staff of the history department at The Ohio

State University—thank you for your patience and guidance.

The Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Committee, the OSU College of Arts and Sciences, the history department at OSU, the Mormon History Association, the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, and Phi Kappa Phi— thank you for believing in and funding my project.

The Mormon pioneers in Singapore, both local and expatriates—I hope I did justice to your life histories and stories. All of you are an inspiration to me.

v

The staff at the Church History Library of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

Saints, the National Library Board of Singapore, and National Archives of Singapore— I cannot repay your assistance and service. Here is the end product. I hope other patrons find this useful.

My fellow graduate students— Aaron, Adrienne, Andrew, Dani, Hideaki, Joe, John,

Leticia, Sandy, Sara, Spencer, Will, and so many others. The food, the laughs, the commiserating…thank goodness we have social media to keep in touch.

My friends from church and Bible study group in Columbus, especially Breanne, Chris,

Christian, Cynthia, Emily, Josh, Liz, Kelsey, Maria, Marie, Rachel, Sarah, and Scott— greater love hath no Ph.D. student than this, than to include their names in the

“Acknowledgements” section. I also need to thank Su and Jay, Camy, Stacie and Matt,

Amy and Scott, the Dalebouts, Vickie, Francesca, and Shayla for the road trip memories and years of friendship.

My sisters—we are the Lai Sisters. *Boomz*

My parents—it is difficult to express my love and gratitude for both of you because I will get too sappy. I hope you received the message when I dedicated this dissertation to you.

God—He reigns.

vi

Vita

2011...... B.A. History, Brigham Young University

2012 to present ...... Graduate Teaching Associate, Department

of History, The Ohio State University

Fields of Study

Major Field: History

vii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Dedication ...... iv

Acknowledgments...... v

Vita ...... vii

List of Figures ...... ix

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER 1: SINGAPORE ...... 15

CHAPTER 2: MORMONISM ...... 59

CHAPTER 3: MISSIONARIES ...... 101

CHAPTER 4: CONVERTS ...... 165

CHAPTER 5: ASSIMILATION ...... 208

CHAPTER 6: RECONCILIATION ...... 283

CONCLUSION ...... 340

Bibliography ...... 350

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Regional map of Southeast Asia ...... 16

Figure 2: Picture of a kampong in Singapore...... 105

Figure 3: Alice Tan, the first convert in Singapore ...... 114

Figure 4: Cartoon in February 1971 Echo Asia ...... 244

Figure 5: Second cartoon from Echo Asia ...... 245

Figure 6: Picture of the Singapore Mission, 1978...... 248

Figure 7: The "milking cow" station...... 310

ix

INTRODUCTION

“The Americans are great missionaries. They have an irrepressible urge to convert others.” --Lee Kuan Yew, The Wit and Wisdom of Lee Kuan Yew

I grew up in Singapore in the 1990s. In my young, childish imagination, the

United States represented everything that Singapore was not: freedom, adventure, and fun. Everyone drove big cars and lived in big houses. Wealth littered the streets of New

York and other major cities. Job opportunities abounded for anyone willing to work for the “American Dream.” The weather, with its four seasons, was perfect year-round.

American food, including McDonalds and KFC, tasted better than local fare. There was crime in America, but as portrayed in every Hollywood show, the good cop always caught the villains. American high schools and colleges also seemed so much “cooler” than the staid education system I was going through. Even when confronted with

America’s racist history, such as when I read Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird for my

GCE ‘O’ Level Examination (equivalent of Grade 10), I relegated it as a thing of the past.

In short, America, like Disneyland, was a magical land where all your dreams came true.

I was naïve and idealistic, and no doubt many Singaporeans had a more realistic understanding of the United States than I did. However, I will still venture to say that the

1 general Singaporean population had a high regard for the United States, as reflected in the strong economic and political ties of the two countries.

Fast forward to my time in graduate school in the 2010s, where my classes and readings on American history shredded every positive image I had of the United States. I learned of America’s racist, sexist, and imperialistic history that was, contrary to what I thought, not a thing of the past. By this time, social media had become tools to raise political and social awareness, and I could not ignore the postings, tweets, pictures, or video clips from my American friends showing the uglier underbelly of contemporary

American society. Moreover, living in the United States and traveling around the country exposed me to the homeless panhandlers, segregated neighborhoods, crumbling infrastructure, and other negative aspects of the nation. Alas, not even the food could save America: while I still appreciated a good burger with fries, I desperately craved my

Singaporean food. Soon, the United States stopped being paradise to me, and I became heavily critical of this nation.

Yet, when I returned to visit Singapore, I noticed that the overall impression that my family and friends had of the United States remained positive (and sometimes wistful). To them, America was still the land of opportunity and plenty, despite the slew of negative news that abounded in the newspapers and on the internet. And even though

Singapore’s political leaders have not always seen eye to eye with their American counterparts, they still welcomed American leadership and influence in Southeast Asia.

Despite Singapore’s history as a former colony of a Western imperial power (Britain), and the growing influence of China in the region today, Singaporeans are still in favor of

2

American global leadership.1 The contrast in attitudes between the way other

Singaporeans viewed the United States, and the way I did, intrigued me. If American society had a history of racism, sexism, and imperialism, why did the Singaporeans, particularly the ordinary citizens, maintain a favorable view of the United States? Perhaps some of it was due to misinformation or ignorance, but this answer was also too simplistic and condescending to be satisfactory.

Around the time that this historical question was fomenting in my mind, The

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more commonly known as the “Mormon church,” (hereafter “the Church”), came under national scrutiny for the failed presidential runs by Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. The Church received further national attention in

2011 when the “Book of Mormon” musical became a smash hit on Broadway, and garnered nine Tony awards. In 2014, the Church headlined the newspapers again for expelling the president of an organization that sought Mormon female priesthood ordination, and a year later, for changing its baptismal policy for children in same-sex households.2 The culmination of these events stirred up publicity and debate among the members in the United States, with some joining critics in labeling the Church sexist, homophobic, and anachronistic. More than 1,000 members turned up to a mass

1 Gallup and Meridian International Center, “The U.S.-Global Leadership Project: Report for 2011,” http://www.gallup.com/poll/153998/global-leadership-project-report.aspx (accessed June 22, 2017). 2 Laurie Goodstein, “Mormons Expel Founder of Group Seeking Priesthood for Women,” New York Times, June 23, 2014; Sarah Pulliam Bailey, “Mormon Church to Exclude Children of Same-sex Couples from Getting Blessed and Baptized until They are 19,” The Washington Post, November 6, 2015. According to new Church policy, children who lived in households of same-sex couples could not be baptized until they were 18 years old. 3 resignation event in November 2015 to protest the new policy on children’s baptism.3

Others accused the Church of covering up its history of polygamy and the priesthood ban of black men, and publicly announced their intention to leave the Church. Based on media articles, Facebook posts, and statements issued from Church leaders, the Church seemed to be undergoing a crisis of membership in the United States.

However, in Singapore, nary a movement stirred among the local members. There was no protest movement or mass resignations, nor did I detect any silent stirrings of discontent. Instead, some of the members I talked to defended the policies and decisions of Church leaders. The contrast could not have been more jarring.

It was then that I realized the very dissonance I witnessed about the Church reflected the same disparity I witnessed in my own life about the United States and its place in the world. I thus decided to use the Church as a case study for my historical inquiry since the Church originated in the United States, and in the minds of the

Singaporean members, was an “American religion.” I hoped this case study would give me insight into the ways Singaporeans in the 1960s to 1990s viewed the United States and its culture. It was a fortuitous choice because Singapore served as the mission headquarters for all proselytizing activities of the Church in Southeast Asia (aside from the Philippines) in 1968. Church leaders assigned over forty-missionaries to Singapore, and the Church became a concrete “contact zone,” defined by Mary Louis Pratt as a

“social space where disparate cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in

3 Jack Healy, “Mormon Resignations Put Support for Gays Over Fealty to Faith,” New York Times, November 15, 2015. 4 highly asymmetrical relations of domination and subordination.”4 While the clash between this foreign religion and local traditions did not devolve into Pratt’s violent examples of colonization and slavery, the Church remained a contact zone where

Singaporean converts had to adapt and assimilate new ideas about religion and culture.

Whereas most Singaporeans rarely interacted with Americans, and only as subordinates to their expatriate bosses, Singaporean Mormons frequently engaged in informal, grassroots, non-state sanctioned cultural diplomacy5 with American members during weekly worship service and other church activities. Thus, compared to other

Singaporeans, local LDS converts engaged in an unusually high volume of intercultural exchanges and interactions with American Mormon expatriates before 1995. Hence, even though the number of Singaporeans who converted to Mormonism was numerically insignificant (less than one percent of the total population in Singapore), this case study allows us to understand how Singaporeans viewed Americans and their culture, and vice- versa. It was also easier to evaluate the long-term influence that Mormon-American religious culture had on the local members as opposed to trying to quantify, for instance, how American fast food or Hollywood entertainment impacted Singaporeans. There were

Mormon expatriates from other countries (Australia, New Zealand, and Britain) stationed in Singapore, but their numbers were few compared to American Mormons. Hence, even though I use the umbrella term “expatriate Mormons” to refer to all non-Singaporean

4 Mary Louise Pratt, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation (London: Routledge, 1992), 4. 5 In this context, I define “cultural diplomacy” as the exchange of ideas, traditions, and activities between Singaporean and expatriate Mormons to strengthen the religious and personal ties between the two groups. 5

Mormons, these cultural exchanges were mainly between Singaporean and American expatriates.

In crafting my dissertation, I sought to understand why Singaporeans joined the

Church when it first came to Singapore in 1968, when according to historians, the Church had a long history of racism and sexism. How did Singaporeans view the faith, and interpret its religious tenants? What did Singaporean Mormons gain from their membership in a church? In the course of my research, I conducted oral history interviews with the pioneering generation of Singaporean Mormons, converts who joined the Church between 1968 and 1995. The year 1968 marked a natural opening point because that was when the Church began official missionary work in Singapore, while in

1995, the leadership structure of the Church in Singapore fundamentally shifted when it converted from a district into a stake, and Church leaders sifted expatriate and local members into separate congregations.6 In all, I interviewed thirty-six women and nineteen men, of whom all but two were still practicing Mormons. These interviews supplemented the archival research I conducted at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City,

Utah, the Singapore National Archives, Singapore National Library, and oral histories I conducted with several Mormon expatriates (missionaries and businessmen) who lived in

Singapore during this timeframe.

6 Whenever the Church opened a mission in a country, members first congregated in small “branches,” and a conglomerate of five to ten branches was called a “district.” A district was led by a district president, who in turn reported to the mission president, the highest Church authority within that country. However, when a district grew large enough with a certain number of active men who held the priesthood, the district would be converted into a “stake,” with the branches turned into “wards.” The stake president took over from the mission president as the highest religious authority in that country, and directly reported to the Area Authority. 6

The themes that emerged from the research exposed the contrasting perspectives that expatriate and local Mormons had of each other. Expatriates Mormons viewed

Singaporeans and the local culture through a “Cold War Orientalist” lens that bordered on racism.7 But they were also eager to share their religion, traditions, and other Western cultural elements with Singaporeans, and openly expressed their affection for the local friends they made at church. Their genuine intentions and peaceful efforts to build friendships across racial lines ameliorated the tinges of racism underlying their actions.

For Singaporean Mormons already eager to break away from their traditional

Chinese and Indian religious beliefs and become Christian, the Church served as the vehicle for their religious conversion. The warm hand of paternalistic guidance and friendship extended to them by the expatriate Mormons, only endeared local converts to the Church, and broke down their reservations toward white people. Church membership also gave them access to American culture in ways that other Singaporeans did not experience, without the parts that Singaporean Mormons deemed immoral, such as sexual promiscuity. This multicultural experience in the Church allowed them to assimilate parts of their Singapore heritage and traditions with the values and practices they picked up from the Church and expatriates. In their minds, they were getting the best of both worlds. Furthermore, the Church instilled in them life skills through Church assignments and missions, and provided opportunities for higher education through Brigham Young

7 “Cold War Orientalism” refers to the American middlebrow imagination during the Cold War that posited that Asia and Asian culture was inherently different, though not inferior to, the United States and American culture. The United States should therefore expand its influence through a system of reciprocity, rather than violent, imperialistic methods. For a more detailed explanation, see Christina Klein, Cold War Orientalism: Asian in the Middlebrow Imagination, 1945-1961 (University of California Press, 2003). 7

University. Church teachings also gave women the rationale to advocate for greater gender equality within their marriages, and strengthened their bonds with their spouses and children. Thus, Singaporean Mormons felt that Church membership improved many aspects of their lives, and explains their loyalty to a church that struggled with a history of racism and sexism.

The claims made in my dissertation build upon a foundation established by scholars of American international history who advocate for the retelling of the standard historical narrative through multiple perspectives, and the use of multinational archival research.8 Works like Lien-Hang T. Nguyen’s Hanoi's War, for instance, decenters the

Eurocentric interpretations of the Vietnam War, and paints a more comprehensive picture of the conflict through the use of Vietnamese archival sources.9 But the historiography is dominated by scholarship that focuses on state-level diplomatic relations, and only in recent years have an increasing number of scholars highlighted the contribution of non- state actors to U.S. foreign relations.10 Analyzing this peculiar nexus of U.S.-Singapore

8 Odd Arne Westad, The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 9 Lien-Hang T. Nguyen, Hanoi's War: An International History of the War for Peace in Vietnam (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2012). 10 Emily S. Rosenberg, “U.S. Mass Consumerism in Transnational Perspective,” in America in the World: The Historiography of American Foreign Relations since 1941, 2nd ed.,eds. Frank Costigliola and Michael J. Hogan (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 307-337; Emily S. Rosenberg, Spreading the American Dream: American, Economic and Cultural Expansion, 1890-1945 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982); Laura Briggs, Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Sciences, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002); Reinhold Wagnleitner, Coca-Colonization and the Cold War: The Cultural Mission of the United States in Austria After the Second World War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994); Petra Goedde, GIs and Germans: Culture, Gender and Foreign Relations, 1945-1949 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003). For a work that examines how non- states American actors stationed overseas impacted domestic affairs, see Sarah Miller-Davenport, “Their blood shall not be shed in vain”: American Evangelical Missionaries and the Search for God and Country in Post-World War II Asia,” Journal of American History (March 2013): 1109-1132. 8 diplomacy illuminates how people at the grassroots level viewed the rise of American influence and power in the latter-half of the twentieth century, both from the perspective of the Mormon missionaries and expatriates sent to Singapore, and of Singaporeans who encountered Mormonism. In doing so, my work also contributes to the sparse literature that examines the history of U.S.-Singapore relations. Given the close ties between the two nations, and the strong advocacy by Singaporean political leaders for American leadership in the region since the Cold War, the paucity of sources is surprising. I join historians Jim Baker and Joey Long in their endeavor to place the relationship between the United States and Singapore into its proper historical context and perspective.11

Moreover, my project blends together the fields of transnational and religious history in a case study situated in the latter-half of the twentieth century. Transnational history explores how people, ideas, technology and institutions moved across national boundaries, usually by methods other than state-to-state interactions, while the history of religion is an examination of the experiences, ideas and dissemination of religious faiths.

Scholars Pamela Voekel, Bethany Moreton, and Michael Jo have pointed out that the dissemination of religion overseas is “arguably the most successful transnational movement in history,” as evident from the rich literature surrounding nineteenth century/ early-twentieth century American foreign missions.12 Historians of American religious

11 Jim Baker, The Eagle in the Lion City: America, Americans and Singapore (Singapore: Landmark Books, 2005); S.R. Joey Long, Safe for Decolonization: The Eisenhower Administration, Britain, and Singapore (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 2011). 12 Pamela Voekel, Bathany Moreton and Michael Jo, “Vaya con Dios: Religion and the Transnational History of the Americas,” in History Compass 5 (2007): 1604-1639. Two of the most commonly used books about American Protestant foreign missions are William R. Hutchinson, Errand to the World: American Protestant Thought and Foreign Missionaries (USA: University of Chicago Press, 1987), and Joel A. Carpenter and Wilbert R. Shenk, eds., Earthen Vessels: American Evangelicals and Foreign Missions, 1880- 9 history have highlighted the effectiveness of using mission histories as “a prism through which to illuminate many aspects of American culture,” and function as “a mirror for

American self-understanding.” 13 In significant ways, American missionaries, and I would include American businessmen and other expatriates, represented the United States in their overseas assignments, and served as conduits for non-Americans to learn more about American culture. Yet, academics have struggled to examine this aspect of post-

World War Two history, as if American foreign missions suddenly ceased after the war.14

If historians do explore the intersection of religion and American international history after 1945, they focus on the impact of religion on the psyche of political leaders and the formation of foreign policy.15 My dissertation serves as a case study for scholars interested in studying American foreign missions in the latter-half of the twentieth century, and highlights the continued use of religion as a transnational “soft power” tool to disseminate American culture and ideas to the world.16 Moreover, my dissertation

1980 (USA: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990). See also Dana L. Robert, “From Missions to Missions to Beyond Missions: The Historiography of American Protestant Foreign Missions Since World War II,” in New Directions in American Religious History, eds. Harry S. Stout and D.G. Hart (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 378-382. 13 Dana L. Robert, “From Missions to Mission to Beyond Missions: The Historiography of American Protestant Foreign Missions Since World War II,” in New Directions in American Religious History, eds. Harry S. Stout and D. G. Hart (New York and Oxford: oxford University Press, 1997), 381. 14 The study of American foreign missions fell out of favor with scholars during the 1970s and ‘80s because these overseas proselytizing efforts came to be associated with imperialism. See chapter four “A Moral Equivalent for Imperialism” by William R. Hutchinson in his book, Errand to the World, for an example of such a critique. 15 William Inboden, Religion and American Foreign Policy, 1945-1960: The Soul of Containment (Cambridge University Press, 2010); Andrew Preston, Sword of the Spirit, Shield of Faith: Religion in American War and Diplomacy (New York and Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012); Jonathan P. Herzog, The Spiritual-Industrial Complex: America’s Religious Battle Against Communism in the Early Cold War (New York, USA: Oxford University Press, 2011). 16 There are conservative Protestants who argue that the missionary program of the LDS Church is not representative of American foreign missions because the LDS Church is not part of the Christian tradition. More information about this debate is found in Robert L. Millet, A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter- 10 explores facets of cultural diplomacy that historians often overlook, such as the grassroots interactions in which locals and expatriates exchanged food and holiday traditions. These seemingly small, insignificant cultural exchange help illuminate what non-Americans considered “American” and part of “American culture” during the late- twentieth century.

Finally, my work makes an intervention in the field of Mormon history, which up to this point, has been overwhelmingly focused on recreating nineteenth-century North

American (and more specifically, Utah) history, with a sprinkling of works that cross into the twentieth century. While these works are commendable, they cannot explain the rapid growth of Mormonism outside of the United States after World War Two, and the appeal of the faith to non-American audiences. Recent forays into global Mormonism have broken new ground, but the current scholarship on Mormons in Asia remains barren.17

The current literature on the history of the Church in Singapore exemplifies this problem: there are only two published monographs on this topic. Both provide a concrete take-off point for scholars, but they lack the analytical perspective that explains the growth of the

day Saints (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 2005), and Jan Shipps, “Is Mormonism Christian?’ Reflections on a Complication Question,” BYU Studies 33, no. 3 (1993): 438-65. I argue that even if the larger Christian community did not recognize the LDS Church as a Christian denomination, the people in Singapore viewed Mormon missionaries and their outreach efforts as part of the broader movement by American foreign missionaries. 17 Noteworthy books on Mormons in Asia are Reid L. Nielson, Early Mormon Missionary Activities in Japan, 1901-1924 (Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 2010); Shinji Takagi, The Trek East: Mormonism Meets Japan, 1901-1968 (Greg Kofford Books, 2016); R. Lanier Britsch, From the East: The History of the Latter-day Saints in Asia (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1998); Penne D. Conrad, Out of the Killing Fields, into the Light: Interviews with Mormon Converts from Cambodia (Springville, Utah: Cedar Fort Inc, 2011). 11

Church in Singapore.18 My work brings to light the attraction of Mormonism to

Singaporeans, and what they viewed as the value and benefits of membership in this

“American” Church.

I have divided my dissertation into six chapters. To help readers understand the historical context that set the events for the growth of the Church in Singapore, the first two chapters help readers become familiar with the overarching history of Singapore and the Church. Chapter one details the political history of Singapore, and highlights the control wielded by Singaporean government over the lives of the people, including on matters pertaining to race, religion, gender, and family. This chapter also traces the origins of U.S.-Singapore relations, and demonstrates that the longstanding relationship between the two nations opened the door for the Church to gain entrance into Singapore in 1968. Meanwhile, the Church’s turbulent past since its genesis in 1820 is summarized in chapter two. Despite fleeing to the American West in the 1840s, the Church continued to face religious persecution, and assimilation into mainstream American society always eluded them. Yet, the Church persisted in sending out missionaries all over the world to spread their version of the gospel, and succeeded in gaining a stronghold in Asia after

World War Two. In 1968, it sent the first missionaries to Singapore.

Chapters three and four work in tandem to provide an overview of the history of the Church in Singapore from 1968 to the early 1990s. Chapter three is told from the

18 Beng Ling Pang, A History of The Church of Jesu Christ of Latter-day Saints in Singapore: Journey to Stakehood, 1964-1997 (Singapore: C.O.S. Printers, Pte Ltd, 1997); Joseph Talmage Jones, IN Singapore and Other Asian Cities (Salt Lake City: Publishers Press, 1984). There is a 1981 unpublished undergraduate honors thesis about the Church in Singapore written by a sociology student from the National University of Singapore. See Wong Sing Yeong, “The Mormons in Singapore: An Introductory Study,” (B. Soc. Sci. Hons academic exercise, Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore, 1981). 12 perspective of the various mission presidents, and their efforts to grow the mission and membership. The mission initially enjoyed a high rate of success, but the Church’s history of polygamous marriages, and its policy of banning black priesthood ordination before 1978 earned it a bad reputation in Singapore. Mainstream Christian leaders in

Singapore used these policies as evidence that the Church was a threat to the Singaporean government’s goal of modernizing the nation. As a result, the Singaporean government curbed the number of missionaries allowed into the country in 1970, and subsequent mission presidents struggled to keep the mission afloat until the ban was lifted in 1988.

Despite the limitations imposed on the mission, the small mission force, which now comprised mostly of local missionaries, still managed to find and baptize new converts.

Chapter four details the conversion process of this first generation of Singaporeans who joined the Church between 1968 to 1990: their initial impressions of Mormonism, their thoughts and feelings during the process of “investigating” the Church, and their motivations for taking the plunge into baptism.

The remaining two chapters examine the long-term impact of conversion to the

Church on Singaporean Mormons. In working together on church assignments and activities, expatriates exposed local members to new religious practices, and American customs and traditions. Local members further assimilated into their new faith when they went on missions, and for higher education at the Brigham Young University campuses.

Chapter five demonstrates that in the process of assimilation, the Church influenced the way Singaporean Mormons conceptualized race, and Church teachings became the standard by which local members accepted or rejected aspects of Asian culture.

13

Expatriate Mormons also shared with Singaporeans conservative American notions and values about the traditional heterosexual, nuclear family. The final chapter analyzes how

Singaporeans Mormons reconciled contradictions between Church teachings, their culture, and the Singaporean state on matters of gender and family in the 1980s and ‘90s.

Comparing the perspectives of Singaporean and expatriate Mormons helps us understand the rationality of Singaporean Mormons, and their motivations for conversion and remaining faithful members despite the Church’s troubled racial and gendered past, and the Singaporean government’s hostility toward Mormonism. It also provides a glimpse of how Singaporeans at the grassroots level interpreted, assimilated, or rejected the growing presence of American cultural elements in their society. As more scholars engage in similar research, we will better understand how other nations perceived the rise of American global power and hegemony during the Cold War, and the expectations for

American global leadership in contemporary society.

14

CHAPTER 1: SINGAPORE

Singapore is one of the wealthiest countries in Southeast Asia today, and it is hard to imagine that this economic powerhouse was once a mere fishing village. Situated off the Southern tip of Peninsula Malaysia and north of Indonesia, Singapore’s total land mass equals 716 square kilometers (276 square miles), roughly equivalent to half the size

Los Angeles and London, and two-thirds the size of Hong Kong. It has one main island surrounded by sixty-two smaller islets, with scarce amounts of non-renewable natural resources (coal, oil and gas).19 Due to its location just north of the equator, there is an abundance of rainfall to counter the year-round tropical heat, but its maritime location also means that the humidity can reach suffocating levels. The Meteorological Service of

Singapore warns readers on its website that on some rainy days, relative humidity can reach one hundred percent.20

Singapore’s limited geographic boundaries, scarcity of natural resources, and unrelenting hot and humid climate should have doomed the island to historical obscurity, except for one saving factor: its location between the South China Sea and Andaman Sea

19 “Singapore Natural Resources,” Trade Chakra website, http://www.tradechakra.com/economy/singapore/singapore-natural-resources-94.php (accessed November 15, 2016). 20 “Climate of Singapore,” Meteorological Service of Singapore, a branch of the Singaporean Government, http://www.weather.gov.sg/climate-climate-of-singapore/ (accessed November 15, 2016). 15 made it an ideal stopping place for ships sailing between East Asia, and South and

Central Asia (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Regional map of Southeast Asia, available at ASEAN UP, http://aseanup.com/free-maps-asean-southeast-asia/.

Indeed, there is written and archaeological evidence that the island was used as a port in the Malay Archipelago as far back as the fourteenth century. Known as

“Temasek” then, the island grew into a prosperous town with a wealthy elite, evident from the remains of high-quality Chinese porcelain found there.21 In the late-fourteenth

21 John N. Miksic, Singapore & The Silk Road of the Sea, 1300-1800 (Singapore: NUS Press, 2013); Jane A. Peterson, “In New Textbook, the Story of Singapore Begins 500 Years Earlier,” New York Times, May 11, 16 century, “Temasek” became known as “Singapura” or the “Lion City,” though the origins for this change is lost. The name is even more puzzling since lions are not indigenous to

Southeast Asia, but according to folklore, a prince found sanctuary on Temasek after a raging storm, and saw a strange beast that he thought was a lion. Taking his vision to be a good omen, he established a new “lion throne” and settlement. The other less romantic theory believes that the name was given by ancient Majapahit rulers seeking to assert their claim over the territory.22

Sadly, the tide of fortune turned against Singapura at the turn of the century, as the island fell victim to the warring kingdoms of Majapahit and Thailand. The last ruler,

Iskander/ Parameswara23, fled northward to escape invading forces, and ended up establishing another city-port, Melaka (in modern day Malaysia). The center of trade, wealth, political and religious organization shifted to Melaka, and in 1613, the

Portuguese burned the trading outpost at Singapura. It was a final blow to the island, and

Singapura fell away into historical oblivion. The neglected territory remained in the hands of Malay sultans, and wouldn’t reprise its role as a significant trading port until Sir

Stamford Raffles of the British East India Company arrived in 1819.

2014; C. M. Turnbull, A History of Modern Singapore, 1819-2005, (Singapore: National University of Singapore Press, 2016), 20. In 1349, a Chinese trader by the name of Wang Dayuan wrote about his travels to the Nanyang (archaic Chinese term for Southeast Asia), and the terror of passing through Dan- ma-xi (Temasek) due to the frequency of pirate attacks (see Turnbull, 20; Barbara Leitch Lepoer, ed., “History—Precolonial Era,” Singapore: A Country Study (Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1989), http://countrystudies.us/singapore/3.htm (accessed November 16, 2016). The Javanese Nagarakretagama (an ancient eulogy written in poetry form about the Majapahit Empire written in 1365) also claimed “Temasek” as a vessel state. 22 Turnbull, 21-22. 23 “Iskander” is the name of the last ruler in Temasek according to the seventeenth-century Serajah Melayu (Malay Annals), while the Portuguese record identifies him as “Parameswara.” 17

Thomas Stamford Raffles is remembered in public memory as the founder of

Singapore. Raffles had arrived in Benkulen (in Sumatra, Indonesia) in 1818 to take up his post as Lieutenant-Governor, and was alarmed by the Dutch’s colonial and economic dominance in the Malay Archipelago. After securing permission to establish a new

British trading post, Raffles studied Malayan maps and texts, and noticed the Dutch had not touched the island called Singapura. Seeing his chance to break the Dutch monopoly,

Raffles set sail for Singapore on January 28, 1819. The ruling temenggong (traditional

Malay title for chief of security and police) welcomed Raffles and his company to the main island, and two days later, Raffles agreed to pay the temenggong an annual payment of $3000 in exchange for the rights of the British East India Company to establish a port.24 The signing of the treaty gave birth to colonial Singapore, and allowed the British to live on the island alongside the indigenous Malay population.

The British maintained their presence on the island for the next one hundred and fifty years, although it took a few more years before Singapore became an official part of the British Empire. The Malay rulers had assumed that they would remain in possession of their lands and authority over the indigenous people, but Raffles and the second

Resident of Singapore, John Crawfurd, persuaded the Malay chiefs to cede their rights.

On August 2, 1824, the Malayan chiefs finally signed a treaty that granted Singapore and the seas, straits and islands ten geographic miles of her shores in perpetuity to the East

India Company and its heirs.25 Two years later, the British East India Company grouped

24 Turnbull, 26-28. 25 Turnbull, 47. 18

Singapore with Penang and Melaka and formed the Presidency of the Straits Settlements.

The elaborate Straits Settlements bureaucratic structure, however, proved too expensive, and the Settlements was demoted to a residency under the Presidency of Bengal in

1830.26 In 1867, governorship changed hands again, and the Straits Settlements finally became an official Crown Colony of the British Empire, until 1942 when the Japanese invaded and conquered Singapore.27

Meanwhile, Singapore grew to become one the busiest and wealthiest ports of the

British Empire. Ships from China, Cochin-China (South Vietnam and Siam), and Bugis traded tea, silk, pottery, opium, rice, spices, precious ores and rattan for British manufactured wares, cotton goods and Chinese products. Merchants also sold European and Indian goods on consignment.28 Singapore adapted when the trading economy shifted in the late-nineteenth century away from exotic wares to natural resources such as rubber, tin, copra and sugar.29 By 1903, Singapore was the world’s seventh largest port in tonnage of shipping.30 As historian C. Mary Turnbull explained, “Singapore now had a secure place in the pattern of world trade as a staple port, the entrepôt for Southeast Asia raw materials and Western manufactured food, with an increasingly sophisticated infrastructure of commercial institutions and expertise.”31

26 Ibid., 53-4. 27 Ibid., 83-89. 28 Barbara Leitch Lepoer, ed., “A Flourishing Free Port,” Singapore: A Country Study (Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1989), http://countrystudies.us/singapore/5.htm (accessed November 17, 2016) 29 Turnbull, 104. 30 Ibid., 108. 31 Ibid., 105. 19

The development of Singapore into a vital trading post changed the population makeup of the colony. When Raffles founded Singapore in 1819, historians estimated that population only totaled 1000.32 However, by 1836, the population had increased to

30,000 and in 1860, numbered 81,000.33 To supplement the small labor pool, the British attracted large numbers of Chinese and Indian men to migrate to Singapore with the promise of better employment and economic opportunities. Desperate to escape the impoverished conditions of their home towns, Chinese and Indian coolie workers came to

Singapore “in search of elusive fortune.”34 Meanwhile, businessmen, entrepreneurs, and those with more education, moved to Singapore to create new businesses or find new markets for their goods. The British Courts also sentenced a sizeable population of Indian convict laborers to serve as cheap laborers on the island.35 Some of these wealthier merchants and migrant workers settled in Singapore permanently, while others returned to their native lands after laboring for a few years. Despite the transient status of many workers, the Chinese, and for a period of time, the Indians too, soon overtook the native

Malays as the majority race.36 The Malays reasserted their presence on the island, however, when Malays from peninsula Malaya, Sumatra and Java moved to Singapore at the end of the nineteenth century. The early twentieth-century also witnessed the growth

32 Barbara Leitch Lepoer, ed., “History—Precolonial Era,” Singapore: A Country Study (Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1989), http://countrystudies.us/singapore/3.htm (accessed November 16, 2016). 33 Turnbull, 55. 34 Lim Teck Ghee, Peasants and Their Agricultural Economy in Colonial Malaya 1874-1941 (Kuala Lumpur, 1977), 55. 35 Turnbull, 74. 36 Ibid., 55-56; Geetha Reddy, “Race Rules in Singapore,” in Singapore: Negotiating State and Society, 1965-2015, eds. Jason Lim and Terence Lee (London and New York: Routledge, 2016), 55-56. 20 of other sizeable minorities in Singapore: Ceylonese, Arabs, Jews, Eurasians and

Europeans.37 Singapore thus grew into a cosmopolitan territory.

But the economic boom camouflaged the social problems simmering on the island. Early Singapore was, according to Turnbull, a “violent place” due to “weak government, lack of finances, secret society power, and a transitory population.”38 Much of the development and early modernization of the island was confined to the central and coastal parts where the British and upper-class lived. Colonial overseers refused to interfere in the lives of migrant workers, giving rise to Chinese triad secret societies and an illegal coolie trade that bordered on slavery.39 These secret societies grew to the point that colonial authorities could not prevent them from robbing and raiding neighboring towns and houses almost every night in the early 1840s.40 The British also made no effort to foster social cohesion among the Chinese, Malays, and Indians migrant workers since racial divisions decreased the threat of a revolt among workers.41

The only instances in which the British intervened to solve these problems was when the situation threated British rule or its economic affairs. For example, the Chinese secret society robberies went unchecked until English-speaking merchants protested

British authorities to strengthen the police force to crack down on the violence. Piracy was also endemic in the trading shores near Singapore, until British traders demanded

37 Turnbull, 110. 38 Ibid., 75. 39 Ibid., 70-2. 40 Ibid., 75 41 Ibid., 73. 21 that the British and Dutch navy increase their patrol of the seas in the 1860s.42 But in other matters, the British were content to let the status quo remain.

The gender imbalance among the Chinese and Indian communities was another acute social problem, especially among the Chinese. In the 1860s, the ratio of Chinese women to men was 1:15. Twenty years later, the ratio had improved slightly from 1:10.43

As a result, Chinese triad secret societies created a robust opium and sex trafficking network that earned Singapore a reputation as a vice-haven.44 By one estimate, eighty percent of Chinese girls who came to Singapore in the late-1870s were sold into prostitution. Colonial officials tried to regulate the prostitution trade by enforcing a registration of brothels and prostitutes, and also set up the Po Leung Kuk, a shelter house for victims of forced prostitution.45 The influx of women immigrants in the early- twentieth century alleviated the gender-imbalance to an extent, and opened new opportunities in education and charity work for wealthier women, but prostitution remained rampant, and female migrant workers (called “samsui women”) lived in impoverished conditions.46

42 Ibid., 60-6. 43 Ibid., 75 and 101 44 James Francis Warren, Ah Ku and Karayuki-San: Prostitution in Singapore, 1870-1940 (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1993); Phyllis Ghim Lian Chew, “The Singapore Council of Women and the Women’s Movement,” in Journal of Asian Studies 25 (March 1994): 120. 45 Turnbull, 101-2. 46 Chinese Women’s Association, Chinese Women’s Association 1oo Fabulous Years (Singapore: Didier Millet Pte Ltd, 2015); Jim Baker, Crossroads: A Popular History of Malaysia and Singapore, 2nd ed. (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions, 2006), 204; National Museum of Singapore, “Modern Colony Gallery,” exhibition, 2016; Vincent Koh Qi Rui, “Samsui Women,” Singapore Infopedia, an online encyclopedia of Singapore produced by the National Library of Singapore, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_795_2005-01-18.html (accessed October 10, 2016). 22

Thus, Singapore remained under the British as a colony until the 1942 Japanese invasion during World War Two. The return of the British in 1945 after a terrorizing three and a half years of Japanese rule47 was a welcome relief, and the British set about repairing the country and restoring order. But the British returned to a people who now viewed them differently. The defeat of a powerful European power by an Asiatic race during the war shocked many, especially since the British military had boasted of

Singapore being “a base impregnable from land or sea.”48 Seeing their former overlords reduced to emaciated prisoners-of-war overturned assumptions about the superiority of their colonial masters.49 The people of Singapore no longer had confidence in British prestige or protection, and started forming left-wing political movements and parties with the intent of agitating for “Merdeka”—the Bahasa Melaya word for “freedom”—from

British imperial rule.

Moreover, Britain recognized the inevitable crumbling of its vast empire, and wishing to avoid the same violence confronting the French, opted to take a more peaceful approach toward the decolonization of the Straits Settlements. They began transferring power to local-born people in stages, first by creating a new constitution in 1947 that

47 For more information about Singapore under Japanese rule (1942-45), please refer to Geok Boi Lee, The Syonan Years: Singapore Under Japanese Rule 1942-1945 (Singapore: National Archives of Singapore, 2005; Yōji Akashi and Mako Yoshimura, eds., New Perspectives on the Japanese Occupation in Malaya and Singapore, 1941-1945 (Singapore: NUS Press, 2008); Paul J. Kratoska, ed., Malaya and Singapore During the Japanese Occupation (Singapore: Distribute by Singapore University Press, 1995). 48 “Gibraltars in the East,” The Straits Times, March 12, 1939, 1. There are several monographs that detail the fall of Singapore to the Japanese, such as Peter Thompson, The Battle for Singapore: The True Story of the Greatest Catastrophe of World War Two (London: Portrait, 2005); Brian P. Farrell, The Defence and Fall of Singapore 1940-1942 (Stroud: Gloucestershire: Tempus, 2005); Colin Smith, Singapore Burning: Heroism and Surrender in World War II (London: Viking Press, 2005). 49 Kuan Yew Lee, The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions and The Straits Times Press, 2015), 51-3; Turnbull, 221. 23 called for representative elections to the broadened executive and legislative bodies.50

Later, it granted Singapore partial internal self-government in 1955, then full internal self-government four years later.

However, the British hesitated to allow for complete independence, fearing that the pro-communist factions would overrun the local government. Their concerns were not without some foundation. Many of the Chinese in Singapore maintained ties to relatives in communist China, and the left-wing, pro-communist and pro-independence political factions were effective in recruiting Chinese students and laborers to their cause. The ruling political party that took over the Legislative Assembly in the 1959 election (the

People’s Action Party) had also aligned itself with the left-wing to garner enough votes.

Although the party’s moderates turned against the radicals soon after, the British doubted that the new government could contain the pro-communist in Singapore.

To counter these fears, the Singaporean government proposed to join the

Federation of Malaya and create a federation of eleven states that would form the newly- created state of Malaysia. British and Malayan federal leaders warmed to the idea, believing that the dominant Muslim-Malay population would counter the Chinese majority and left-wing factions in Singapore. Thus, on September 16, 1963, the British relinquished all control over the island51, and Singapore joined Malaya, North Borneo

(now Sabah) and Sarawak to form the Federation of Malaysia. The road to Merdeka was at long last complete.

50 Turnbull, 238. 51 The British retained a military base in Singapore for security purposes, and only pulled out all its forces in 1971. 24

Yet, Singapore would leave the Federation in less than two years. The state-level government in Singapore frequently clashed with the federal government on political, economic and racial issues, each defending their vision for how Malaysia should develop.

Racial tensions gave rise to riots between the Chinese and Malays at the grassroots level as well. When it became clear that the differences between the two governments were irreconcilable, both sides agreed that the only viable solution was for Singapore to split from Malaysia.52 Thus, on August 9, 1965, the Republic of Singapore was formed and became an independent nation.

Independence came with its own set of problems. While Singapore remained an attractive port of call throughout the political upheaval, it now faced competition from

Malaysia seeking to develop her own ports. With the exception of pockets where the wealthy lived, Singapore remained undeveloped: most lived in kampongs (Malay word for “traditional villages”) of attap houses where sanitary conditions were deplorable, and life expectancy was short.

The newly-minted Singaporean government had their work cut out for them. In order for this new country to survive in the new globalized economy, radical changes needed to be implemented. The British had adopted a very casual, “hands-off” approach toward developing the colony; the Singaporean government would take a harsher and much more intrusive stance. The next section will provide a brief history about

Singapore’s politics since 1959, when Singapore gained full internal self-governance, and

52 Edmund Lim, “Behind the Scenes: What Led to Separation in 1965,” The Straits Times (August 5, 2015). 25 when the dominant political party in Singapore today came into power. Doing so helps readers understand the preeminent role that the state plays in the lives of Singaporeans.

POLITICAL HISTORY OF SINGAPORE SINCE 1959

On Sunday, March 29, 2015, the day opened with threatening dark clouds that hovered over the tens of thousands of people lining the streets of Singapore. A few hours later, the sky opened its jaws and peltered the crowd with a watery vengeance. But the people would not be deterred. If anything, the rain matched their somber mood. It had been a difficult week for Singaporeans who woke up the Monday before (March 23) to learn that Lee Kuan Yew had passed away from acute pneumonia at the age of 91. Lee was the first Prime Minister of Singapore from 1959 to 1990, and is remembered in popular memory as the Founding Father of Modern Singapore. Under his authoritarian leadership, he led Singapore through the merger and divorce with Malaysia, and developed Singapore into the modernized country of today. His death, while not unexpected, was still a blow to Singaporeans. Over a million people paid their last respects at tributary centers around the country, and on Sunday, when Lee’s body was moved for the final funeral rites, Singaporeans stood along the procession route for their last goodbyes.53

The overwhelming outpouring of grief was surprising, even to Singaporean government officials. The week-long Lying in State was initially scheduled to end at 8

53 Xabryna Kek, “In Photos: When Singaporeans United for Mr. Lee Kuan Yew,” Channel News Asia, posted March 23, 2016, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/in-photos-when/2621538.html (accessed November 15, 2016); “Lee Kuan Yew: Singapore Holds Funeral Procession,” BBC News, posted March 29, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32102686 (accessed November 15, 2016). 26 p.m. every day, but the number of people who stood in line—some for eight hours—was too large, and viewing hours were soon extended 24 hours round the clock.54 They had not anticipated such a strong showing of sadness at Lee’s death because he had been a controversial and divisive figure. As Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director of Human

Rights Watch explained, “Lee Kuan Yew’s tremendous role in Singapore’s economic development is beyond doubt, but it came at a significant cost for human rights. And today’s restricted freedom of expression, self-censorship and stunted multiparty democracy is also a part of his legacy.”55

Indeed, the price for creating the manicured garden city-state was the repression of political dissent and authoritarian state control over legislation and the people. For instance, once Lee’s political party, the People Action’s Party (PAP), secured

Parliamentary dominance in the 1963 general election, it moved to arrest three assemblymen from the main opposition party, the Barisan Sosialis56, de-registered the

Barisan-dominated Singapore Association of Trade Unions, and clamped down on unions and associations that supported the Barisan Sosialis.57 In response, the Barisan Sosialis

54 Melissa Heng, Passing of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew: Lying in State will Now Be Round the Clock, The Straits Times, March 25, 2015; “Lee Kuan Yew: Huge Queue to View Founder Lying in State,” BBC News, posted March 25, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32046137 (accessed November, 15, 2016). 55 Thomas Fuller and Austin Ramzy, “Teary Mourners in Singapore Remember Lee Kuan Yew,” The New York Times, March 23, 2015. 56 The Barisan Sosialis was formed by expelled, left-wing members of the People’s Action Party in 1961, to oppose the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaysia. Members were pro-communist, and enjoyed the support of unions and students (particularly Chinese students). After Singapore gained independence in 1965, the party boycotted the national elections for seven years. It failed to win any seats in the 1972 election, and was dissolved in 1988. For more information, please see Joshua Y.J. Chia, “Barisan Sosialis,” Singapore Infopedia, an electronic encyclopedia by the National Library Board of Singapore, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1148_2008-11-30.html (accessed November 15, 2016). 57 C. M. Turnbull, A History of Modern Singapore, 1819-2005, (Singapore: National University of Singapore Press, 2016), 286. For more information about the political history of Singapore, please read Sonny Yap, 27 boycotted Parliament beginning December 1965, before all eight of its members in

Parliament resigned on October 7, 1966. On October 29, Chia Thye Poh, prominent

Barisan Sosialis leader, was arrested under the Internal Security Act, for his alleged membership in the Communist Party of Malaya, a charge he flatly denied but was still used to jail him for twenty-three years.58 The decimation of the Barisan Sosialis essentially expunged all major political opponents to the PAP, and the party has enjoyed a virtual monopoly of Parliament that continues even today. 59 As a result, the PAP has become synonymous with the government.

Such unfettered dominance allowed Lee and his cabinet to create and implement policies in the small island with a tight fist. For example, Lee made clear that he did not subscribe to the notions of freedom of the press as advocated by Western liberal countries. At the 1971 International Press Institute annual assembly, Lee told the audience that “freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government.”60 Lee’s government was particularly against “foreign elements with hidden agendas” from gaining control of the Singapore press, and implemented the Newspaper and Printing Press Act in 1974.61 The Act banned local newspapers from accepting

Richard Wlim and Went Kam Leong, Men in White: The Untold Story of Singapore’s Ruling Political Parties (Singapore: Straits Times Press, 2010). 58 Alvin Chua, “Chia Thye Poh,” Singapore Infopedia, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2013-05-22_180815.html?s=ISA (accessed November 15, 2016). 59 In the most recent 2015 election, the PAP still won eighty-three of the eighty-nine contested seats. Sumiko Tan, “GE2015: PAP Vote Share Increases to 69.9%, Party Wins 83 of 89 Seats Including WP-held Punggol East,” The Straits Times, September 12, 2015. 60 Lee, 218. 61 Turnbull, 323. 28 funding from foreign governments or individuals or granting foreigners a majority of management shares. In the 1980s, Western-owned presses located in Singapore that published defamatory statements about the government faced circulation restrictions and other penalties.62 While these measures prevented the publication of false “smear” articles, they also indicated the government’s tight control over the press, evident from its success in preventing foreign media outlets from commenting on or interfering with local politics.

The 1960s to 1980s also saw the introduction of strict laws to curb public behavior. People who littered or spit in public, or urinated in the elevators were fined.

Smokers were progressively prohibited from smoking in public places. Even those caught not flushing the toilet after use in public were fined!63 Little wonder that Singapore has cheekily been called “A Fine City.” In addition, the government launched a series of campaigns that promoted certain kinds of behavior, such as the 1979 “Speak Mandarin

Campaign” to promote the use of Standard Mandarin Chinese among the Chinese population (as opposed to various Chinese dialects). The goal was for Singaporean

Chinese to be bilingual in English and Mandarin Chinese.64 There was even a campaign to promote courtesy and kindness, and an annual tree planting campaign to encourage the greening of Singapore.65 To curb American “hippie” behavior among Singaporean youth,

62 Turnbull, 323-4; Lee, 212-225; Jim Baker, The Eagle in the Lion City: America, Americans and Singapore (Singapore: Landmark Books, 2005): 267-273. 63 Lee, 199-211. 64 “Lee to Launch ‘Use Mandarin’ Campaign,” The Straits Times, September 7, 1971, 1; Lee, 179-181. 65 Siew Yeen Lim and Mazelan bin Anuar, “National Courtesy Campaign,” Singapore Infopedia, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_162_2004-12-30.html?s=courtesy%20campaign (accessed November 18, 2016); Naidu Ratnala Thulaja, “Tree Planting Campaign,” Singapore Infopedia, 29 the government imposed strict censorship rules on all entertainment. For instance, they banned the importation of Playboy magazine, and the song “Puff the Magic Dragon” for its alleged reference to marijuana.66 Posters dotting the island warned that men with long hair will also “be served last,” and males entering the country with long hair were either given a haircut on the spot, or sent back to their country.67

To be fair, these draconian measures and policies were effective in transforming

Singapore into a clean and green thriving metropolis. The strict laws curbed uncouth public behavior and cleaned up the country, which in turn improved hygiene and sanitary conditions. The beautified environment, along with the strong deterrent criminal laws, gave foreign businesses the confidence to invest in and bring new technology into the

Singaporean economy.68

The government also worked to educate and house Singaporeans. One source estimated that between 1959 and 1965, the government built eighty-three new schools, an average of one school per month. Between 1959 and 1972, pupil enrolment in Primary

(Elementary) schools rose from 272,254 to 354,936, while enrollment in secondary education quadrupled (48,723 to 161,371).69 By 1980, the literacy rate for Singaporeans

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_135_2005-02-02.html?s=courtesy%20campaign (accessed November 18, 2016). 66 Chong Zi Liang, “MDA lifts ban on 240 foreign publications ranging from communist material to adult interest content,” The Straits Times, November 25, 2015. 67 Jim Baker, The Eagle in the Lion City: America, Americans and Singapore (Singapore: Landmark Books, 2005), 257-8. 68 Turnbull, 318; Lee, 89-102, 201-5, 243. 69 C.B. Goh and S. Gopinathan, “Education in Singapore: Development Since 1965,” in An African Exploration of the East Asian Education, eds. B. Fredriksen & J. P. Tan (Washington D.C.: The World Bank, 2008), 84-5. 30 fifteen years old and above was 82.9%, and rose to 89.1% in 1990.70 There was also a concerted effort to clean up the kampongs and slums dotting the country, and move citizens into affordable, high-rise public houses/ apartments. The result was that by 1990,

87.5% of residents in Singapore reported that they owned a home, a high figure according to world standards.71 Overall, life expectancy for Singaporeans rose from 65.7 in 1960 to

75.3 in 1990.72

The ordinary citizens of Singapore were also not entirely powerless, and took the polls to voice their displeasure whenever state policies intruded too far into their lives.

Although Singapore’s geographic size made it easy for the government to exert power over the country, it also made the government susceptible to changes in election results, and a small dip in votes sent Lee’s cabinet into a panic. For instance, after winning all

Parliamentary seats for the fourth successive election in 1980, the PAP was shocked when candidates in the oppositions parties won two of the seventy-nine Parliamentary seats in the next election (1984), and the total popular vote for the PAP dropped to sixty- four percent. Even though two opposition seats hardly threatened the political dominance of the PAP, Lee and other political leaders attributed the loss to the unpopular “Graduate

Mother’s Scheme,” a set of policies aimed at encouraging women with college degrees to

70 UNESCO Institute for Statistics, “Chart—Literacy rate among the population aged 15 years and older,” http://en.unesco.org/countries/singapore (accessed November 18, 2016). 71 Department of Statistics, Singapore, “Chart—Home Ownership Rate of Resident Households,” http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/visualising-data/charts/home-ownership-rate-of-resident- households (accessed November 18, 2016). Singapore continues to have one of the highest rates of home ownership in the world. See chart on “Home Ownership Rate” on the Trading Economics website, https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/home-ownership-rate (accessed July 15, 2017). 72 The World Bank, “Singapore—Chart on Life Expectancy at Birth, Total (Years),” http://data.worldbank.org/country/singapore?view=chart (accessed November 18, 2016). 31 have more children (elaborated upon in the later section “Gender and Family Policies”).

Even though these policies had only been implemented for a year, the government rescinded them in 1985 to appease the voting population.73 This example illustrates that

Singaporeans could and did use their political vote to voice their dissent against the authoritarian government.

Still, the general population supported the PAP, preferring to subvert politics for economic development and administrative efficiency.74 As Sinnathamby Rajaratnam, Lee

Kuan Yew’s deputy, observed, “The people are more interested in what is good government than in having an opposition.” To them, the cost of extensive government interference and prodding was worth the dramatic improvement in their standard of living.

Having established the control that Lee Kuan Yew and his government wielded over the nation, the next sections will go into greater detail about the government’s jurisdiction over issues of race, gender, and family in Singapore.

POLICING RACE AND RELIGION

After Singapore merged with Malaysia in 1963, it became apparent soon after that the PAP’s vision of racial relations was incompatible with that of the Malaysian federal government. Under the Federation, Malays enjoyed special privileges in education, employment and licensing activities, but the PAP refused to apply many of these benefits to the minority Malays in Singapore. The actions of the PAP angered Malays, and

73 Turnbull, 334-5. 74 Turnbull, 322, quoting Chan Heng Chee, Politics in an Administration State: Where has the Politics Gone? (Singapore: University of Singapore, 1975). 32 heightened racial tensions between the Malays and Chinese. Emotions mounted and came to a head on July 21, 1964 when more than 20,000 Malays gathered to celebrate the

Prophet Mohamad’s birthday. As the procession moved down the street, Chinese men from secret societies allegedly threw bottles at the crowd, sparking off a riot that left four dead and 178 injured. Riots between the Chinese and Malays continued to break out across the island over the next few days. The government quelled the violence, but on

September 2, 1964, a Malay trishaw rider was found mysteriously murdered in his trishaw, and his death prompted another wave of racial riots.75

After Singapore left the Federation in 1965, the government was determined to enforce their policy of racial equality and vision of a multicultural country. The need to establish independent Singapore as a multicultural society was driven by factors of political expediency and pragmatism: the rhetoric of racial equality prevented Chinese sentiments for communism and loyalty to the People’s Republic of China from reemerging; it deterred the outbreak of racial riots to create a safe environment that would attract the international trading community; and surrounding Malay-majority countries could not accuse Singapore of favoring the Chinese-majority over the minority Malays.76

Moreover, the Singaporean government, like that in the United States, believed that cultural diversity was “part and parcel of natural human existence that cannot be

75 Jaime Han, “Communal Riots of 1964,” Singapore Infopedia, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_45_2005-01-06.html (accessed November 19, 2016); Turnbull, 290-291; Chee Kiong Tong, Rationalizing Religion: Religious Conversion, Revivalism and Competition in Singapore Society (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007), 233. 76 Michael D. Barr, “Lee Kuan Yew: Race, Culture and Genes,” http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan004070.pdf (accessed June 12, 2017); Lee, 170. 33 abandoned on a whim nor need necessarily be opposed to each other.”77 The difference between the multiculturalism of Singapore and that of the United States was the role of the state in preserving racial harmony in each counry. The United States practiced what political scientists termed “mild integration” multiculturalism, where the state guaranteed the freedom of various cultural identities to exist, but remained neutral on other cultural matters, deeming it to be a matter in the private realm. Whether a minority culture survived being swallowed up by a majority culture, was beyond the state’s purview. In contrast, Lee Kuan Yew believed that the state played a crucial role in establishing the multicultural contours of the nation. The Singapore government thus adopted a policy scholar Norman Vasu called “hard multiculturalism.” This policy allowed the state to acknowledge racial and cultural differences as a matter of the public sphere, and use its power to intervene in matters of group rights and relations.78

The first order of Lee’s government was then was to ascribe everyone into what scholars have called the “CMIO model” of identification. Each person was classed as

Chinese, Malay, Indian or ‘Other’—hence “CMIO”— according to patrilineal ancestry, and this racial categorization was reified on their Identity Card.79 The state positioned itself as “neutral” to all races, and subjected all citizens to the same laws and privileges.

For instance, aside from educational subsidies and awards for Malay students, the

77 Norma Vasu, “(En)countering Terrorism: Multiculturalism and Singapore,” Asian Ethnicity 1 (February 2008): 22. 78 Vasu, 22-5. 79 Geetha Reddy, “Race Rules in Singapore,” in Singapore: Negotiating State and Society, 1965-2015, eds. Jason Lim and Terence Lee (London and New York: Routledge, 2016), 58; Angelia Poon, “Pick and Mix for a Global City: Race and Cosmopolitanism in Singapore,” in Race and Multiculturalism in Malaysia and Singapore, eds. Daniel P.S. Goh et al. (London and New York: Routledge, 2009), 71-73. 34 government gradually eliminated preferential benefits for Malays.80 While Malay remained the national language, the government emphasized that the nation would also have four official languages: English, Malay, Tamil and Mandarin Chinese. No detail was left unturned. As one scholar pointed out, even “official annual public holidays are also allocated according to each racial group.”81 Moreover, the history of Singapore traditionally taught in school begins in 1819, after the British landed in Singapore, so as to emphasize the common heritage of all races. Only in recent years has the textbooks in

Singapore reclaimed its precolonial history.82 Thus the state took measures to ensure that every race was theoretically treated equally to build a harmonious multicultural society.

But the government’s racial policies were not without problems. The CMIO model purported that every race, and thus every person in Singapore, was equal, but as scholar Angela Poon argued, it was a double-edged sword that “solidifie[d] racial boundaries in the course of administratively and politically recognizing and celebrating the differences between races.”83 Thus Singapore could not be considered a true melting pot as differences between the races were reified.84 More troubling was the fact that the

“stratification along ethnic lines…has led to inequalities becoming self-perpetuating, institutionalized and stereotypes…being formed and maintained.”85 In particular, racial

80 Turnbull, 325; Tong, 235. 81 Allocation of public holidays for each race is as follows: Chinese have two days for the Chinese New Year, Malays have a day each for Hari Raya Puasa and Hari Raya Haji, and the Indians, Deepavali for Hindus and Vesak Day for Buddhists (the Chinese-Buddhists also celebrate Vesak Day). There is also a public holiday on Christmas Day. See Reddy, 59. 82 Jane A. Peterson, “In New Textbook, the Story of Singapore Begins 500 Years Earlier,” New York Times, May 11, 2014. 83 Poon, 72. 84 Poon, 72; see also Reddy, 60. 85 Reddy, 60. 35 identification allowed the government to supervise and maintain a Chinese-majority in the population. Lee Kuan Yew himself attributed the successful development of

Singapore and other East Asian countries to “Confucian values,” and has been frank that he regarded the Malays in Singapore as being less resilient than the Chinese.86 Hence,

Singapore was a multicultural and meritocratic state in which all races were granted equal status, but it was far from being a color-blind society, and did not seek to be so. If anything, reinforcing race solidified the subtle bias in favor of the Chinese in

Singapore.87

Religion has always been closely associated with race in Singapore, and understandably so. Census records from 1980 to 2000 showed that each racial segment tended to practice only a few religions. For instance, over ninety-seven percent of Malays consistently identified as Muslim. While there was more religious diversity among the

Chinese and Indians, most Chinese were either Buddhist or Taoist, and the majority of

Indians were Hindus or Muslim.88 As such, despite the significant number of Christians among the Chinese and Indians, and an increasing number of people who identified as

86 Poon, 73; Reddy, 60; Tong, 242, Lee, 234-241, 389 and 545-8; Han Fook Kwang, Warren Fernandez and Sumiko Tan, Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions and The Straits Times Press, 2015), 398-402. 87 Other problems connected with the current racial policies in Singapore include the fact that all intra- racial identities are subsumed, or worse, completely erased under the broad racial identities of the CMIO model. For instance, the annual “Speak Mandarin” campaigns encourage the Chinese to stop speaking their dialect language and only learn Mandarin. See Reddy, 61. 88 The census records for year 2000 can be found online at http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications-and-papers/cop2000/census_stat_release2 (accessed November 28, 2016). For an analysis of the 1980 census records with regards to religion and race, please see Eddie C. Y. Kuo, Religion in Singapore: An Analysis of the 1980 Census Data, report prepared for the Ministry of Community Development (December 1987). 36 being “non-religious,” there was and still is a strong correlation between race and religion.

Like its position on race, the state viewed itself as a secular entity that granted all religions equal status, and claimed to be the “neutral arbiter” of religious conflict.89 No religion was promoted above another, and the government clamped down on potential sources of religious strife. Lee Kuan Yew made clear that over-zealous missionary proselytizing would not be tolerated, as seen in a 1965 meeting with religious leaders in a

1965 meeting, where he said, “This is a multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-religious society…I see no need for going around looking for the 12% of Muslims to try and convert them because I think there are some 60-70% of people who are in need of some form of religious and moral guidance.” 90 While Lee did not explicitly prohibit Christian leaders from proselytizing to the Malay-Muslims, he made clear that they should refrain from doing so. In turn, the government warned Malay newspapers not to publish articles that were anti-Christian or inflammatory.91

Nonetheless the government did not discriminate against religions that kept within these set boundaries since religion was viewed as a “moral anchor for the individual and society.”92 The government even made “Religious Knowledge” a compulsory subject for upper secondary school students (the equivalent of the first two years of high school) in

1982 as a way to instill “Asian values” among local teenagers. The program was

89 Tong, 236. 90 Speech to religious representatives and members of the Inter-Religious Council given on September 30, 1965, as quoted by Ee Moi Kho, “Religion and State in Singapore, 1959-1978” (bachelor’s honors thesis, University of Singapore, 1979), 31. 91 Ibid, 34. 92 Tong, 241. 37 scrapped after five years, however, when Christian and Buddhist teachers used their syllabus to proselytize to students.93 While the attempt to educate young Singaporeans with “Religious Knowledge” failed, it shows the level of tolerance that the government has toward religions. This has allowed a multiplicity of religions to flourish in Singapore, so much so that it is now considered one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world.94

But the government has banned a few religious groups, the most famous example being the Singapore branch of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Because Jehovah’s Witnesses claim neutrality on all war and military matters, Singaporean male converts cited their faith as justification for exempting themselves from compulsory military service, and refused to pledge allegiance to the state. The government responded by banning the group in 1972.95

In another instance, the Ministry of Home Affairs arrested sixteen people for their part in what has been termed the 1987 “Marxist conspiracy.” The leader of the “Marxist conspiracy” later confessed that he had indeed used the Catholic Church and church publications to organize activities against the government.96 In a meeting with various church leaders after the arrests, Lee Kuan Yew made it clear that “the Government will continue to uphold freedom of religion, but it will not tolerate the use of religion as a

93 Tong, 248-50. For more information about the Religious Knowledge program, please see Jason Tan, “The Rise and Fall of Religious Knowledge in Singapore’s Secondary Schools,” Journal of Curriculum Studies 29 (1997): 603-624. 94 Pew Research Center, “Global Religious Diversity: Half of the Most Religiously Diverse Countries are in Asia-Pacific Region,” April 2014. 95 Tong, 238. 96 Jagjit Kaur, “Marxist Conspiracy,” Singapore Infopedia, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1578_2009-10-31.html?s=marxist%20conspiracy (accessed November 28, 2016). 38 cover for subversive activities.”97 In response to the “Marxist conspiracy,” Parliament passed a Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill in 1990 that forbade religious leaders from promoting political causes or inciting ill feelings among different religious/ racial groups.98 In summary, the Singaporean government permitted organized religions to carry out meetings and activities in so far as they did not threaten the authority or policies of the state.99

It can therefore be seen that the government has a firm control over racial and religious affairs and organizations. In some ways, Singapore has evolved into a multicultural, multiracial and multi-religious society due to state policies that reify race and permit the freedom of religion. But the government will also intervene should a particular group or institution undermine state authority or upset the social fabric of racial harmony in Singapore.

GENDER AND FAMILY POLICIES

When Singapore gained full internal self-government in 1959, the PAP government inherited the gender problems that the British allowed to fester. Prostitution

97 “What We Will Not Tolerate—PM Meeting with Leaders of the Church,” The Straits Times, June 3, 1987, 1. To ensure that it did not seem that the government was attacking the Catholic Church or Catholics, The Straits Times ran another article, “PM Praises Catholics as ‘Stout-hearted Defenders of Democracy’” that same day. 98 Jean Lim,” Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill,” Singapore Infopedia, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1638_2010-01-31.html (accessed December 3, 2016). 99 The government did not allow any group to use religion to stop the implementation of state policies, even in matters that might be deemed of lesser importance. For instance, temples and churches situated on land necessary for state developmental projects have had to move or risk being abolished. See Keng Wah Koh, “The Deity Proposes, the State Disposes: The Vicissitudes of a Chinese Temple in Post-1965 Singapore,” in Singapore: Negotiating State and Society, 1965-2015, eds. Jason Lim and Terence Lee (London and New York: Routledge, 2016), 126-142, and “Government Press Statement on Provisions of Sites for Religious Buildings in New Towns,” released November 25, 1972, cited by Ee Moi Kho, “Religion and State in Singapore, 1959-1978” (bachelor’s honors thesis, University of Singapore, 1979), Appendix VI. 39 continued to be a severe issue, compounded by the general poverty of the population.

Furthermore, women were considered inferior to men in Chinese, Malay, and Indian culture and households. Parents favored the birth of sons over daughters, and brothers enjoyed more opportunities for education than their sisters.

On top of that, polygamous marriages were “plentiful,” even as late as the

1950s.100 Many Chinese husbands had a wife in China, and took a secondary wife (or more) in Singapore, while Islamic law allowed Malay men to enter into plural marriages.

Most Indian marriages were monogamous unless the wife was found barren, in which case the husband was justified to marry again.101 However, apart from ensuring that secondary wives had equal claims of ownership to property and adequate maintenance in polygamous marriages, British colonial overseers refused to intervene further in local customs, and allowed the practice of polygamy to continue.102

World War Two was a watershed moment for Singaporean women. As local historian Phyllis Chew noted, “Women in Singapore emerged from the Japanese occupation with a deeper awareness of the world around them and a greater confidence of their own capabilities to survive social and political changes... Hundreds of women came

100 Ann E. Wee, “Chinese Women of Singapore: Their Present Status in the Family and in Marriage,” in Women in the New Asia: The Changing Social Roles of Men and Women in South and South-East Asia, ed. Barbara E. Ward (Paris: UNESCO, 1963). Other articles from the book on women in Singapore include Michael Swift’s “Men and Women in Malay Society,” and Foong Wong’s “A Chinese Family in Singapore.” 101 Jenny Lam Lim, Phyllis G.L. Chew, Lisa Kong, and Tan Ee Sze, Voices & Choices: The Women’s Movement in Singapore (Singapore: Singapore Council of Women’s Organisations and Singapore Baha’I Women’s Committee, 1993), 136. In contrast, European (white) and Eurasian women were “given the right to education and encouraged to be independent,” and if they entered into marriage, had the security of knowing their husbands could not take another wife. Thus the European and Eurasian woman were considered to be the most emancipated. See p. 103. 102 Wee, 404. See also Phyllis Ghim Lian Chew, “The Singapore Council of Women and the Women’s Movement,” in Journal of Asian Studies 25 (March 1994): 124. 40 forward to help rebuild Singapore… Women also rallied to the call for decolonization.”103 By 1952, over thirty new associations for women sprung up, including the first family planning association, and a few joined political parties and stood for elections in the Municipal Council. However, these associations focused on

“fund-raising for the needy of society and on traditional feminine courses… Women’s rights was[sic] not an issue.”104

Amid the growth of women’s organizations, a group of women from various ethnic and racial backgrounds formed the Singapore Council of Women (SCW) in April

1952, the first feminist organization in Singapore. Its creation marked the beginning of

Singapore’s “first wave women’s movement.”105 In contrast to other organizations that

“saw women as fulfilling important but supportive roles,” the specific goals of the SCW was to “fight for the advancement of rights for women and seek specific changes such as the abolition of polygamy.”106 Its agenda included the creation of the first girls’ club in

Singapore, setting up of crèches (nurseries) in factories, and the opening of a rehabilitation center for girls and women forced into prostitution.107

103 Phyllis Ghim Lian Chew, “The Singapore Council of Women and the Women’s Movement,” in Journal of Asian Studies 25 (March 1994): 112-3. Michael Swift made the same argument in his essay on Malay women in Women in the New Asia, ed. Barbara E. Ward (Paris: UNESCO, 1963). 104 Chew, 113-4. 105 I use the term “women’s movement” instead of feminist movement because Singaporean women are weary of being associated with the terms “feminist” and “feminism.” These terms have negative Western connotations within the local context, and hence, many are reluctant to use that term, even if they self- identify as “feminists.” For more details, see Lenore Lyons, A State of Ambivalence: The Feminist Movement in Singapore (Leiden, the Netherlands: Koninklijke, 2004) and Jenny Lam Lim, et al, Voices & Choices, 88. 106 Chew, 113-4. 107 For more information about the successes and failure of these three agenda items, please see Chew, 119-20. 41

However, the SCW is best remembered for its fight to abolish polygamy, pitting it against the Chinese and Muslim Advisory Board to the British authorities. The Muslim

Advisory Board remained silent on polygamy, though it agreed to pass the Muslim

Ordinance in 1957 that safeguarded divorced Muslim women. The Chinese Advisory

Board simply refused to tackle the issue.108 The exasperated SCW decided to change tactics and began focusing on generating change through political action and legislation.

In this they found an ally in Lee Kuan Yew’s PAP.

Among all the political parties in the heated 1959 election, the PAP was the strongest advocate of women’s rights. Through the party’s Women’s League, it organized a mass function on International Women’s Day (March 8) in 1956 attended by more than

2,000 men and women. At the mass rally, the Women’s League passed resolutions calling for “equal pay for equal work,” and for International Women’s Day to be a public holiday.109 More significantly, it was the only political party to adopt “one man one wife” as part of its campaign slogan and party manifesto in 1959. As in many other matters, the

PAP’s promise to ban polygamy stemmed from political expediency. It was a calculated move because the election that year was the first time that compulsory voting would come into effect, and women now formed a crucial voting bloc. The PAP decided to adopt an anti-polygamy stance in hopes that it would attract female voters, even at the expense of angering male voters, and promised to abolish polygamy if voted into power.

It was a gamble that paid off. The SCW, which initially mistrusted the PAP, was forced

108 Chew, 124-125, 130. 109 Ibid., 132-2. The Women’s League was unable to hold the PAP to its pledge to designate International Women’s Day as a public holiday in Singapore. 42 to support its former nemesis. In the end, the party won by a landslide, taking control of forty-three of the fifty-one contested seats.

When the PAP assumed power in July 1959, the SCW immediately held the party to its election promise. Hence, on May 24, 1961, the Legislative Assembly passed the

Women’s Charter Bill. This landmark bill outlawed polygamy (except for Muslims), and granted married women equal rights and protection in case of divorce or abuse.110 Sadly, the passing of the bill marked the beginning of the demise of the SCW. The passing of the charter left the SCW “without a viable sense of direction” to sustain the energies of its members, and dissolved in 1971.111 Thus ended the first wave women’s movement in

Singapore.

To the credit of the PAP, the dissolution of the SCW did not end the government’s efforts to improve the social conditions of women. To ensure that

Singapore’s limited human capital met the educational and vocational demands for economic development, the government embarked on an intensive school-building program that dramatically increased female enrollment in schools (11,600 in 1948 to

159,000 in 1974). To further incentivize women to remain economically active, the government encouraged women to marry and have children later. The Malthusian theory of population growth and “zero population movement” only confirmed to the

Singaporean government that birth and family size reduction was the solution to

110 Wai Kim Leong, The Singapore Women’s Charter: 50 Questions (Singapore: Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2011). Malay marriages are governed separately under the Administration of Muslim Law Act. 111 Ibid., 137. 43 prolonging women’s participation in the workforce.112 In 1966, the government established the Family Planning and Population Board (FPPB) to study and recommend policies for population control. Under the recommendation of the FPPB, Singapore legalized abortion in 1970, and implemented a set of “population disincentive” policies that raised the cost of bearing three or more children in 1969 and 1972. 113 Parents who underwent voluntary sterilization, especially those who were less-educated and from the lower-income brackets, could receive seven days of paid sick leave, and priority in the allocation of public goods as housing and education.114 To help working mothers with domestic and childcare duties. the government increased the number of foreign domestic female workers from the Philippines and Indonesia, although up until the 1990s, this figure remained relatively small.115

112 Matthew Connelly, Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010). 113 For more information about abortion in Singapore, see A.J. Chen, S.C. Emmanuel, S.L. Ling, and S.B. Kwa, “Legalized Abortion: The Singapore Experience,” Studies in Family Planning 16 (May-June 1985): 170-178. Information about sterilization policies is found at Library of Congress Country Studies, “Singapore--Population Control Policies,” http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+sg0041) (accessed March 2014). According to the Library of Congress, “Civil servants received no paid maternity leave for third and subsequent children; maternity hospitals charged progressively higher fees for each additional birth; and income tax deductions for all but the first two children were eliminated… Top priority in the competition for enrollment in the most desirable primary schools was given to only children and to children whose parents had been sterilized before the age of forty.” 114 Ibid. 115 The national newspaper, The Straits Times, reported that in 1987, the government only granted 20,000 foreign female workers (most of whom were Filipinas) working permits. See The Straits Times, February 7, 1987. This figure jumped to 100,000 only a decade later. For more information about the history of foreign domestic workers in Singapore, see Shirlena Huang and Brenda S. A. Yeoh, “Maids and Ma’ams in Singapore: Constructing Gender and Nationality in the Transnationalization of Paid Domestic Work, Geography Research Form 18 (1998): 21-48; Maria Platt, “Foreign Domestic Workers in Singapore: Historical and Contemporary Reflections on the Colonial Politics of Intimacy” in Colonization and Domestic Service: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, eds. Victoria J. Haskins and Claire Lowrie (New York: Routledge, 2015), 131-145; Diana Wong, “Foreign Domestic Workers in Singapore,” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 5 (1996): 117-138. 44

Furthermore, the government tried to change the traditional bias against females, and convince parents that the need to have a son was not imperative. In 1970, the FBBP launched an aggressive anti-natalist “Stop at Two (children)” campaign. Posters depicting a happy couple with, none, one or two children dotted the islands. The most common faces on these posters were two young smiling girls, the older wearing pigtails, and the younger with shorter hair. The accompanying slogans included “One, two, and that’s ideal” and “Girl or boy—two is enough.”116 Although the models used for the posters were Chinese (only one poster in 1983 showed a Malay family), the government printed the slogans and texts in English, Mandarin Chinese, and Tamil. The message was clear— all couples, regardless of their race, could still experience the same sense of familial happiness with two (or fewer) daughters, even if they did not have sons.

The combination of these gender and family policies caused the fertility rate to decline from 4.7 in 1965 to 2.1 in 1975 and then to 1.6 in 1985. The female participation in the workforce correspondingly increased from 13.8% in 1965 to 29.6% in 1975, and

44.3% in 1980.117 These changes prompted Lee Kuan Yew to boast at a local 1975

International Women’s Year Seminar-cum-Exhibition that “there has been no vociferous women’s liberation movement in Singapore. It has been government policy to encourage the education of women to their fullest ability and their employment commensurate with their abilities.”118 As arrogant as it sounds, the seeds of truth in his remarks help explain

116 For a sampling of such posters, please see “Singapore Campaigns of the 70s/80s,” Remember Singapore Blog, entry posted January 18, 2013, https://remembersingapore.org/2013/01/18/singapore- campaigns-of-the-past/ (accessed October 17, 2016). 117 Jenny Lam Lim, et al., 138; 118 Lee Kuan Yew, “Speech at the NTUC’s International Women’s Year Seminar-cum-Exhibition,” September 1, 1975. Copy available online from the National Archives of Singapore. To be fair to Lee, this 45 why Singaporean women were sufficiently appeased with their “liberated” status, that is, until (ironically) Lee himself disturbed the status quo and sparked off the second wave women’s movement in Singapore.

In 1983, Lee delivered what the media dubbed “The Great Marriage Debate” as part of his National Day rally speech. In that speech, Lee highlighted the trend that

Singaporean women with a university education tended to delay marriage and have fewer or no children. A believer in hereditary intelligence, he feared that the decline in the birth rate among well-educated women would eventually lead to long-term economic disaster.119 Moreover, the 1980 census revealed that the decline in birthrate had not tapered off as predicted but continued to drop. Apparently the “Stop at Two” campaign had worked a little too well.

To arrest this problem, the government introduced the “Graduate Mothers

Scheme,” a series of measures targeted at graduate mothers. The most controversial aspect of the scheme was that women who held a university degree and had three or more children, would be given priority in primary (elementary) school registration. Conversely, less-educated women were penalized in monetary terms for having a third child.120 This new policy galled Singaporean women, especially those with a college degree, and used

was also the famous speech in which he is often quoted as saying, “Societies which do not educate and use half their potential because they are women, are those which will be worse off.” 119 A copy of the speech can be found in Lydia Lim ed., Vintage Lee: Landmark Speeches since 1955 (Singapore: Straits Times Press, 2016), 86-8. 120 Lily L. L. Kong and Jasmine S. Chan, “Patriarchy and Pragmatism: Ideological Contradictions in State and Policies,” Asian Studies Review 24 (December 2000), 519; Lenore Lyons, A State of Ambivalence: The Feminist Movement in Singapore. 46 the 1984 election to protest the blatant elitism. In response, the government rescinded the policy in 1985.

The failure of the Graduate Mothers Scheme did not stop the government’s attempts to control women’s bodies though. In 1986, the government abolished the

FBBP, and in an ironic twist, launched another population campaign in 1987 with a new slogan— “Have three, or more if you can afford it” blared the front-page headline of The

Straits Times, the country’s national paper.121 This time, parents who had more children qualified for a package of monetary incentives that alleviated the cost of having more children, such as tax rebates and childcare subsidies.122 Although the government did not want women to revert back to having exceptionally large families like in the past, three or four children would be an ideal number.

But Singaporean women were shocked and incensed by the blatant efforts of the government to control women’s bodies. Even one Singaporean husband commented,

“Are we being told to have more children for the sake of the country or for ourselves?”123

The fertility rate remained low, increasing slightly in the early 1990s, before declining again to 1.4 in 2001.124 But it wasn’t simply because women were accustomed to a certain level of freedom and material comfort. Rather, they believed that they could better

121 Alan John, “Have 3, or more if you can afford it,” Straits Times, March 2, 1987, 1. 122 “‘Have Three, Or More If You Can Afford It’ is Announced, 1st March 1987,” History SG, an online resource of the National Library Board of Singapore, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/1d106f7e-aca1-4c0e-ac7a-d35d0772707d (accessed October 17, 2016); Ruth Youngblood, “‘Stop at 2’ Campaign Works Too Well; Singapore Urges New Baby Boom,” Los Angeles Times, June 21, 1987. 123 Ruth Youngblood, “‘Stop at 2’ Campaign Works Too Well; Singapore Urges New Baby Boom,” Los Angeles Times, June 21, 1987. 124 Data taken from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators, available at http://data.worldbank.org/country/singapore (accessed May 11, 2015). 47 focus on the needs of their children if they only had one or two.125 The Great Marriage

Debate speech also galvanized a group of women to found the Association of Women for

Action and Research (AWARE) in late-1984. AWARE would become the preeminent women’s organization in Singapore. Membership to the government-sanctioned

Singapore Council of Women’s Organisations (SCWO) also skyrocketed, with affiliated membership totaling 92,000 in 1990.126 While the furor of the Great Marriage Debate gradually faded in the 1990s, and with it, the second wave women’s movement in

Singapore, the government learned that women were not passive recipients of state policies nor would they be manipulated for state objectives. Despite the lucrative economic incentives, the social pressure for women to have fewer children remained high. Singaporean women continued to seek employment, marry later, and create small families as the cost of living increased with Singapore’s integration into the global consumer economy.

Despite the economic independence enjoyed by Singaporean women, scholars have pointed out that the state was and remains a complicit actor in perpetuating women’s inferiority within Chinese, Malay and Indian cultures. State policies promoted gender equality on the surface, but were inherently discriminatory. The Women’s Charter was progressive in certain aspects, but was mainly concerned about protecting women’s traditional role as wives and mothers. As such, the Charter failed to protect women in their role as employees, and did not include in the promised provision of “equal pay for

125 Ruth Youngblood, “‘Stop at 2’ Campaign Works Too Well; Singapore Urges New Baby Boom,” Los Angeles Times, June 21, 1987. 126 Jenny Lim et al., 108. 48 equal work.”127 Education was another channel in which the government socialized girls to accept patriarchy. Even as the state educated females and prepared them to be wage earners, the curriculum taught girls that they were also in charge of the domestic realm.128

Worse still was the PAP’s unabashed defense of patriarchy. Not only did state policies protect the men as head-of-households, it “unabashedly” described itself as a patriarchal state.129 Singapore, according to the masculinized national narrative, was built by the male leadership of the PAP upon the “hard culture” of Chinese Confucianism and values. The women played a supporting role as “long-suffering silent bearers of hardship, located in a feminized world of emotional strength on which masculine actions relies.”130

Moreover, the state disproportionately blamed women for the population problem in the

1970s and ‘80s.131 By crafting such a history, the PAP rationalized and legitimized their control over the bodies of Singaporean women.

There is no doubt that the status of women in Singapore has improved under the

PAP, but a fair assessment of its gender and family policies must acknowledge that

127Jasmine S. Chan, “The Status of Women in a Patriarchal State: The Case of Singapore,” Women in Asia: Tradition, Modernity and Globalisation, Louise Edwards and Mino Roces eds. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000). 128 Ee Moi Kho, The Construction of Femininity in a Postcolonial State: Girl’s Education in Singapore (Amherst, New York: Cambria Press, 2013). 129 Chan, 46-8. One example of a state policy that protected men as head-of-household was the exclusion of female workers in the public sector from receiving employee medical benefits. The rationale was that wives and children would fall under the benefit packages of their husbands/ fathers. Even in the 1990s, state officials claimed that undermining the “natural balance and division of responsibility between the sexes” would lead to social decline as it has in Western countries. See Chan, 50. 130 Chris Hudson, Beyond the Singapore Girl: Discourse of Gender and Nation in Singapore (Great Britain: NIAS Press, 2013), chapter 1 and quote on page 3. For an example of such discourse, see Lee Kuan Yew’s speech, “Singapore’s Fate Depends on 300 Men,” in Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas, eds. Han Fook Kwang, Warren Fernandez and Sumiko Tan (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions and The Straits Times Press, 2015), 313-6. 131 Lily L. L. Kong and Jasmine S. Chan, “Patriarchy and Pragmatism: Ideological Contradictions in State and Policies,” Asian Studies Review 24 (December 2000), 519-20. 49

Singaporean women now carry the double burden of work and family. Not only does cultural patriarchy continue to exist, it is fed by the state so as to justify its control over women’s bodies.

The history and evolution of racial, religious, gender and family policies in

Singapore demonstrates the authority and power that the state wields over the country and the people, and sets up the historical context for the proceeding chapters. The final section in this chapter will focus on the history of U.S.-Singapore relations, and how the

Singaporean government cultivated a relationship with the United States. Although the relationship had its share of hiccups, both countries remain amiable and strong trading partners.

SINGAPORE-U.S. RELATIONS

On August 2, 2016, six months before leaving office, President Barack Obama hosted a state dinner for Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore, and son of Lee

Kuan Yew. As Prime Minister Lee stepped onto the curb of the White House that hot summer evening, he must have thought about his father who had passed away just over a year ago. Lee Kuan Yew had been the guest of honor for no less than three state dinners hosted by President Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan. Now the son was following in his father’s footsteps, cementing a relationship that his father had nurtured since 1967. After the 200 attendants dined on an East-Meets-West menu that featured

American Wagyu beef, Maryland blue crab, and California peaches132, Obama and Lee

132 Tom Sietsema, “What’s on the Singapore state dinner menu? East meets West,” The Washington Post, July 29, 2016. 50 traded jokes and praises about each other, before toasting to a continuation of U.S.-

Singapore diplomatic ties.133

That President Obama hosted Prime Minister Lee to a state dinner was, as CNBC described, “a diplomatic coup for the small city-state.”134 Not only did President Obama rarely bestow such an honor—the dinner for Lee was the twelfth of thirteen—but

Singapore was the only Southeast Asian country to receive such an honor, and the fifth in

Asia after India, China, South Korea, and Japan. Yet, Singapore and the United States could not be more different from each other, not least because their geographical positions on the globe are quite literally opposite from each other.135 But Singapore and the United States are also polar opposites in terms of geographic size, accessibility to natural resources and human capital, military capabilities, political ideologies, and social makeup, culture, and values.

For two such distinct countries to become close friends took decades of careful cultivation and was a deliberate choice on both sides to regard each other as equal geopolitical and economic allies. Although Singapore and the United States can trace their trading history to as far back as the pre-British colonial era, relations between the

133 Melissa Sim, “VIPs, Celebrities Attend State Dinner,” The Straits Times, August 4, 2016; Jeremy Au Yong, “PM Lee and President Obama Toasts at White House State Dinner, Pay Tribute to Strong Singapore-US Ties,” The Straits Times, August 3, 3016. A full transcript of both Prime Minister Lee and President Obama’s toast speeches can be retrieved at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- office/2016/08/03/toast-remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-lee-singapore-state (accessed December 1, 2016). 134 Aza Wee Sile, “Singapore’s 50-Year Relationship with U.S. to be Celebrated at White House State Dinner,” CNBC, August 1, 2016, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/01/singapores-50-year-relationship-with- us-to-be-celebrated-at-white-house-state-dinner.html (accessed December 1, 2016). 135 The antipode of Singapore is Ecuador, but one can go north of Ecuador along the 75o latitude up to the East Coast of the United States. 51 two up until 1967 was more hierarchical and exploitative, with none of the warmth seen today. After the British colonized Singapore in 1819, Singapore simply became another trading port for Americans to access the Asian market, and later a source for raw materials (tin, gutta-percha and rubber).136 Granted, the United States became one of

Singapore’s dominant trading partners, but Americans viewed Singapore the same way the British did— as a colony of inferior status.137

The beginning of the twentieth century saw an increased presence of American companies and people in Singapore, and the United States sealed soon became

Singapore’s most important trading partner.138 Standard Oil of New York, Singer Sewing

Machine, and Ford Motor Company were but a few companies which set up a branch or plant in Singapore.139 More American missionaries came to Singapore, and the

Methodists were particularly successful in establishing schools that are still highly regarded in present-day Singapore.140 Hollywood movies and ragtime dance music also exploded in the entertainment scene in the 1920s.141 But Americans hardly socialized with the local population as Americans and Europeans retreated to their exclusive

136 Jim Baker, The Eagle in the Lion City: America, Americans and Singapore (Singapore: Landmark Books, 2005), 53, 83, 91. 137 See chapters one to four in Jim Baker’s The Eagle in the Lion City: America, Americans and Singapore for more details about U.S.-Singapore relations during the British colonial period. 138 Baker, 101. 139 Ibid., 98 and 138. 140 Ibid., 58-60, 115-122, 164-6. Reverend William F. Oldham and missionary Sophia Blackmore founded the Anglo-Chinese School and the Methodist Girls’ School in Singapore respectively. Although Oldham was British and Blackmore, Australian, funds and resources for the school came from the American Methodist Church. The Anglo-Chinese School and the Methodist Girls’ School are considered one of the top schools in Singapore today. 141 Ibid., 157-164. 52 neighborhoods and clubs outside business hours. In fact, domestic segregation and racism in the United States likely reinforced the color bar in Singapore.142

The onset of the Cold War caused the first shift in Singapore-U.S. relations. The

United States began taking a closer interest in the political affairs of Singapore, in part because American businesses once again flocked to Singapore after the British returned in 1945. The American community expanded to the point that it raised enough money to build the Singapore American School in 1956 for children and teenagers who accompanied their parents to Singapore. By 1970, the enrollment size totaled over 1,600, and the school had to relocate to another campus, an indication of how large the

American population in Singapore had become.143

More significantly, the United States started to view Singapore from a geopolitical standpoint. As a British colony situated far away from communist China,

Singapore was a secure meeting ground for American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and British Secret Intelligence Service officers to exchange information. Singapore’s location also promoted the U.S. government to open a United States Information Service

(USIS) office and a CIA station in Singapore in 1949.144 By 1952, the National Security

Council recognized the need to prevent Singapore from falling into communist control, a fear later compounded by the Vietnam War.145 When it became clear by the mid-1950s that Singapore was on its way to colonial independence, the Eisenhower administration

142 Ibid., 146-154. 143 Ibid., 218-221; “Place Assured for American Children,” The Straits Times, June 9, 1970, 7. 144 Baker, 194-5. 145 S.R. Joey Long, Safe for Decolonization: The Eisenhower Administration, Britain, and Singapore (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 2011), 10. 53 determined to intervene more forcefully in Singaporean affairs through various channels.

For example, USIS-Singapore launched an audio, audiovisual, experiential and literary cultural campaign that “[left] an enduring mark on the local culture and psyche, [and generated] positive sentiments among Singaporeans toward the United States.”146

However, U.S. officials were less successful in manipulating the local political scene to suit their interests. The American government distrusted Lee Kuan Yew because of his alliance with left-wing activists, and poured money and resources into helping his main opponent, Lim Yew Hock, win the 1959 election. Lee immediately accused Lim’s cabinet of corruption and being fronts for foreign governments, a false accusation that nonetheless destroyed Lim and his party’s chance of electoral victory. The 1961 CIA espionage debacle exacerbated tensions between Lee and Washington. The CIA attempted to infiltrate the PAP by recruiting a local officer of Singapore’s internal intelligence agency to work as a mole. When the CIA officers were caught and jailed,

Washington offered the PAP a bribe of US$3.3 million. Lee called their actions “an unbelievable insult. The Americans had been buying and selling so many leaders in

Vietnam and elsewhere that they believed they could buy and sell leaders everywhere.”147

After Singapore became fully independent in 1965, Singapore-U.S. relations remained cool and tenuous, mainly fueled by mutual economic interests.148

The second turning point in U.S.-Singapore relations came in 1967. Whatever disputes Lee Kuan Yew had with Washington, they agreed on one thing—the rise of

146 Ibid., 58. 147 Lee, From Third World to First, 501. 148 Long, chapters 5 “Labor Operations” and 9 “Covert Snafus”; Baker, 200-202, 235. 54 communist regimes in Southeast Asia would destabilize the region. Singapore relied on the British for defense capabilities, but when Britain announced its plans to withdraw all troops from Singapore by 1971, Lee was compelled to find another solution.149 Although he favored replacing the British with troops from Australia and New Zealand, the ever- pragmatic Lee understood that “America was the only country with the strength and determination to stem this relentless tide of history and reverse the erosion of people’s will to resist the communists.”150 Moreover, his cabinet “concluded that Singapore’s best hope lay with the American multinational corporations (MNCs)… American MNCs brought higher technology in large-scale operations, creating many jobs. They had weight and confidence.”151 The following year, in 1968, Lee Kuan Yew began a Sabbatical at

Harvard, and took the opportunity to meet with various government officials. During his meetings with President Lyndon B. Johnson, Lee reassured them that Singapore supported the presence of the United States in Southeast Asia. Lee’s overtures healed the fissures between the two nations, and made clear that Singapore welcomed a geopolitical alliance with the United States. From that point forth, Singapore has enjoyed a warm relationship with the United States.152

Of course, the two nations still disagreed on certain topics from the 1970s and into the 1990s. In the 1970s, the Singaporean government launched a campaign against

149 To learn more about this topic, please see Marsita Omar and Fook Weng Chan, “British Withdrawal from Singapore,” Singapore Infopedia, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1001_2009-02- 10.html (accessed December 3, 2016), and chapter 3 “Britain Pulls Out” in Lee Kuan Yew’s From Third World to First. 150 Lee, 501. 151 Lee, 75. 152 Baker, 236-239; Lee, chapter 28 “America: The Anti-Communist Anchorman.” 55 the American “hippie culture.” As mentioned earlier, all men (local and foreign) had to cut their hair short. The government censored or banned explicit movies, music, and magazines, and imposed the death penalty on hard drug traffickers. The American expatriate community became particularly upset over the strict drug laws when the

Central Narcotics Bureau arrested about thirty students from the Singapore American

School for drug possession. One student ended up serving a three-month stint in jail, four were fined and deported, and sixty-eight left Singapore due to disciplinary action from the school.153 In the late-1980s, various American-owned periodicals, such as Time and the Asian Wall Street Journal, had their circulation restricted for a while because they printed articles that the Singaporean government perceived as interfering in local politics.154 And the most famous example of a Singapore-U.S. spat was the 1994 caning of American teenager Michael P. Fay for vandalism in Singapore. Fay’s case sparked an uproar that forced President Bill Clinton to intervene for leniency (Fay’s sentence was reduced from six to four strokes of the cane).155 These examples pointed to differences between the way Singapore and the United States regarded issues of human rights and freedom of press.

Nonetheless, Singapore and the United States weathered through their differences and continued to forge strong economic, political and military ties. According to the

International Monetary Fund and U.S. Department of Commerce, by 1975, Singapore had

153 Baker, 257-60; Lai Yew Kong, “200 Students on Drugs—in One School…” The Straits Times, March 23, 1976, 1; “Drugs and Duty,” The Straits Times, March 24, 1976, 16. 154 Baker, 269-278. 155 Baker, 278-81. 56 become the largest trading partner of the United States in Southeast Asia, overtaking even the larger countries of the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia.156 In the 1980s, the

American Air Force conducted joint training exercises with the Singapore Air Force, and sold over $6 billion worth of arms, planes and helicopters to Singapore. The U.S. Navy also created a Navy Command Center in Singapore in 1990, a move that drew the ire of

Singapore’s neighbors but reinforced Singapore’s support for an American military presence in the region. By 2000, the number of American expatriates in Singapore numbered 15,000 to 20,000.157

It is clear that Singapore and the United States are strong allies, and Americans are welcomed in Singapore. What is less apparent is the relationship between local

Singaporeans and American expatriates at a non-state level. As mentioned earlier,

Americans in Singapore enjoyed membership to exclusive clubs that discriminated against non-whites, and their superior economic status further divided them from the local people along class lines. The PAP’s “CMIO model” of multiracial equality did little to erase these realities on the ground. Unfortunately, there is hardly any literature that addresses this issue. There are hints that Singaporeans were conscious of the differences in skin color, such as their use of the Singlish racial epithet “ang moh”158 to describe white people or people from a Western culture in general, but a comprehensive,

156 Robert J. McMahon, The Limits of Empire: The United States and Southeast Asia Since World War II (New York: Columbus University Press, 1999), Appendix 1 on page 223. 157 Baker, 300-303, 307. 158 The term is the Hokkien dialect’s pronunciation of the Chinese words “红毛” or red hair. The term originated in Southern China during the 16th century to refer to Dutch traders in China, but was widely used by migrant laborers in Singapore to refer to the British. Today, some Singaporeans view the term as racist and derogatory while others have accepted it as part of the mainstream Singlish lexicon. 57 scholastic study on Singaporean-American expatriate relations has yet to be published.

My dissertation fills this gap in a partial way.

58

CHAPTER 2: MORMONISM

On January 24, 2014, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more commonly known as the “Mormon Church,” released a YouTube video titled

“Mormonism is a Christ-Centered, Global Faith.” Through the video, the Church revealed that even though the LDS Church is predominantly associated with Caucasian

(white) members in Utah, in reality fifty-six percent of its 15.6 million membership resided outside of the United States of America and Canada.159 Critics of the Church have pointed out the sizeable discrepancy between the number of people on record and those who actually practice their faith: the retention rate for Mormons in the United States born within the faith or who converted later hover between fifty to seventy percent.160

Nonetheless, the international growth of Mormonism indicates that the Church has branched out from its humble American roots. Not bad for a church that started out in

159 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “VIDEO: Mormonism Is a Christ-Centered, Global Faith” (January 24, 2014), link to accompanying press release and article found at http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-christ-centered-faith (accessed February 14, 2014). According to the video, 40% of Mormons reside in Latin America, while 16% of members live in Europe, Africa and Asia. The total number of members on record is reported every year at the Church’s General Conference in April. In 2015, the total number of members on record was 15,634,199. See Brook P. Hales, “Statistical Report, 2015,” Conference Report, April 2016. 160 Kristen Moulton, “Christianity Shrinking in U.S., Mormon Numbers Essentially Shrinking,” The Salt Lake Tribune, May 11, 2015; Joanna Brooks, “Mormon Numbers Not Adding Up,” Religion Dispatches by the University of Southern California Annenberg, February 3, 2015, http://religiondispatches.org/mormon- numbers-not-adding-up/ (accessed December 12, 2016); Clark, “Retention,” Patheos, posted on March 20, 2012, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2012/03/retention/ (accessed December 12, 2016). I have been unsuccessful in finding a reliable source that measures the retention rate of Mormons outside of the United States. 59

Fayette, New York, with about fifty people cramped in a small house belonging to a farmer who believed in the fantastic story of a young man named Joseph Smith.161

Joseph Smith, the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was the first president and prophet of the church. Born in 1805 in Sharon, Vermont to parents who were farmers, Smith’s family moved to Palmyra, New York in 1816. The region of upstate New York was then engulfed in a wave of intense religious revivalism and polemics which scholars have termed the Second Great Awakening.162 Desiring to know which church he should join, Smith retired to a grove of trees near his home one spring morning in 1820. He emerged a few hours later claiming to have received a vision in which he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ, and that he had been instructed by them to reject all existing churches. Instead, God would restore his one true church on the earth again through Smith.163 A decade after his revelatory “First Vision,” Smith opened his first church meeting on April 6, 1830 at the farmhouse in Fayette. Since then, the Church has grown in terms of size and geographic locations.

But even before the Church conducted its first meeting, Smith and his followers faced opposition wherever they went. Smith’s claims of seeing God as a teenager, and

161 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Chapter Six: Organization of the Church of Jesus Christ,” Church History in The Fullness of Times Student Manual (Salt Lake City, Utah: Church Education System, 2003), 67-78. 162 The Second Great Awakening was a period of zealous, fervent religious resurgence among Protestant denominations in the United States during the first half of the nineteenth-century. Membership for Methodist and Baptist congregations soared in particularly. The Second Great Awakening is best known for its camp meetings, in which large masses of people gathered in a public place to listen to the fiery oratory of a preacher. 163 Joseph Smith—History 1: 3-20. Joseph Smith—History is found in the Pearl of Great Price, one of the four scriptures part of the LDS Church’s scriptural cannon. A few other versions of Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” can be found on the Church’s websites under “Gospel Topics-- First Vision Accounts,” https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng (accessed December 13, 2016). 60 later, of witnessing an angel who helped him translate golden plates into the Book of

Mormon164, were too absurd for belief, and many townspeople persecuted Smith. Soon after the Church was set up, Smith and his followers of “Latter-day Saints” moved to

Kirtland, Ohio in 1831, unsuccessfully set up another branch in Jackson County,

Missouri, then consolidated its membership in Nauvoo, Illinois in 1839. After Smith was murdered by a mob while incarcerated at Carthage, Illinois in 1844, his successor,

Brigham Young, led the band of grieving Saints across the Western plains. They eventually settled in present-day Utah, and established the Church’s headquarters in Salt

Lake City, where it still sits today.

Having fast forwarded through the history of the Church, the next three sections of this chapter will go into greater depth about three particular aspects of its history: its racialized past, the Church’s treatment of women and its gender policies, and the development of its iconic Mormon missionary program in Asia.

RACE AND THE CHURCH

Scholar who utilize race as a category of analysis in Mormon historical studies will inadvertently run into the same problem aptly described by one scholar— “the study of ‘race and Mormonism’ has long been synonymous with the study of ‘race and the priesthood.’”165 In 1852, Brigham Young, who served as the next president of the Church

164 The Book of Mormon is one of the four scriptures of the LDS scriptural cannon, along with the Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. Joseph Smith claimed that an angel showed him where to find an ancient history of the Native Americans near his home which were written on gold plates, and later the angel gave him tools to translate said plates. The translation became the Book of Mormon. 165 Max Perry Mueller, “Beyond ‘Race and the Priesthood’—Toward a New History of Race and Mormonism,” Journal of Mormon History 41, no. 3 (July 2015): 4. For a brief historiographical essay about race and the LDS Church, see 61 after Joseph Smith, announced at a Church conference that African and African

American men were banned from being ordained to the priesthood. Young and other

Church leaders rationalized the ban by drawing upon early American colonial beliefs that

African people descended from the Biblical characters Cain, Ham, or Canaan, and were thus cursed by God with dark skin and racial inferiority to people of Anglo descent.166

Since the 1970s, scholars have analyzed and written about (and sometimes tussled with the Church over) the 1852 priesthood ban.167 The scholastic interest on this topic is understandable, as the Church’s ban lasted more than 120 years, and was only lifted in

1978, well over a decade after President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The delayed elimination of such blatant segregation cast a piercing spotlight on the Church, a spotlight that continues to draw attention from scholars and the lay public alike even today.168

Despite the narrow topical focus on race and the priesthood, there is still much to be gained from the early scholarship. Most enlightening are the works revealing how

Joseph Smith’s ideas about the ancestral lineage of Africans shaped Mormon discourse about race, even into the twentieth-century. Smith firmly believed in the racialized myths

166 Ryan Stuart Bingham, “Curses and Marks: Racial Dispensations and Dispensations of Race in Joseph Smith’s Bible Revision and the Book of Abraham,” Journal of Mormon History 41, no.3 July 2015): 27-31. 167 Max Perry Mueller, “History Lessons: Race and the LDS Church,” Journal of Mormon History 41, no. 1 (Winter 2015): 139-155. 168 Even today, the issue of the priesthood ban remains on the minds of many Americans, and as a result, the Church published an essay titled “Race and the Priesthood” to clear up any misconceptions. See No author(s) identified, “Race and the Priesthood,” n.d. but first posted December 10, 2013, according to web.archives.org (Wayback Machine), https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng (accessed December 13, 2016). 62 about the cursed Biblical lineage of African and African Americans.169 His notion that skin color also correlated to a racial hierarchy reflected in the Book of Mormon, a scriptural book he claimed to have translated from gold plates. According to the Book of

Mormon, people who obeyed God (“the Nephites,” pronounced “nee-fytes”) were fair- skinned, as opposed to the wicked “Lamanites” whom “the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon.”170 This dichotomy of fair-good/ dark-evil is also found in

Smith’s revision of the Biblical book of Genesis, which he undertook from June 1830 to

March 1831.171 Thus, the additional scriptures published by Smith laid the theological framework that ascribed Africans and African Americans as being divinely cursed, and conversely, European and Anglo-American societies as being favored and blessed by

God.172

To be fair, Smith did not support slavery, most likely since (ironically enough) the

Book of Mormon texts also made clear that slavery was antithetical to the gospel.173

Recent works also reveal that Smith allowed at least one black male convert to be ordained to the priesthood.174 Hence, for Smith, the darkness associated with skin color

169 Ryan Stuart Bingham, “Curses and Marks: Racial Dispensations and Dispensations of Race in Joseph Smith’s Bible Revision and the Book of Abraham,” Journal of Mormon History 41, no.3 July 2015): 27-31. 170 2 Nephi 5:21. See also Newell G. Bringhurst, Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Black People within Mormonism (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1981). 171 Bingham, 27 and 32. 172 Craig Prentiss, “‘Loathsome unto Thy People’: The Latter-day Saints and Racial Categorization,” in Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity, ed. Craig Prentiss (New York: New York Press, 2003), 125- 7. 173 For instance, see Alma 27:9 and 4 Nephi 1:3. 174 John G. Turner, “Why Race is Still a Problem for Mormons,” The New York Times, August 18, 2012. For more information about Elijah Abel, the ordained black man, please see W. Kesler Jackson, Elijah Abel: The Life and Times of a Black Priesthood Holder (Springville, Utah: Cedar Fort Inc., 2013), and Russell W. Stevenson, Black Mormon: The Story of Elijah Ables (Wyoming: PrintStar, 2013). 63 was more of an outward manifestation of a spiritual curse and darkness, and not a justification for physical bondage or a condemnation of repentant black people. In fact,

Smith strongly advocated that white people had the responsibility to preach the word of

God to people of all races and ethnicity, since everyone was a child of God with the potential to gain salvation. Every human being was of the same individual worth, but not everyone had been born with the same spiritual privileges.175

These racial concepts also informed the ways in which Smith and the early Saints viewed Native Americans, Latin Americans, and Polynesians. Early Church leaders ascribed the darker skin tone of Native Americans and Latin Americans to their ancestors, whom Mormons believed were the more wicked Lamanites in the Book of

Mormon. Like black people, the curse of “darkness” can be removed via repentance and baptism into the Church. Likewise, Church leaders claim that Polynesians descended from the people in the Book of Mormon, and are thus “cousins” to Native Americans, although there is still an ongoing debate whether Polynesians descended from the cursed

Lamanites, or the more righteous and “white” Nephites.176

175 Taking their cues from Joseph Smith, the early Saints practiced caution when dealing with issues related to blacks and slavery. They too supported the emancipation of black people from slavery but refused to align themselves with the fervid abolitionist movement, which they viewed as the opposing extreme to the pro-slavery camp. See Bringhurst, 20-21. See also Craig Prentiss’ chapter “‘Loathsome unto Thy People’: The Latter-day Saints and Racial Categorization,” in Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity, ed. Craig Prentiss (New York: New York Press, 2003). The Church has since disavowed all such theories and myths about racial origins. See No author(s) identified, “Race and the Priesthood,” n.d. but first posted December 10, 2013, according to web.archives.org (Wayback Machine), https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng (accessed December 13, 2016). 176 Hokulani K. Aikau, A Chosen People, A Promised Land: Mormonism and Race in Hawaii (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2012), 42-51; Prentiss, 127-132. 64

But more pertinent to this particular project is the question of how Smith and his followers viewed people from “the Orient,” and in this, there are few sources to answer this query. Smith’s papers and contemporary church publications only mention

“Chinese,” “Turks,” and other people from the Asian continent in passing, although it is possible to infer from these brief instances that they were very much influenced by the prevailing thought of “Orientalism.”177 For example, the editorial “Highly Interesting from Jerusalem,” published in the Church’s Millennial Star, talked about Elder Orson

Hyde’s178 mission in the Palestine area from 1841-2. The article reported that Hyde “has been in perils by land and sea, in perils among robbers, in perils among Heathens, Turks,

Arabs and Egyptians; but out of all these things the Lord hath deliv[er]ed him, and hath restored him in safety to the shores of Europe…”179 The imagery of Asia as perilous, in contrast with the refuge found in Europe, is a clear indication that some of the early

Saints viewed Asians through the lens of Orientalism.

Smith and other Church leaders carried with them the same attitudes that contemporary Protestants had when analyzing “Eastern” religions. Most American

Protestants in the nineteenth century adopted what scholars call an “inclusive position” that “advocated the supremacy of Christianity while allowing for heavenly light and truth

177 Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978). 178 Orson Hyde was an apostle of the Church. For more information about him, please see No author(s) identified, “Hyde, Orson,” n.d., The Joseph Smith Papers, http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/orson-hyde (accessed December 16, 2016). 179 The article in the Millennial Star was reprinted in another Church newsletter, The Times and Seasons. To access the article, please visit "Times and Seasons, 1 June 1842," p. 804, The Joseph Smith Papers, http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/times-and-seasons-1-june-1842/6?highlight=turk (accessed December 16, 2016). The Latter-day Saints Millennial Star was a newsletter published for the early converts in Britain, and ran from 1840 to 1970. The Times and Seasons was printed in Nauvoo, Illinois from 1839 to 1946. 65 in non-Christian religions.”180 Early Church leaders took the same position, though they put their own “Mormon” spin on it. Joseph Smith taught that all religions, be they

“Musselmen” (Muslims), heathens, Jews or Christians, had kernels of truth in their teachings and societies, even if each faction claimed the others to be “infidels.”

Ultimately however, everyone will learn the restored and complete word of God as found in Mormonism either in this life or the next.181 Other Church leaders echoed Smith’s words throughout the nineteenth century, such as Moses Thatcher, a member of the

Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (1879-1909), who wrote that he considered the

“philosophy pure morality, and the comprehensiveness exhibited in the writings of

Confucius and Mencius and the Chinese sages” to be “divinely inspired, far-reaching and heavenly doctrines.”182

Nonetheless, these sympathetic words used to describe Eastern religions by

Church leaders did not extend to societies or people in Asia, and non-Anglos in general.

The early Saints were very cognizant of how “white” the Mormon population was, and the distinction between them and other races. The acute consciousness of Mormon

“whiteness” especially intensified when the Saints arrived in the Utah territory starting in

1847. The vast majority of the pioneers who crossed the Western plains were of

European descent, coming from the same Anglo-Saxon stock as their non-Mormon and

Protestant persecutors.

180 Reid L. Neilson, Early Mormon Missionary Activities in Japan, 1901-1924 (Utah: University of Utah Press, 2010), 7. 181 Joseph Smith, “Baptism for the Dead,” Times and Seasons (Nauvoo, Illinois) 3 (April 15, 1842). 182 Moses Thatcher, “Chinese Classics,” Contributor 8 (June 1887): 301; quoted in Nielson, 10. See also W. Paul Reeve, Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 221. 66

The “white-ness” of the Mormon population further increased in the next few decades as about 30,000 converts from the British Isles and the Scandinavian countries immigrated to the United States to unite with the Saints in Utah.183 The call for Latter-day

Saints to spread God’s word to non-believers all around the world has been present since the Church’s founding. As early as 1829, even before the Church was officially organized, Joseph Smith told certain individuals that God had called them to labor as missionaries.184 Initial missionary efforts concentrated in the Northeast United States area, but as the Church grew, so did the number of men who took up the evangelizing mandate. Soon, Smith assigned men to labor to other countries in the 1830s and ‘40s, and these missionaries were particularly successful in Canada, Britain and the Scandinavian countries. After the Saints settled in the Salt Lake valley, Brigham Young and his successors sent men to more remote areas of the world, such as Asia and Latin American, but missionaries struggled to establish branches in these regions in the nineteenth century. As a result, in the minds of the early Utah settlers, the success of missionary efforts in Western Europe, contrasted with the failure to open permanent missions on other continents, drove notions about the correlation between righteousness and white- ness even deeper.185

183 W. Paul Reeve, Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 10. 184 For examples, see Doctrine and Covenants 4, 6, 14, 16 and 18. The Doctrine and Covenants is one of the four scriptures that form the Church’s scriptural cannon. 185 For an overview about Mormon missionary work in these three regions of the world, see Donald Q. Cannon and Richard O. Cowen, eds., Unto Every Nation: Gospel Light Reaches Every Land (Salt Lake City, Utah, 2003). 67

Moreover, the early Saints were frustrated that overtures to Native Americans, whom they imagined to be their “spiritual kin,” were frequently rebuffed.186 After the exodus to Utah, Latter-day Saints resumed efforts to connect with Native Americans, and formed a network of religious and trading connections with the surrounding Indian tribes.

But as benign as their missionary and economic overtures were, these outreach missions were also tainted with overtones of racism, cultural imperialism, and colonial exploitation, as seen by the fact that Church leaders encouraged some men to take Indian wives as a form of “racial uplift” and to speed up the spiritual redemption of Native

Americans.187 Intermittent violent conflicts over food and land between the Saints and

Native Americans only heightened tensions and feelings of “Other-ness” toward each

186 Mormon missionaries attempted to proselytize to the Shawnee and Delaware tribes in the Indian territory since the Church’s inception. One of the missionaries, Parley P. Pratt, recorded that the Delaware chief was interested in learning more, but federal agents refused to grant Pratt permission onto the land. See Richard Dilworth Rust, “A Mission to the Lamanites,” Revelations in Context website, https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-lamanite-mission?lang=eng (accessed December 16, 016). 187 A good overview about Mormon-Native American relations is found in Thomas Garrow and Bruce A. Chadwick, “Native Americans,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York and Ontario: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1992), p.981-5. See also Craig Prentiss’ chapter “‘Loathsome unto Thy People’: The Latter-day Saints and Racial Categorization,” in Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity, ed. Craig Prentiss (New York: New York Press, 2003), 124-139; chapters 2 and 3 of W. Paul Reeve, Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015); Angela Pulley Hudson, Real native Genius: How an Ex-Slave and a White Mormon Became Famous Indians (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2015); Jared Farmer, On Zion’s Mount: Mormons, Indians and the American Landscape (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2008); Andrés Reséndez, The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in America (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2016). For more information about similar programs in the Polynesian Islands, see Hokulani K. Aikau, A Chosen People, A Promised Land: Mormonism and Race in Hawaii (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2012). Meanwhile, the literature on Mormon-Latin American relations is sparse, but some notable texts include Jason H. Dormady and Jared M. Tamez, eds., Just South of Zion: The Mormons in Mexico and its Borderlands (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2015); F. LaMond Tullis, Mormons in Mexico: The Dynamic of Faith and Culture (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1987); Ignacio M. García, “Finding a Mormon Identity through Religion and Activism: A Personal Note on Constructing a Latino Time and Place in the Mormon Narrative,” Journal of Mormon History 41, no. 2 (April 2015): 69-90. 68 other. Despite their attempts to associate and connect with Native Americans, the early

Saints were certainly aware of the physical, cultural and religious differences between them and their Indian neighbors, and practiced a subtler form of racism.

Yet, as W. Paul Reeve argues, the American public continued to perceive

Mormons as being “non-white” or “less than white.”188 While Mormon-Native American relations were tense and tenuous, relationships between the two groups of people raised questions about racial purity and intermingling. Mormon marriages to Indian women, while excluded from Utah’s 1888 anti-miscegenation law forbidding white marriages to blacks and Asians, went against the wider national prejudice against interracial marriages.189 And during the tragic Mountain Meadows Massacre, over-zealous

Mormons not only enlisted Piutes to attack the Baker-Fencher emigrant trains passing through Southern Utah, they dressed up as Native Americans, hoping to pin the blame of the attack on the Piutes.190 Such interactions only inflamed rumors that Mormons were

“white Indians” and “some savage tribe or some colored race of foreigners.”191

However, it was the early Saints’ open practice of polygamy that brought on the onslaught of racial attacks. Although Joseph Smith introduced the practice of “plural marriage” a few years prior to his death, these marriages were performed in

188 W. Paul Reeve, “Introduction,” Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 1-13. 189 For more information about Utah’s anti-miscegenation laws, see Scott D. Marianno, “To Belong as Citizens: Race and Marriage in Utah, 1880-1920” (master’s thesis, Utah State University, 2015). 190 Reeve, 9; Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, Glen M. Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); Juanita Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre (Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1950). See also Angela Pulley Hudson, Real native Genius: How an Ex-Slave and a White Mormon Became Famous Indians (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2015). 191 Reeve, 75 and 3. 69 confidentiality and only to a select few.192 The secrecy shrouding Mormon polygamous marriages tore apart in 1852 when Brigham Young openly taught and encouraged the men to take multiple wives.193 The practice of polygamy not only went against the moral sensibilities of the rest of the nation, it reinforced the idea that Mormons had devolved into their own backward, subordinate racial category, similar to Native Americans and

“Orientals” who also practiced polygamy. Critics of the church often orientalized

Mormon households by comparing them to Turkish “harems,” in which the polygamous wives were enslaved by despotic Mormon sultans.194 Travelers passing through Utah also claimed that children from such unions were “ugly,” “ungovernable,” “vicious, profane, and obscene.”195

The Church fought back against the harsh vitriol by proving their “whiteness,” often to the detriment of members who were in the racial minority. Reeve contends that it is no coincidence that just a few months prior to Brigham Young publicly declaring the doctrine of polygamy in 1852, African American men were forbidden from receiving the priesthood, and all black members lost their privilege to enter Mormon temples.196 Over

192 Joseph Smith himself took on multiple wives. See Todd M. Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Utah: Signature Books, 1997); Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 1: History (Greg Kofford Books Inc, 2013); No author(s) identified, “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo,” n.d., https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng (accessed December 16, 2016). 193 For more information about Mormon polygamous marriages, please refer to Kathryn M. Daynes, More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840–1910 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001); Marie Cornwall, Camela Courtright, and Laga Van Beek, “How Common the Principle? Women as Plural Wives in 1860,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26 (Summer 1993): 139-153; Jessie L. Embry, Mormon Polygamous Families: Life in the Principle (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008); Sarah Barringer Gordon, The Mormon Question: Polygamy and Constitutional Conflict in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002). 194 Reeve, Religion of a Different Color, 226-231. 195 Ibid., 34. 196 Ibid., 138-9. 70 time, missionary activity among blacks was curtailed, and while Church leaders did not impose segregation at a congregational level, they did not discourage it either.197 And despite the move to encourage some Mormon men to take on Native American wives, the

Deseret News (the Church-sponsored newspaper) regularly denounced the practice of interracial mingling and marriage.198 The rhetoric of Church leaders was also noticeably more hostile when speaking about Eastern religions after attending the World’s

Parliament of Religions sessions of the 1893 Columbian Exposition at Chicago. George

Q. Cannon, second-in-command after President Wilford Woodruff, consistently spoke about the “light” and “spirit of Christ” in Asian traditions, until 1893. A few months after returning from Chicago, Cannon wrote in another one of the Church’s organ, the Juvenile

Instructor, that it was inappropriate for people to investigate “oriental religions” and

“adopt strange views…that are antagonistic to Christianity,” such as Buddhism.199

Historian S. Spencer Wells has argued that a “select” few Church leaders did imagine

Muslims to be “fellow sufferers, as well as militant protectors of God’s chosen.”

Nonetheless, the “barriers Mormons built between themselves and Mohammad’s spiritual kin never disappeared during the course of the nineteenth century,” even if “cracks did appear.”200

The Church’s efforts to assimilate back into mainstream “white” American society paid off in the beginning of the twentieth century. After the Church renounced

197 Ibid., 253. 198 Ibid., 185-6. 199 George Q. Cannon, Juvenile Instructor 28 (November 1, 1893): 675-76; quoted in Nielson, 14. 200 S. Spencer Wells, “Muslims Under the Mormon Eye: Theology, Rhetoric, and Personal Contacts, 1830- 1910,” Journal of Mormon History 42 (April 2016): 62 and 64. 71 polygamy in 1890, the territorial government was finally able to launch a successful campaign for statehood. Utah joined the Union in 1896, and Mormons were finally accepted as full-fledged citizens of the United States. During the Great Depression, the

Church’s welfare system gained national publicity and respect for aiding the poor even as it encouraged self-sufficiency. And Church leaders were delighted when President

Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Ezra Taft Benson, a junior apostle, to be his Secretary of Agriculture for both of Eisenhower’s terms. Of course, the Church continued to have detractors, but Benson’s appointment and favorable national publicity concerning his faith, moral values and family signaled a shift in public opinion about Mormons.201

Having fought so hard to earn back their “white” racial status, the Church clung to the notion of colored inferiority and segregation into the twentieth century, as illustrated by Church leaders’ intransigence on the topic of interracial marriage. Apostle Mark E.

Peterson told Mormon religious teachers in a 1954 meeting that God favored segregation, and that “we must not intermarry with the Negro.”202 In 1976, Spencer W. Kimball, twelfth president of the Church, told students at the Church-funded Brigham Young

University that church leaders “recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred)…”203

Although critics of the Church have unfairly pounced upon Kimball’s words as evidence

201 Reeve, 257. 202 Mark E. Petersen, “Race Problems—As They Affect the Church,” Address at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954, CHL; quoted by Reeve, 257-8. 203 Spencer W. Kimball, “Marriage and Divorce,” 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year (Provo, Brigham Young University Press, 1977), 144. 72 of the Church’s intolerance of interracial (and inter-class) marriage, especially given that

Kimball was the president who rescinded the priesthood ban, it is noteworthy that he warned young adults to be cautious if entering into an interracial relationship. The

Church had softened its stance against interracial marriage, but it is clear that Kimball and other Church leaders were still not comfortable with it.

Because Mormons clung to such conservative racial views, they found themselves out of sync with the growing liberalism of the nation in the 1960s and 1970s. In another ironic twist of fate, the Church found itself under attack for being “too white” in the

1960s, an allegation that the Church still struggles with today. As the Civil Rights

Movement heated up, the Church came under fire for its conservative rhetoric of race and the priesthood ban. It was a relief for both Church leaders and the laity when Church president Spencer Kimball announced in 1978 that all men, regardless of race, could now receive the priesthood. Yet, the idea that the Church was exclusively for “white people” lingered in the American memory for decades. It did not help that the Church’s membership within the United States was and is dominated by those of Anglo-European descent: a 2009 Pew Research Center study revealed that a whopping eighty-six percent of American Mormons identified as “white, non-Hispanic.”204 When Mitt Romney ran for president in 2012, New York Times writer Lee Siegel caustically observed that

Romney was “the whitest white man to run for president in recent memory… Since 1978

204 Only 71% of the general population identified as “white, non-Hispanic,” reinforcing the “white-ness” of Mormon membership within the United States. See Pew Research Center, “A Portrait of Mormons in the U.S.” webpage published on July 24, 2009, http://www.pewforum.org/2009/07/24/a-portrait-of- mormons-in-the-us/ (accessed December 19, 2016). 73 the church has allowed blacks to become priests. But Mormonism is still imagined by its adherents as a religion founded by whites, for whites, rooted in a millenarian vision of an

America destined to fulfill a white God’s plans for earth.”205

Perhaps this explains the Church’s efforts in the past few years to “globalize” the

Church and emphasize its international membership.206 Nonetheless, the perception remains that the Church is populated mostly by Anglo-Americans, and thus, to people in international communities, including Singaporeans, Mormonism is an “American” religion.

THE RELIEF SOCIETY, AND LDS GENDER AND FAMILY POLICIES

The history of Latter-day Saint women is inextricably linked to the Relief Society, the organization for women in the Church. The Relief Society began in 1842 while the early Saints were still in Nauvoo, Illinois. Inspired by the popular benevolent societies of their time, Mormon women decided to form their own organization dedicated to providing monetary and material aid for Mormon refugees, and oversee the welfare of the

205 Lee Siegel, “What’s Race Got to Do with It?” New York Times, January 14, 2012. 206 Of course, the reality on the ground is more complex than the public’s perception of the Church. A 1994 and 1995 sociological study of 90 Asian and Asian American Mormons living in the United States revealed that most of them felt accepted by their Mormon communities, especially those who lived in states that were more racially/ ethnically diverse, such as California. However, as friendly as European-American Mormons were to Asians, the cultural and communication barriers between the two groups were painfully pronounced. Many interviewees related that their European-American peers could not, or worse, would not consider the ideas or viewpoints put forth by Asians. Still, interviewees stressed that their negative experiences occurred on an individual basis, and were not general problems of the Church. It can thus be seen that the Church did not discriminate against people of racial minority, and its members tried to be more inclusive, but true multiculturalism and acceptance varied according to location and individuals. The public perception of the Church being “too white” may be skewed, and yet the failure of its majority-white members in the United States to truly integrate with those of other races only feeds this misconception. See chapter 8 “Relationships with European Americans,” in Jessie L. Embry, Asian American Mormons: Bridging Cultures (Provo, Utah: Charles Redd Center for Western Studies, Brigham Young University, 1999). 74 community. When the women consulted Joseph Smith about their plans, he decided to incorporate the proposed organization as an autonomous arm of the Church. In his meetings with the “Female Relief Society of Nauvoo,” Smith taught the women that the duties of the society would be to “not only relieve the poor but to save souls.” In a departure from tradition in which women received all spiritual instruction from male leaders, the women could now instruct one another in spiritual matters. Church leaders still had overall jurisdiction over the society and could preach at meetings, but the Relief

Society would, for the most part, be left to the women. “After this instruction,” Smith also warned, “you will be responsible for your own sins…all are responsible for themselves,” implying that the women could not blame their husbands or male leaders should they provide incorrect spiritual guidance.207 Furthermore, the Relief Society was responsible for preparing women to participate in the rituals of the temple, which up to that point, was forbidden to females. The formation of the Relief Society was thus momentous in several ways: it legitimized women’s temporal efforts in the community by bestowing women’s domestic and charitable work with divine sanctity; women received authority to act in an official capacity within the church’s organization; Mormon temple rituals were finally opened to women; and women gained a certain type of spiritual self-reliance and accountability independent from their husbands.208

What is less clear is whether Smith bestowed upon women the same priesthood power given to Mormon men. Sarah M. Kimball, one of the founders of the Relief

207 Jill Mulvay Derr, Janath Russell Cannon, and Maureen Ursenbah Beecher, Women of Covenant: The Story of Relief Society (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1992), 46. 208 See Chapter 1 “The Turning of the Key, 1842-1844” in Women of Covenant: The Story of Relief Society. 75

Society, recorded Joseph Smith as saying, “I will organize you in the Order of the

Priesthood after the pattern of the Church.”209 During the sixth meeting of the Relief

Society, held on April 28, 1842, Smith spoke repeatedly to the women about authority and “keys,” the latter word usually associated in Mormon lexicon as referring to

“priesthood keys” or “priesthood authority/ leadership.” At the end of his sermon, he said, “I now turn the key to you in the name of God and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence shall flow down from this time.”210 Unfortunately, Smith did not specify if he was referring to priesthood keys, nor did he mark the boundaries of power that the “key” unlocked for women. As such, women in the early Relief Society interpreted Smith’s words as sanction for performing blessings of healing and comfort for other women, but not for conducting priesthood liturgies traditionally led by men.211

Whether these female blessings constituted blessings of the priesthood, or if Smith did indeed confer the priesthood on women, are topics still debated among Latter-day Saints

209 Ibid., 41. 210 Ibid., 47. 211 Ibid., 219-222. 76 today.212 Most lay members today accept the interpretation that Mormon men hold the priesthood while women do not.213

The enthusiasm for the founding of the Relief Society continued for two years, when Church leaders abruptly halted meetings after March 16, 1844.214 Joseph Smith’s death a few months later in June set the events in motion for the move West, and the

Relief Society ceased all activities, until 1866 when Brigham Young (Smith’s successor) asked Eliza R. Snow, one of his wives, to reestablish the Relief Society.215 Under Eliza R.

Snow’s leadership, Relief Societies began popping up across the territory. Like their predecessors in Nauvoo, the women in Utah focused on providing financial and physical aid for their communities and incoming Saints immigrating to Utah, and building Relief

Societies halls for the purposes of spiritual instruction and leisure activity. One Relief

212 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints interpreted Smith’s words as only granting women a power parallel to the priesthood structure of the Church. The Church acknowledges that women in early Church History blessed and comforted each other, but declared that their power was a gift from the Spirit due to faith, not from the priesthood. See “No author(s) identified, “Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple and Women,” n.d., https://www.lds.org/topics/joseph-smiths-teachings-about- priesthood-temple-and-women?lang=eng (accessed December 20, 2016). In contrast, Mormon scholars who argue that Smith did confer priesthood authority upon the women include Maxine Hanks, who edited the anthology, Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1992). In 2012, a group of Latter-day Saints (male and female) formed Ordain Women, an organization dedicated to agitating for the female ordination of women. They cited Smith’s statement about turning the “key” over to women as justification for their organizing. Founder Kate Kelly, was excommunicated from the Church in 2014. 213 Michael Lipka, “Big Majority of Mormons (including Women) Oppose Women in Priesthood,” study for Pew Research Center, October 8, 2013, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/08/big-majority- of-mormons-oppose-women-in-priesthood-including-women/ (accessed January 3, 2017). 214 Though no explicit explanation was given for the sudden disruption, scholars believe that it was because Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith and president of the Relief Society, had used her position to turn the society against polygamy, causing “disorder and disunity” among the women. See Derr, Cannon and Beecher, 62. 215 Ibid., 86-94. Prior to Snow’s reestablishment of the Relief Society, women in certain segments of the territory had formed “Indian Relief Societies” to make clothes for Indian women and children. Although church leaders encouraged women to form and participate in these societies, the Indian Relief Societies were not officially part of the church program. For more information, see Derr, Cannon and Beecher, 75- 82. 77

Society president reported that her hall was used for singing lessons, classes in physiology for women, an embroidery class for girls, a kindergarten, and an educational class in political processes.216 The Relief Society even expanded their effects into midwifery and obstetrics, and established the Deseret Hospital in July 1882.217 However, the longest surviving legacy of the Relief Society was its successful wheat storage program that provided stored-up wheat for victims of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and World War One, and laid the foundation for the Church’s welfare and emergency storage programs.218 That the Relief Society funded all activities and construction costs independent of the Church’s budget, made their efforts all the more impressive. Since the

Relief Society was considered only an autonomous arm of the Church, Relief Society leaders relied on membership dues, fund raisers, and donations to keep afloat.219

The Relief Society also expanded their sphere of influence into the national arena, starting with the campaign for women’s suffrage. When the Saints started to openly practice polygamy in 1852, federal repercussions came down hard and fast. In response to the passing of the anti-polygamous Cullom Bill on January 4, 1870 by the House of

Representatives, LDS women gathered in a series of “Indignation Meetings” to demand of the territorial government the right of franchise so as to secure their free exercise of religion.220 The non-Mormon territorial governor agreed to enfranchised women in Utah

216 Ibid., 102. 217 Ibid., 107-8. 218 Ibid., 103-5, 165-6, 210 219 Ibid., 197, 203. 220 Ibid., 110-3; Carol Cornwall Madsen, “Woman Suffrage,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992): 1572. For a proceedings of the “Indignation Meetings”, see for example, 78 on February 12, 1870, but when Mormon women used the ballot to retain Church leaders in political office, a furious Congress passed a series of bills that explicitly outlawed polygamy, and in 1887, disenfranchised women in Utah via the Edmunds-Tucker Act. In response, Mormon female leaders joined the National Woman Suffrage Association

(NWSA), and although Eastern suffragists abhorred polygamy, they agreed to subsume their differences in favor of working toward re-enfranchising Mormon women.221 Latter- day Saint women gained further national recognition when the Relief Society became a charter member of the International Council of Women (ICW) in 1888, and the National

Council of Women (NCW) in 1891.222 The Church’s end of plural marriage in 1890 paved the way for Utah to gain statehood in 1896, and Mormon women ensured that their right to the ballot was included in the new state constitution.223 Even then, Latter-day

Saint women continued to fight for universal suffrage, and faithfully sent a delegation to the annual National American Women Suffrage Association (NAWSA) convention from

1896 until the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.224

Relief Societies across the state amplified their civic engagement during the

Progressive era, and formed clubs and public service organizations to “protect children, promote women’s rights, provide urban amenities and services, and improve public and

221 Lola Van Wagenen, Sister Wives and Suffragists: Polygamy and the Politics of Woman Suffrage, 1870- 1896 (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1994), later published as a monograph in 2003 by the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History and BYU Studies; Derr, Cannon and Beecher, 137. 222 Derr, Cannon and Beecher, 137-8. 223 Ibid., 146-150. 224 Rebekah Ryan Clark, “An Uncovered History: Mormons in the Woman Suffrage Movement, 1896- 1920,” New Scholarship on Latter-day Saint Women in the Twentieth Century: Selections from the Women’s History Initiative Seminars 2003-2004, eds. Carol Cornwall Madsen and Cherry B. Silver (Provo, Utah: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, 2005), 19-38. 79 private morality.”225 Some notable accomplishments included the opening of a Relief

Society Nurses School in Salt Lake City in 1898, and the setting up of an employment office to help young women find work and investigate working conditions. In April 1922, the Relief Society channeled $412,000 of its wheat storage fund into health, maternity and child welfare programs as a sign of support for the 1921 federal Sheppard-Towner

Maternity and Infant Protection Act. During World War One, about a thousand Relief

Society branches served as Red Cross auxiliaries to support families of soldiers, organize home services courses in canning, making bandages and knitting, and secured pledges for food conservation.226

The commitment of Mormon women to the community and presence in the public arena did not detract from their conservative gender beliefs however. Like others in the

Victorian era, Latter-day Saints drew upon concepts of Republican Motherhood and the

“separate gender spheres” ideology to define women’s roles in the home and society.

Accordingly, Mormon men and women occupied two “distinct but equal” spheres of influence: men were physically and intellectually stronger than women, and thus ventured into the public arena to conduct all political, economic, and legal affairs on behalf of their families. In contrast, women possessed an innate moral superiority that was best channeled into overseeing the more “private” affairs of the raising of children and domestic housekeeping. Despite advocating for universal suffrage, and multiple

225 Thomas G. Alexander, “Church and the Community: Latter-day Saints Women in the Progressive Era, 1890-1930,” New Scholarship on Latter-day Saint Women in the Twentieth Century: Selections from the Women’s History Initiative Seminars 2003-2004, eds. Carol Cornwall Madsen and Cherry B. Silver (Provo, Utah: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, 2005), 9. 226 Ibid., 9-18. 80 engagements in reform programs, Mormon women still emphasized their domesticity, femininity and respectability, and defended traditional values of marriage and family.227

Their involvement in the community was merely part of their duties to be “civic housekeepers.”228 Like non-Mormon progressive activists, Mormon women justified their venture into the public sphere as an enlargement of their “housekeeping” role in the wider public, and explains why they focused on creating or reforming services related to children and youth, and the cleaning up of their cities. But more than this being a secular civic responsibility, Mormon women also contended that they were exemplifying the divine mandate of the Relief Society to perform acts of charity and compassionate service.229 There were Mormon women who built careers after marriage, but it tended to be work that they could prepare at home, such as writing.230

Unfortunately, the Great Depression and World War Two curtailed most “civic housekeeping” activities. The Relief Society was forced to scale back on most of their activities due to the lack of resources, and Church leaders also encouraged women to concentrate their energies and time at home. Perhaps most significant of all, the next generation of Mormon women placed “financial and family stability [as] higher priorities than continuing an ongoing quest for social reform—especially as New Deal programs had brought to fruition many items previously central to the agenda of women

227 Derr, Cannon and Beecher, 138. 228 The term “civic housekeeping” was coined by Jane Addams, famous leader of the Progressive movement. 229 Alexander, 9. 230 Karen L. Pace, “Susa Young Gates: Unhampered by Womanly Limitations?” New Scholarship on Latter- day Saint Women in the Twentieth Century: Selections from the Women’s History Initiative Seminars 2003- 2004, eds. Carol Cornwall Madsen and Cherry B. Silver (Provo, Utah: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, 2005), 50-57. 81 reformers.”231 All was not lost however; the Relief Society sustained its membership in the National Council of Women (NCW), and contributed to the Red Cross and NCW’s war efforts.232 Still, the back-to-back blows of economic depression and war caused a major retraction of progressive reforms, and the Relief Society never returned to pre-

1930s level of community activism.233

The return of peace in 1945 only brought more changes to the Relief Society from forces both internal and external to the Church. In the 1960s and ‘70s, the Church implemented a “Priesthood Correlation Program” to consolidate and simplify the curriculum, activities and management of the Church. The impetus for the “Correlation

Program” stemmed from the Church’s growing membership outside of the United States after World War Two. Streamlining and unifying the Church’s programs and administration ensured that Church leaders could monitor the Church’s structure and operations globally. But in the process of “correlating” the Church, the Relief Society lost its autonomy and became incorporated into the Church’s bureaucracy as an official auxiliary.

This was not the first time the male leadership retracted the scope of authority and influence given to Mormon female leaders. The Church underwent an earlier wave of

231 Dave Hall, “The President of Amy Brown Lyman, 1940-1945: A Turning Point for Mormon Women,” New Scholarship on Latter-day Saint Women in the Twentieth Century: Selections from the Women’s History Initiative Seminars 2003-2004, eds. Carol Cornwall Madsen and Cherry B. Silver (Provo, Utah: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, 2005), 60. 232 Ibid., 62; Sarah A. Schmid, “Behind the Lines: Relief Society during World War II,” New Scholarship on Latter-day Saint Women in the Twentieth Century: Selections from the Women’s History Initiative Seminars 2003-2004, eds. Carol Cornwall Madsen and Cherry B. Silver (Provo, Utah: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, 2005), 98-108. 233 Hall, 58-67. 82 retrenchment in the early-twentieth century that halted the practice of blessing women in public, but Mormon women compensated for this loss by doubling up their efforts to participate and perform rituals in the temple.234 Church leaders also applied pressure to the Relief Society to unify their course of study and educational program across the board, when previously the Relief Societies of each congregation (“ward”) wrote their own curriculum. Although the Relief Society general board was divided over such a move, women across the Church welcomed the new standardized curriculum.235

Furthermore, Relief Society leaders decided in 1915 to distribute the newly-created courses through a new periodical called the Relief Society Magazine. Soon, the Relief

Society Magazine became the conduit in which official directives, messages, news from local units, fiction, poetry, speeches and occasional recipes were circulated to women throughout the Church.236 In this way, the pain of the first wave of correlation was alleviated by a sense of growing sisterhood and unity among Mormon women.

The second wave of correlation in the 1960s and ‘70s was more brutal, however, and the loss of control and independence more keenly felt. Since it was now an official auxiliary of the Church, the Relief Society lost its financial autonomy and turned over all its assets to male priesthood officers. The beloved Relief Society Magazine was consolidated into one magazine for adults (male and female) called the Ensign, eliminating official church publications dedicated by and for women. The Relief Society

Social Service Department progressively came under that Church Welfare Department in

234 Derr, Cannon and Beecher, 220-222. 235 Ibid., 186-189. 236 Ibid., 189-190. 83 the 1960s. Finally, the Relief Society general board relinquished their lesson-planning work to a new Curriculum Planning Committee in charge of producing new study material that correlated lessons for adults, youth, and children.237 Mormon women struggled to accept these changes, especially the termination of the Relief Society

Magazine.

Yet, these changes were necessary to accommodate the international growth of the Church. As one scholar explained, the second massive correlation effort to retrench woman’s programs was really “a necessary phase in the Church’s effort to reach and represent a far greater number of men and women worldwide… The Church’s vision to simplify, consolidate and unite members under a unified voice, while…at times curtailing women’s unique forums for communication such as the Relief Society Magazine, successfully facilitated the basic needs of a rapidly expanding Church.”238 For example, one of the reasons for taking away the financial independence of the Relief Society, and funding all future activities under the Church’s budget, was to eliminate the collection of membership dues. In this way, women would not need to worry about raising funds, and could thus concentrate on ministering to others who were struggling.239 In addition, women of all circumstances around the world could join the organization and participate in activities.

237 Derr, Cannon and Beecher, 340-1, 333-4, 343. 238 Tina Hatch, “‘Changing Times Bring Changing Conditions’: Relief Society 1960 to Present,” in Summer Fellows’ Papers 2003: Latter-day Saint Women in the Twentieth Century, ed. Claudia Bushman (Provo, Utah: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History at Brigham Young University, 2004), 43- 59. See also Derr, Cannon and Beecher, 331 and 344-5. 239 Derr, Cannon and Beecher, 341 and 345-6. 84

The top-most Relief Society leaders faced these painful changes with stoicism.

When General Relief Society president, Belle Spafford, read a letter from the President of the Church asking the Relief Society board to discontinue the Relief Society Magazine, she said, “Great blessings come as the sisters of Relief Society adjust to the new program.” No one raised any objections, and the meeting proceeded on to other business.240 In fact, Relief Society leaders were sensitive to the deficiencies of the current program and curriculum, which helps explain the insertion of a new section titled

“Cultural Refinement: Worldwide Sisterhood” into the 1975-76 weekly Relief Society course of study. This section contained eight lessons about different countries and cultures from around the world, and was included to “offer deeper understanding of the sisters throughout the world, and of the cultural contribution these countries make in our lives.”241 Relief Society leaders may not have enthusiastically embraced the decisions of the male leadership, but they understood the reasons for correlation, and thus, acquiesced to these changes.

Mormon women were also impacted by the wave of feminism that swept across the United States in the late-1960s. The United States was already one of the superpowers in the world, but domestic tensions arose over issues of race, Latino/a and Native

American rights, gay liberation, the counterculture, environmentalism, consumerism, the

Vietnam War and other foreign affairs, culminating into the social movements of the

240 Ibid., 343. 241 No author, “Forward,” 1975-76 Relief Society Courses of Study (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1975). These lessons continued for the next decade or so. By 1985, the concentration on exploring different countries and cultures had ceased. 85

1960s and ‘70s.242 Inspired by the energy and efficacy of these movements, feminists sought to revolutionize the gender status quo in America through a concerted, organized movement of their own. Feminist organizations agitated for increased equal opportunities and equal pay for female workers, and highlighted the sexism and discrimination that existed in the workplace.243 Feminists also lobbied hard for the legalization of abortion, and were stunned when the Supreme Court ruled in their favor in the momentous 1973

Roe v. Wade. But the most bitter and drawn-out battle took place over the Equal Rights

Amendment (ERA), a proposed constitutional amendment that prohibited the denial of equal rights on account of sex. Proponents of the ERA had introduced it in Congress since 1923, but the Senate and House finally approved it in 1972, and sent it on to the states for ratification. Feminists spent the next decade fighting for its ratification by state legislatures, although it ultimately failed. Taken together, these strands of feminist activism fractured assumptions and notions about traditional gender roles and the nuclear family structure, and intertwined to form what is now termed the “Second Wave Feminist

Movement.”

LDS Church leaders, already wearied by the upheaval caused by the Civil Rights

Movement and counterculture of the 1960s, were appalled by the Second Wave Feminist

242 For more information about American history in the 1960s to 1980s, please consult Mark Hamilton Lytle, American’s Uncivil Wars: The Sixties Era from Elvis to the Fall of Richard Nixon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006); Jefferson R. Cowie, Staying Alive: The 1970s and the Last Days of the Working Class (New York: The New Press, 2010); Thomas Borstelmann, The 1970s: A New Global History from Civil Rights to Economic Inequality (Princeton University Press, 2013); Daniel R. Rodgers, The Age of Fracture (Belknap Press, 2012). 243 Ellen Carol DuBois and Lynn Dumenil, Through Women’s Eyes: An American History with Documents, 4th ed. (Boston and New York: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2016), 629. 86

Movement. Uniting their voices with the emerging conservative “New Right,”244 Church leaders used the pulpit to condemn the Feminist Movement, and reaffirm the Church’s position on conservative gender roles. Tampering with the divinely-appointed roles of motherhood, they warned, and encouraging women to leave the home for work only led to the moral decline and breakdown of the family, which in turn would destabilize society at large. Thomas S. Monson, one of the twelve apostles of the Church, wrote in a 1971 church periodical that “women’s liberation” is like the “Pied Piper of Sin who has cunningly led [women] away from their divine role of womanhood down that pathway of error.” A woman who prioritizes her material or physical needs above those of her children cannot achieve liberation or freedom.245

The legalization of abortion was of particular concern to Church leaders, who viewed feminists as not only defiling the sanctity of life, but also using abortion as a means to escape motherhood. In March 1973, two months after the United States

Supreme Court’s landmark decision on abortion in Roe v. Wade, the First Presidency of

244 The “New Right” refers to the conservative turn of the Republican Party in American politics. Some books that discuss the origins and rise of the New Right are Daniel K. Williams, God’s Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005); Joseph Crespino, In Search of Another Country: Mississippi and the Conservative Counterrevolution (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2007); Donald A. Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman’s Crusade (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005); Lisa McGerr, Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001). 245 Thomas S. Monson, “The Women’s Movement: Liberation or Deception,” Ensign (January 1971). Another apostle, Ezra Taft Benson, recognized that there were a minority of mothers who came from less than ideal circumstances, and had to work. But for the majority of Mormon mothers, “it is a misguided idea that a woman should leave the home... It is mother’s influence during the crucial formative years that forms a child’s basic character.” See Ezra Taft Benson, “The Honored Place of Women,” Conference Report (November 1981). See also “Mothers’ Employment Outside of the Home,” Eternal Marriage Student Manual (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2003): 237-40 87 the LDS Church246 issued a statement declaring abortion to be “one of the most revolting and sinful practices” in modern day society, and warned that church members guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion would be subjected to church disciplinary action.247

But Church leaders also viewed abortion as just another piece of the larger feminist movement that discouraged women from having children through the use of the birth control pill, and encouraging women to build careers.248 In the same article mentioned above by Thomas S. Monson, he lambasted the “idiotic and blatantly false philosophy” of scientific experts and media personnel who advocated that women should choose to remain childless, and reiterated the Biblical command for couples to “multiply and replenish the earth.”249 In another talk given in April 1980 at the church’s general conference, N. Eldon Tanner said, “There are various arguments for curtailing the birth of children or the size of families, but they are contrary to the laws of God. Our early citizens who were patriotic and God-fearing…believed in large families and from that stock came some of our greatest statesmen and finest lawyers, scientists, and educators.”250

246 The First Presidency consists of the prophet of the LDS Church and his two (or three) counselors, and make up the highest body of authority. 247 “News of the Church- Abortion is Considered ‘Revolting Sin’ by Church,” Ensign (March 1973). A few months later, N. Eldon Tanner, then second-in-command in the Church’s hierarchy, spoke at the Church’s October 1973 worldwide general conference that “we hear so much about…sexual liberation, birth control, abortion, and other insidious propaganda belittling the role of motherhood, all of which is Satan’s way of destroying women, the home and the family—the basic unit of society.” See N. Eldon Tanner, “No Great Honor: The Woman’s Role,” Conference Report (October 1973). See also Harold B. Less, “Strengthen the Stakes of Zion,” Conference Report (April 1973). 248 Matthew Connelly has written about the “Zero Population Growth Movement” in the United States and other parts of the world in Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010). Many Second Wave feminists adopted the “zero population growth” agenda as part of their platform. 249 Monson, “The Women’s Movement.” 250 N. Eldon Tanner, “Celestial Marriages and Eternal Families,” Conference Report (April 1980). 88

The strong rhetoric of Church leaders stirred Mormon women to action, but this time, unlike in the early-twentieth century when they fought with fellow “First Wave feminists” for universal suffrage, Mormon women found themselves swimming against the tide of “Second Wave Feminism.” The Relief Society had been a member of the

National Council of Women (NCW) since 1891, and Belle Spafford, General Relief

Society president from 1945 to 1974, even served a two-year tenure as president of the

NCW from 1968 to 1970. However, even before Spafford was elected to be the NCW’s president, one scholars observed that “there were signs that despite the council’s conservative-to-moderate agenda and its conspicuous distance from the newly formed

National Organization of Women (NOW) and other feminist advocacy groups of the

1960s, its leaders were steering the council in directions that put it on a collision course with the Church.”251 When Spafford became president, she walked a fine line between her dual-presidencies; she and another Mormon delegate were the only two dissenting votes on a 1969 resolution on abortion, although the resolution went out from the council with Spafford’s name attached to it.252 As the second wave feminist movement intensified in the 1970s and 1980s, Mormon women found themselves taking positions contrary to the majority in the council, and in 1987, the Relief Society permanently withdrew its membership.253

251 Tona J. Hangen, “Guide to a Generation: Belle Spafford’s Latter-day Saint Leadership,” in New Scholarship on Latter-day Saint Women in the Twentieth Century: Selections from the Women’s History Initiative Seminars 2003-2004, eds. Carol Cornwall Madsen and Cherry B. Silver (Provo, Utah: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, 2005), 85. 252 Ibid., 89. 253 No author, Daughters in My Kingdom: The History and Work of Relief Society (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2011), 91. 89

The inability of the Relief Society to reconcile themselves with the NCW’s agenda portended the furor caused by the Equal Right Amendment. Martha Sonntag

Bradley has detailed the process in which the Church became a vocal opponent to the

ERA, and an influential ally to Phyllis Schlafly’s STOP ERA campaign.254 In 1976, the president of the Church and his two counselors issued a statement that “the ERA as a blanket attempt to help women could indeed bring them far more restraints and repressions…ERA would bring ambiguity and possibly invite extensive litigation. We recognize men and women as equally important before the Lord, but with differences biologically, emotionally, and in other ways. ERA, we believe, does not recognize these differences.”255 The Relief Society curriculum soon incorporated the rhetoric of Church leaders into its course of study, adding a chapter titled “A Woman’s Role in Today’s

Society” to the 1980-81 Relief Society’s courses manual. The chapter quoted a variety of church leaders who reinforced the same teachings and values about the divinity and vital nature of differentiated gender roles.256 Clearly church leaders wanted to ensure that LDS women around the world understood the Church’s position on issues related to gender and family.

In fighting against the ERA, the Church signaled its opposition to the Second

Wave Feminist Movement, and Mormon women emerged from the era staunch bastions of traditional gender roles and femininity. Of course, not every LDS women agreed with

254 Martha Sonntag Bradley, Pedestals and Podiums: Utah Women, Religious Authority, and Equal Rights (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2005). 255 First Presidency Statement, Church News, October 30, 1976, 2. 256 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Relief Society Courses of Study 1980-81 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ca. 1980). 90

Church about the ERA. For example, a group of Mormon women in Virginia formed

“Mormons for ERA” (MERA) in 1978 to lobby Church leaders and other members to change their position. Church leaders responded by excommunicating the founder of

MERA, Sonia Johnson, in December 1979, and threatened other MERA members with similar disciplinary action.257 But perhaps Church leaders need not have worried, and taken such harsh action against MERA. While a small segment of Mormon women scrambled to “find a middle ground and respond to these tensions” between the Church and feminists, “traditional Mormon women for the most part remained silent,” a tacit signal of their support for Church leaders.258

The Church’s stance on gender roles were reinforced in 1995 when Gordon B.

Hinckley, president of the Church, read out the document The Family: A Proclamation to the World at a worldwide Relief Society conference.259 This document, now commonly referred to as “The Family Proclamation,” has become the standard by which Mormons worldwide discuss and measure adherence to gender and family roles today. In it, Church leaders reiterated that in ideal circumstances, “fathers are to preside over their families in

257 Bradley, Pedestals and Podiums, 331-368. 258 Ibid., 73. To demonstrate that the majority of Mormon women in the United States supported the Church’s opposition to the ERA, see chapter 7 “Turmoil, June 1977” in Bradley’s Pedestals and Podiums. Bishops and Relief Society presidents in Utah called women in their congregations to attend the Utah International Women’s Year (IWY) conference, held in Salt Lake City in June 1977, and Mormon women obeyed. The IWY planning committee were prepared for 4,000 participants, but were caught off guard when 13,000 women turned up. In the atmosphere of suspicion and polarization, many attendees refused to consider alternate viewpoints, afraid of being “falsely persuaded to accept attitudes or actions that could be damaging to them or to the Church.” It came as no surprise when almost 9,000 women cast a “disagree” vote with regards to the ERA. See also Amy Hoyt, “The Continuum of Women of Faith: Examining Rifts by the Equal Rights Amendment between Women in the LDS Church,” Summer Fellows’ Papers 2003: Latter-day Saint Women in the Twentieth Century, ed. Claudia Bushman, (Provo, Utah: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History at Brigham Young University, 2004), 61-74. 259 A copy of the document can be found at https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng (accessed January 2, 2016). 91 love and righteousness and are responsible for the life and protection for their families,” while “mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”

While the language used in “The Family Proclamation” is flexible and open to individual interpretation and adaptation, the message is clear that the Church still believed in the traditional concept of separate but equal gender roles, and that the primary role of the woman was still in the home.

MISSIONARY WORK IN ASIA

Despite the Church’s struggle to defend itself against critics for its conservative position on race and gender in the latter-half of the twentieth century, the Church began a successful endeavor to establish a presence in Asia via the Church’s missionary program.

The Church had tried to establish itself in Asia in the nineteenth century, but missionaries reported that they found it difficult to proselytize there. The first Mormon missionary assigned to Asia arrived in India in 1851, while the Church sent four men to Siam

(Thailand) and another four to Hong Kong in 1852.260 However, all three groups failed to attract enough converts, mainly because they were sent to convert Europeans in these countries. The existing European communities in Asia, which consisted mainly of governmental officials, military personnel, and Protestant missionaries, were prejudiced or uninterested in learning more about polygamist Mormonism. Missionaries then shifted their attention to the locals, but could not communicate their message due to language

260R. Lanier Britsch, From the East: The History of the Latter-day Saints in Asia, 1851-1996 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1998), 9-14. 92 and cultural barriers. Moreover, other Protestant missionaries founded hospitals and schools as part of their “social gospel” training, and provided tangible monetary assistance to locals. In contrast, Mormon missionaries either depended on their families back home or the people in Asia for sustenance, and in rare instances, missionaries even sought employment on their missions. The lack of any financial or temporal benefits thus discouraged locals from seeking out conversion. The political unrest caused by the

Taiping Rebellion261 also thwarted all efforts to gain a foothold in China, and in 1855, the

Church withdrew its presence in Asia.262 A later attempt to proselytize to the Japanese from 1901 to 1924 failed as well, even though missionaries studied and preached in the

Japanese language. This time, their failure laid in the “unvaried sense of evangelism propriety and practices [that] hindered Mormon missionaries from adapting their message to new cultures…[missionaries] employed…the Euro-American Mormon missionary

(including proselytizing practices) while evangelizing the Japanese, a non-Christian, non-

Western people.”263

261 The Taiping Rebellion was a revolt against the Manchurian Qing Dynasty from 1850 to 1864. Rebellion leader, Hong Xiuquan, believed that God had mandated him to set up a new evolutionary program to break China away from Manchurian rule. He was initially successful in capturing parts of the country, and set up a new dynasty with him as the king in South China (away from the court capital in Beijing). This new dynasty was short-lived, however, as Hong’s followers turned against him, and the Qing Court retaliated with the help of the Americans and British. 262 See chapter 2 “Early Asian Missions, 1851-1856: The 1850s Missions to India, Burma, Siam, and China” in R. Lanier Britsch, From the East: The History of the Latter-day Saints in Asia, 1851-1996 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1998), 8-42. 263 Reid L. Neilson, preface to Early Mormon Missionary Activities in Japan, 1901-1924 (Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press), xi. See also R. Lanier Britsch, “Introducing the Gospel in Asia: The First Century,” in Unto Every Nation: Gospel Light Reaches Every Land, ed. Donald Q. Cannon and Richard O. Cowan (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2003), 305-321. 93

World War Two marked the turning point of missionary efforts for the Church, and the number of non-Americans who joined the Church grew exponentially in the latter-half of the twentieth century. The Church built upon nineteenth-century notions of race to construct a conservative twentieth-century worldview to explain and justify their overseas evangelizing activities. Scholars such as Christina Klein and Naoko Shibusawa, have argued that during the Cold War, Americans viewed Asian countries as “fit objects of American paternalism and sentimentality,” and “reimagined” them to be friendly but subservient nations.264 Latter-day Saints shared similar sentiments, and took these notions with them into the mission field. Admittedly, secondary sources about Mormon international proselytizing efforts in the twentieth century are rare, and these sources do not analyze the racial views of missionaries. Still, hints of paternalism are evident from the Church’s decision to set up several schools and programs to educate “Lamanite” children in the Indian reserves and Chile in the 1960s.265

Moreover, twentieth-century Church discourse reiterated the belief that the United

States was a “promised land” of God, and that Anglo-Americans were God’s chosen people to take the gospel to the rest of the world. Such notions about America’s “spiritual

264 Mark Atwood Lawrence, “Explaining the Rise to Global Power: U.S. Policy toward Asia and Africa since 1941,” America in the World: The Historiography of American Foreign Relations since 1941, eds. Frank Costigliola and Michael J. Hogan, 2nd eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014): 244-5. Atwood cites Christina Klein’s Cold War Orientalism: Asia in the Middlebrow Imagination, 1945-1961 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003), and Naoko Shubusawa’s America’s Geisha Ally: Reimagining the Japanese Enemy Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006). 265 Matthew Garrett, Making Lamanites: Mormons, Native Americans, and the Indian Student Placement Program, 1947-2000 (Utah: University of Utah Press, 2016); Casey Paul Griffith, et al. “‘Colegios Chilenos De los Santos De los Últimos Días’: The History of Latter-day Saint Schools in Chile,” Journal of Mormon History 40, no. 1 (Winter 2014): 97-134. The July 2015 issue of the Journal of Mormon History (volume 41, no. 3) also provides excellent articles about the new directions in which historians examine racial relations between the early white Saints, Native Americans and Pacific Islanders (New Zealand and Tahiti). 94 exceptionalism” originated from the Book of Mormon, which stated that God led “white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful” “Gentiles” (i.e. European colonizers) to settle in the

United States and establish a land of religious freedom, thereby allowing the Church to begin in America. It then prophesied that these “Gentiles” would take the word of God to the “Lamanites” and on to the rest of the world.266 This interpretation of the Book of

Mormon text was reiterated by Mormon apostles, such as Ezra Taft Benson who gave a talk in October 1979 at the Church’s semi-annual “General Conference” broadcasted to all members worldwide. In his talk, Benson echoed many of the remarks of his predecessors when he said, “The Lord decreed this land to be ‘the place of the New

Jerusalem…the holy sanctuary of the Lord.’… God ‘established this Constitution of this land…”267 It is unknown why Benson used on this occasion to reaffirm his patriotism for the United States, but in preaching such doctrine over the pulpit at a worldwide church conference, his action drove home the message that the United States was a divinely- blessed country with a divinely-sanctioned mission to the rest of the world. Such beliefs about the mission of the United States and its responsibility for overseeing the salvation of the world hints at a Mormon worldview that intertwined a peculiar form of

Orientalism, American patriotism, and benevolent spiritual superiority. These three prongs shaped the way missionaries viewed their role and purpose in the mission field,

266 1 Nephi 13. 267 Ezra Taft Benson, “A Witness and a Warning,” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/10/a- witness-and-a-warning?lang=eng (accessed January 2, 2016). Benson quoted a few of his predecessors in his speech, including Marion G. Romney, second counselor to the President of the Church and third in command in the Mormon hierarchy. Romney previously gave a talk titled “American’s Destiny” in 1975 as well. Marion G. Romney, “America’s Destiny,” https://www.lds.org/general- conference/1975/10/americas-destiny?lang=eng (accessed January 2, 2016). 95 and captured the attitudes of the pioneering missionaries who served missions during the

Cold War decades.

The return of American troops from World War Two caused a surge in the number of available missionaries, and over time, the Church implemented financial policies and training programs that allowed more young adults to enter the mission field.

The growth of American prestige and global power during the Cold War also opened new doors in countries previously closed to missionaries. For example, the Church finally established missions in Uruguay and Paraguay after the war because of the efforts of LDS expatriates living in these two countries after the war for government and business purposes. These expatriates made a favorable impression on local state officials, and helped the Church gain permission to begin missionary work.268

Likewise, the Church finally gained a foothold in Asia, though the rate of growth of less dramatic than in Latin America. Mormons who were part of the military occupying Japan set up a Mormon service group, and paved the way for missionaries to enter Japan in 1948. To the surprise of the missionaries, a core group of converts from the earlier (failed) period of missionizing efforts had remained faithful, even without the support of the Church. These stalwart members, coupled with members in the U.S. military, reestablished the mission in Japan.269 A similar pattern occurred in South Korea, when American troops were deployed to fight in the Korean War. The combined efforts

268 Donald Q. Cannon and Richard O. Cowen, Unto Every Nation: Gospel Light Reaches Every Land (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2003), 270-1. 269 R. Lanier Britsch, From the East: The History of the Latter-day Saints in Asia, 1851-1996 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1998), 87-89. 96 of Mormon servicemen and new Korean converts prompted Church leaders to send missionaries to South Korea in April 1956.270 Unlike the earlier waves of missionaries, however, this batch of missionaries were more successful in attracting people to their message. First, the Church finally translated the Book of Mormon and other Church material into the local language that allowed for better communication and training between missionaries and converts. Second, locals sought new answers and religions in order to reconcile their lives with the devastation and instability created by World War

Two and the Korean War, and Mormonism was the solution for some of them.271

After setting up missions in Japan and South Korea, the Church then turned their attention to “the Chinese realm” and the Philippines. In 1955, Church leaders created the

Southern Far East Mission, consisting of Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Philippines, Guam and

Southeast Asia. Once again, the precarious political, economic and social conditions in

Hong Kong and Taiwan allowed missionaries to locate people receptive to their message, and these converts then translated Church materials into the local language.272

Missionaries sent to the Philippines had an even bigger advantage as many Filipinos understood English, and were accustomed to the presence of Americans in their country, a result of the imperial history between the two nations.273 The Southern Far East Mission was thus able to set up Church branches in these three countries, and since then, the

270 Ibid., 173-9. 271 Ibid., 89 and 181. 272 R. Lanier Britsch, “Postwar Developments in the Chinese Realm and the Philippines,” in Unto Every Nation: Gospel Light Reaches Every Land, ed. Donald Q. Cannon and Richard O. Cowan (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2003), 349-50. 273 Ibid., 362-3. For more information about the history of the American empire in the Philippines, see Paul A. Kramer, The Blood of Government: Race, Empire, the United States, & the Philippines (North Carolina, USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2006). 97

Church has grown in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Philippines. As of

2012, there are about a million members on record in these five countries.274

The phenomenal success of missionaries in Northeast Asia spurred Church leaders to turn their gaze to Southeast Asia. The escalation of the Vietnam War in the

1960s highlighted to Church leaders the need to ensure that Mormon-Christianity would help prevent the spread of “godless” communism into the region275, plus the Church needed personnel to support Mormon servicemen stationed in Vietnam. Thus in May

1963, Gordon B. Hinckley, one of the Apostles of the Church, and Jay A. Quealy, mission president of the Southern Far East Mission, toured the region to determine a suitable site for a new mission. While visiting Singapore, they discovered three British

Mormon servicemen stationed in Singapore. These servicemen were part of the British military assigned to the military base in Singapore.276 There is no record of what took place during the meeting between Hinckley, Quealy, and the servicemen. But the next year, in 1964, the Church received word that the number of Mormon British servicemen in Singapore had grown to eleven.

In August that year, Church leaders sent Quealy to organize the servicemen into an official group for the Church, with Corporal John Waller as the group’s leader. Waller did not know many other Mormon servicemen in Singapore, and placed an advertisement

274 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2013 Church Almanac (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News, 2012), 204-5. 275 During the Cold War, Church leaders spoke out heavily against communism. For example, see Ezra Taft Benson, “A Witness and a Warning,” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/10/a-witness-and-a- warning?lang=eng (accessed January 2, 2017). 276 For more information about the British military base in Singapore, see Marsita Omar and Chan Fook Weng, “British withdrawal from Singapore,” Singapore Infopedia, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1001_2009-02-10.html (accessed July 15, 2017). 98 in the Religious Announcements section of The Straits Times on September 5, 1968, calling for all Mormons in Singapore to meet in his residence for Sunday meetings.

Attendance at these meetings hovered in the single digits, and peaked around 20 the next year.277 Despite the sparseness in numbers, Church leaders remained optimistic about the future of the Church in Singapore. Apostle Hinckley, for instance, visited Singapore again in December 1964, and according to one historian, told the eight members present that he was “happy with the progress of the group in Singapore. He expressed his confidence that the group would increase and prosper in the future.” Jay A. Quealy also returned to Singapore in February 1965 with two of his missionaries, and reported that it was “an ideal place for the preaching of the gospel.”278 Thus, in January 1968, the Church finally gave its approval for the first Latter-day Saint missionaries to enter Singapore.

Overall, we thus see that at the time the Church began proselytizing in Singapore, their ideas of race, gender, and family were shaped by events from its history in the nineteenth century. In the quest to assimilate into white, mainstream American society, the Church took measures to prove its “whiteness,” even at the expense of racial minority groups in the United States, and members persisted in defending their racial views and policies into the twentieth century. When it came to matters of gender and family, the

Church adopted a consistent and conservative stance since the nineteenth century about separate gender spheres, and the imperative role of mothers in the home and in society.

277 Minutes—General, 1964-1973, Singapore Branch General Minutes, Church History Library; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2013 Church Almanac (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News, 2012), 560; Beng Ling Pang, A History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Singapore: Journey to Stakehood, 1964-1997 (Singapore: C.O.S. Printers Pte Ltd., 1997), 23-4. 278 2013 Church Almanac, 560. See Pang, 23. 99

Missionaries and Mormon expatriates thus took with them such conservative notions about race, gender, and family into their foreign missions and work assignments. The expatriates who went to Singapore were no exception, and they passed on these ideas and concepts to Singaporean converts.

100

CHAPTER 3: MISSIONARIES

On March 19, 1968, five Caucasian men—four young adults and one older man— arrived in Singapore, fatigued from the cramped flight and anxious about being in a new place. But as they took in the sights, sounds and smells of the unfamiliar terrain, a thrill of excitement and anticipation must have coursed through them. After all, they were the first missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to set foot into

Singapore.279 As the newest area within the Southern Far East Mission, Singapore was virgin territory, and the four young missionaries would be in charge of establishing the

Church in Singapore. It was a sobering responsibility for these young men barely out of their teenage years. The older man accompanying them was Keith E. Garner, who had succeeded Jay A. Quealy Jr. as the mission president in 1965. However, as much as

Garner tried to assist and reassure them about their new environment, he had to fly back to the mission headquarters in Hong Kong a few days later.

With the departure of their mission president, the four young men—Kim Shipley,

Rhett Todd Bake, Melvin D. Shurtz and Joel Richards III—drew in a nervous breath.280

Who do they talk to? Where would they meet people? How do they even begin? The mission headquarters was too far away for them to obtain immediate assistance should

279 Pang, 5. 280 Ibid., 24. 101 they need it, and all mail between Singapore and Hong Kong took at least a week to arrive. They were well and truly left on their own. However, this was not their first assignment; they had served in Hong Kong and Taiwan prior to Singapore. They had relentlessly labored in the scorching summer days and frigid winter nights in Hong Kong and Taiwan, mastered Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese while in the mission field, opened their hearts to a race of people so different from their own, and earned the trust of their mission president. Nothing was going to faze them, not even the suffocating humidity and already-climbing March heat. All the better if their uncomfortable uniform of white shirts, long pants and ties drew the attention of people!281

Determined to succeed, the four missionary elders rolled up their sleeves (literally and figuratively) and set off to work. After locating the group of Mormon servicemen already meeting in Singapore, the Elders helped organize church meetings, and practiced new methods of approaching non-members. The rest of the time was spent pounding the pavement and knocking on doors. The missionaries were astonished by the language diversity and cosmopolitan nature of the island282, and despite the ubiquitous poverty and underdevelopment, embraced their new environment. Little by little, they attracted the attention of Singaporeans who wanted to understand why young, Caucasian men in formal attire were walking around their kampongs (traditional Malay word for “villages”)

281 Beng Ling Pang, A History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Singapore: Journey to Stakehood, 1964-1997 (Singapore: C.O.S. Printers, 1997), 24-5; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2013 Church Almanac (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News, 2012), 560; Dale S. Cox, A Brief History of the LDS Church in Singapore, June 1978, manuscript in author’s possession. 282 A note of caution: my evidence of the missionaries being astonished by the racial diversity of Singapore is found in Pang, 24-5, in which I reference two quotations given by two missionaries. Pang cites these quotations as being from Dale Cox’s A Brief History of the LDS Church in Singapore. However, I was unable to find these two quotations from Cox’s history. 102 and neighborhoods. Although they were forbidden from proselytizing to the Malays, the missionaries found many potential converts in the Chinese and Indians living in

Singapore.

This chapter chronicles the encounters of the missionaries with the local people, and their efforts to spread their message in an environment so different from what they grew up in. It begins by going into the kampongs and neighborhoods, and details the living conditions of underdeveloped Singapore in the 1960s and ‘70s. Despite witnessing the poverty around them, missionaries befriended the Singaporeans, and succeeded in attracting young Singaporeans to their faith. But their success was short-lived as other churches petitioned the Singaporean government to stop the proselytizing of Mormon missionaries. The government responded by imposing a limited ban on the number of visas they allocated to the mission. The rest of the chapters discusses the efforts and tactics adopted by the various mission presidents to cultivate goodwill with the

Singaporean government and the public to reverse the ban.

Most Singaporeans who joined the Church grew up in the underdeveloped kampongs. Kampongs were usually segregated along racial lines, and differed according to their geographic location. Those along the Singapore coastline looked like the stereotypical wooden huts built on stilts to prevent flooding, while kampongs located more inland were clusters of homes built out of metal sheets or brick walls with zinc

103 roofs.283 One interviewee shared a picture of the kampong she grew up in (see Figure 2), and mentioned that her home did not even have a kitchen built in it. The women in the neighborhood would use the shared corridor at the back of their houses to cook, while the

“open door” policy of the neighborhood allowed children to gather for games and play.284

Another interviewee grew up in one of the shophouses preserved by the Singaporean government in today’s historic Chinatown.285 His family lived in one of the rooms upstairs, estimated to be five feet by five feet, and several families shared one bathroom and a kitchen. Since water only pumped to one floor/ story at a time, whenever he wanted to take a shower upstairs, he would shout down to the people on the ground floor not to turn on their water taps.

283 For more information and pictures about Singapore’s old kampongs, please see (no author), “From Villages to Flats (Part 1) – The Kampong Days,” The Remember Singapore Blog, entry posted April 4, 2012, https://remembersingapore.org/2012/04/04/from-villages-to-flats-part-1/ (accessed February 27, 2017). 284 Elizabeth [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, August 5, 2014. 285 For more information about the shophouses in Singapore’s Historic Districts, please read (no author), “From Villages to Flats (Part 3) – The Traditional Shophouses,” The Remember Singapore Blog, entry posted May 7, 2016, https://remembersingapore.org/2016/05/07/from-villages-to-flats-part-3/ (accessed February 27, 2017). 104

Figure 2: Picture of the Brickwork Estate, one of the kampongs in Singapore. Interviewee lived in the house indicated by the red dot. Picture taken ca. 1960. Copy of the picture in author's possession.

In the 1960s, under the 1967 Lands Acquisition Act and the Concept Plan for island-wide redevelopment, the government began clearing large numbers of kampongs and relocating Singaporean families into high-rise apartments called “HDB flats.”286 The early flat usually consisted of a living room, a bedroom, a kitchen and a bathroom, and, given its size, was a tight squeeze for families with many children. Emma recalled that as

286 Shaun Oon and Tin Seng Lim, “Land Acquisition Act 1966,” Singapore Infopedia, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2014-04-09_112938.html (accessed February 27, 2017); C. M. Turnbull, A History of Modern Singapore, 1819-2005, (Singapore: National University of Singapore Press, 2016), 349. While the PAP (now in power in 1967) was not the first government to build flats in Singapore, the Land Acquisition Act allowed the PAP to buy up large pieces for land in the name of “development,” and demolish an unprecedented number of kampongs. The PAP then created the Housing Development Board, or HDB, to oversee the transition from kampongs into flats. Today, HDB flats are an iconic sight in Singapore, and accounts for the high rate of home ownership of Singaporeans. 105 a child, “life wasn’t easy. It was tough. All nine of us of us [children] would squeeze into one room.” When her family moved to one of the flats, the children slept on mattresses in the living room. Emma jostled with her siblings to sleep next to the door because cooling night-air would flow through the door’s tiny letter-box slot, and provide relief from the heat in the room.287

A few Singaporean Mormons grew up in broken families or lost a parent to death while young. One interviewee even refused to talk about her childhood because she grew up in a “dysfunctional family” with “many problems” because of her father’s desertion.

One of them talked openly about the physical abuse suffered under her father; another two admitted that their fathers abused drugs and served prison sentences. Yet another two interviewees mentioned that their fathers inherited the family business and wealth, but squandered away their inheritance on drinking and womanizing. In almost all instances, the cause of familial dysfunctionality was related to the absence of a responsible father figure in the home, resulting in the lack of the material and emotional support that a two- parent family brought. Only one interviewee said that both her parents neglected her and her sibling growing up, and wished that her mother had been more responsible.

Singaporean Mormons who lived in the kampongs and early flats of the 1950s to

1970s also grew up with few material goods. Both Dennis Chai and Mark recalled in separate interviews that owning a television was a luxury item their families could not afford. Whenever a popular television show came on, the children would gather outside of the home of the one family who owned a television in the neighborhood, and peer

287 Emma [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, August 1, 2014. 106 through the windows to “watch” the show.288 Buying new items was also a luxury reserved for special occasions. Emma said that her family was so poor that she only bought new clothes during the Chinese New Year. Similarly, Victor Chen said that his mother only cooked chicken and duck for special Chinese festivals, and even then, the chicken and duck would be offered up first to the ancestral alter before the family took it down for consumption.289

Children who grew up in wealthier families enjoyed more opportunities in life, but their lifestyles were hardly extravagant either. Two sisters, granddaughters of Lim

Hak Tai, founder of Singapore’s Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA)290, remembered living on the school’s grounds, and going for piano and dance classes. Nonetheless, their father did not earn enough to support the family as an artist, and their mother had to work to supplement the family income. In fact, their mother insisted that they learn to play the piano so that they would always have a skill to fall back on after marriage. Kogen Yuan described her childhood as not “very poor or rich.” Her businessman father always ensured there was sufficient for the family’s needs, and could even hire a nanny to help his wife take care of the household. Still, Yuan recalled that “my mother managed the finances, and she always taught us…to be thrifty. Simple things like when you leave a room, switch off the light. Don’t leave it on.”291 Thus, financial hardships were not

288 Dennis Chai, interview by author, Singapore, January 21, 2016; Mark, interview by author, Singapore, July 16, 2015. 289 Emma, interview; Victor Chen, interview by author, Singapore, March 4, 2016. 290 The Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts was founded in 1938, and is the first school for the arts in Singapore. 291 Kogen Yuan, interview by author, Singapore, July 8, 2016. 107 limited to the lower-class; children and youth across all class lines understood that money was a finite luxury that was hard to come by.

Despite the widespread poverty, and even difficult family situations, most

Singaporean Mormons grew up with happy memories of their childhood. Those who lived in the kampongs were especially fond of recalling the games they played with other children, from flying kites to fishing in the long kangs (Malay word for “water sewers/ drains”) to telling ghosts stories at night to catching spiders in the fields. And even though their parents earned little, there was usually enough money to feed the family.

Karen remembered that after her father died, her family became so poor that she had to save up for months to buy her own judo gi as her family could not afford to buy one.

Still, her family scraped by and she never had to worry about going hungry. It also helped that since most Singaporeans led the same lifestyle, living at such levels of poverty was considered “normal.” It is only when compared to their lives today that their childhood years can be considered “poor.” Many Singaporean Mormons echoed the same sentiments as Jean Loh who said that “we knew we were poor but it was not an uncommon thing because in the housing estate that we grew up in, a lot of people were also poor. So we didn’t feel like we were underprivileged.”292 When asked to describe her childhood, Elizabeth said it was “average.” “Compared to this day,” she said, “I wouldn’t consider it rich. Those days, people were poor [but] everyone was poor together.”

Extended families also frequently lived in the same neighborhood, and thus the children

292 Jean Loh, interview by author, Singapore, August 16, 2016. 108 played with their cousins and were looked after by their relatives. The proximity allowed extended families to rally together whenever tragedy struck.293

In fact, many interviewees felt a sense of nostalgia for their “simple” kampong childhood. Gary, for instance, remembered being taken in by his uncle after his father died when Gary was still young, and was raised with his nieces and nephews in the kampong. According to Gary, “families in the 1950s and 1960s, they all looked out for each other…. [If] you need help, come and live with us.” Even though the family slept on the floor in a big floor area, “that’s how people grew close to their family,” but the government’s insistent push to relocate “individual families” (i.e. traditional nuclear family) into flats has torn apart such strong extended family networks.294 Linda Marican and Victor Chen also lamented that people are more disconnected in today’s society compared to the “close-knitted community” of their childhood neighborhoods.295 Jacob

Soh recalled fishing as a young boy with his father at the nearby river, only realizing later that their catch of fish was really to put more food on the table. Today, despite his wealth and access to Michelin-starred restaurants, Soh claims that the “freshest fish” he has ever eaten were those caught by his father. Of course, they appreciate the high standard of living brought about by modernization and technological advances, but they are not bitter or ashamed of their impoverished childhoods. While they lacked material wealth, in their minds, this deficiency was compensated with an innocent simplicity that made life

293 Wong Sai Lim, interview by author, Singapore, August 1, 2015; Judy [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, May 9, 2016; see also interview with Victor Chen. 294 Gary [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, May 9, 2016; see also Pheck Leng Lee, interview by author, Singapore, January 31, 2016. 295 Linda Marican, interview by author, Singapore, July 20, 2014; Victor Chen, interview. 109 sweeter and more satisfactory. “When you are poor, you can still be very happy,” Soh remarked, “When you look back, [with] money, you can buy more food, but [it] doesn’t make it taste better. The fruits we plucked from the rich man’s house along Katong (a street in Singapore), they tasted so much better.”

Whether walking down the streets of the kampongs or up the stairs of the HDB flats, the missionaries drew the natural curiosity of locals puzzled by their presence. Most

Singaporeans didn’t interact with Caucasians except as subordinates to their expatriate bosses. Aside from the stark class difference, there was also a tangible, geographic divide between the locals and expatriates. The Caucasian community kept to themselves in exclusive neighborhoods and clubs, and had little reason to enter the kampongs.296 The locals, in turn, saw no need to make overtures to the “ang mohs” (Caucasians). Andrew remembered that a street separated his kampong from a housing estate where wealthy expatriates and British forces lived. Those in his kampong used the Singlish/ Hokkien term, “ang moh chu”/ 红毛厝, to refer to the large, two-story homes of the expatriates.297

Taken together, ang moh chu means “bungalow,” but the last character, chu/ 厝, can mean a grave or tombstone, or a temporary location for a coffin before its final burial.298

296 Mark said that “ang mohs (Caucasians) were not in our environment” and hardly saw them because “we lived in a very poor environment…in atap houses.” Hannah agreed that as a child, “it’s rare to see Europeans or Americans [where] I lived.” Interview with Mark; Hannah [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, July 9, 2014. 297 Andrew [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, May 28, 2016. 298 (No author), “Best of Singlish Words and Phrases,” The Remember Singapore blog, entry posted August 2, 2011, https://remembersingapore.org/2011/08/21/best-of-singlish-words-and-phrases/ (accessed March 2, 2017). 110

Calling the expatriate homes “ang moh chu” was, therefore, not only a way to reference the wealthier housing estate, but was also a sly jab at the expatriates.

Even during the rare instances when Singaporean Mormons had the opportunity to interact with Caucasians as young children, their memories of such occurrences were largely negative. As a teenager, Henry lived in the same housing estate as the British forces stationed in Singapore. He got to know a few British children, but disliked making friends with them. “They thought they were very mature. Physically, they were larger, bigger than us, so sometimes, you know…I’m not ashamed to say I picked fights with them,” he confessed with a grin, “[Those were] my wicked days.” Audrey also recalled that “when I was growing up, my dad mixed around with a lot of ang mohs, and I thought, ‘Wow!’ And when he had friends who were ang moh come to the house, we were supposed to disappear. We were not supposed to mingle with them or talk to them, so we were…super scared of them.”299

Thus, it is not difficult to imagine the shock many Singaporeans felt when they opened their doors to see two young Caucasian men, sweating under their shirts and ties, requesting an audience with their family. Hannah was around fifteen years old when

Elders Bake and Shipley knocked on her door. Not only did her father allow them in, he called his family together to listen to their message. When asked why her father invited them in, she said, “Because they’re American… I mean, which Chinese family had

Americans knock on your door [and] want to tell you something?”300 By this point, other

299 Henry [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, October 6, 2015; Audrey [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, July 11, 2012. 300 Hannah [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, August 2, 2012. 111

Christian churches were already localized, and evangelizing efforts were conducted mainly through word of mouth by family and friends. To have two Caucasian missionaries seek entrance into their homes was a rare occurrence.301 What more, the family was astonished when the missionaries spoke to them in Mandarin Chinese. Not everyone was interested in converting to a new religion, but the extraordinary sight of seeing the missionaries at their doors, coupled with their language skills, prompted many locals to allow the Elders into their homes.

Upon gaining entrance into the homes, the Elders delivered the first of six

“discussions” or lessons to their audience (termed “investigators”). Each discussion focused on one topic, such as Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” or the Book of Mormon, and missionaries were expected to memorize a set script for each discussion.302 Mission handbooks instructed missionaries to teach one to two discussions a week, supplemented by film strips and other material if an investigator needed more time. After each discussion, the missionaries extended a commitment for the investigator to continue, for example, reading the Book of Mormon or going to church. Missionaries tracked the progress of their investigators through their ability to keep their commitments, and when an investigator showed progress, they invited him/her to be baptized. A mission leader then interviewed the investigator to determine if they understood the basic principles of

Mormonism and the significance of baptism. When an investigator passed the interview,

301 Jon S.T. Quah, “Religion and Religious Conversion in Singapore: A Review of the Literature,” Report Prepared for Ministry of Community Development, December 1987, 55. 302 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, A Uniform System for Teaching Investigators, January 1966, CHL. 112 the missionaries organized and conducted a baptismal service for the investigator.303 The time that investigators went through the discussions to the time they were baptized varied per individual, and ranged from a few weeks to a few years.

Within two months of arriving in Singapore, the missionaries had their first local convert, 20-year-old Alice Tan (Figure 2). Tan had attended a Protestant church as a young girl with a Dutch woman whom Tan called her “guardian.”304 But Tan stopped going to church when her guardian returned to Europe. Her positive experience with

Christianity remained with her, however, and as a young adult, she decided to become a

Christian. Soon after she prayed to find a Church, in April 1968, there was a knock on her door. “I hesitated to open the door,” she wrote in a Church newsletter, “But my mother insisted that I should… To my surprise, I saw two foreigners standing outside... I was curious to know about this church, so I invited them in.”305 She was “moved by their teachings and the wonderful testimonies they bore,” and impressed that they spoke

Cantonese with her mother. Her mother enjoyed having the missionaries over, and cooked frequent meals for them, even though she was not interested in Christianity.

When Alice Tan hesitated to get baptized, it was her mother who told her, “Since they are in Singapore, and they are going to set up a church, why don’t you get baptized so that

303 I consulted several different mission handbooks, and they gave the same basic guidelines for the missionaries. See Southeast Asia Mission, Missionary Handbook (Singapore: Acme Printers Ltd, 1970?); Argentine North Mission, Missionary Handbook (1969); New England Mission, Missionary Handbook (Cambridge, MA: 1967?); Sao Paulo Brazil Mission, Missionary Handbook (Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1962?), Central German Mission, Missionary Handbook (Dusseldorf, Germany: 1966). All can found in the CHL. 304 Alice Tan did not specify how she knew her Dutch “guardian.” 305 Alice Tan, “My Story,” Eastern Pearl 18 (December 1869), 11. A copy of the Eastern Pearl is in the Church History Library. 113 others will follow[in] your footsteps?”306 Thus, on May 4, 1968, the missionaries baptized Tan in a private swimming pool, and she became the first local convert to be baptized in Singapore.

Figure 3: Alice Tan (right), the first convert in Singapore, with her sister. Picture taken by author on July 25, 2014.

A month later, two more Elders joined the missionary force, and together, the six of them nurtured the infant congregation they planted. The growth rate was slow but by the end of the year (1968), over thirty people had received baptism, and attendance for the weekly Sunday services hovered between sixty to eighty people.307 The congregation grew large enough that the missionaries were finally able to organize the “group” into a

306 Alice Tan, interview by author, Singapore, July 25, 2014. 307 Cox, A Brief History of the LDS Church in Singapore, 3; Singapore Branch, Southeast Asia Mission, Singapore Branch General Minutes, 1964-1973, Vol. 4, CHL. 114 formal “branch”308 on October 13, 1968, one day after the Singaporean government recognized the Church as a legal entity in Singapore.309 In April 1969, Ezra Taft Benson, one of the apostles of the Church, visited the members in Singapore. He was so pleased with the growth of the Church that he promised in his apostolic dedicatory prayer that

Singapore would “someday become a center from which the gospel can be directed and sent into other countries…a training ground for missionaries and others who will…go out from here to carry the message to other nations in Asia.”310

In fulfillment of Benson’s promise, on October 26, 1969, Church leaders designated Singapore as the headquarters of a new Southeast Asia Mission, and appointed G. Carlos Smith from Holladay, Utah to be its first mission president. The mission boundary encompassed Burma, Brunei, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos,

Malaysia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam, though the mission focused its initial efforts in Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia.311 There is no available record explaining why Singapore was selected to be the mission headquarters, although Smith mentioned in an interview that “in Singapore, we didn’t have to use caution [to] boil water and wash vegetables carefully. Singapore is a beautiful clean city… and green, and a lovely place. It’s just hot.”312 Perhaps the cleanliness and sanitary conditions, coupled

308 There are two types of congregations in the LDS Church, a “ward” and “branch.” A branch is smaller than the ward, and is led by a branch president and his two counselors. Once a branch grows and has a certain number of active (male) priesthood holders, it may be converted into a ward. 309 Cox, A Brief History of the LDS Church in Singapore, 2-3. 310 Pang, 30. 311 Pang, 30; Southeast Asia Mission, Southeast Asia Mission Publications 1969-1973, CHL. 312 George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, Salt Lake City, September 8-28, transcript p.9. 115 with the fact that many Singaporeans spoke English and could communicate with the missionaries, factored into the decision.

The creation of the Southeast Asia mission with such vast boundaries necessitated the posting of more missionaries to Singapore, and within two months, there were forty- six missionaries stationed in Singapore alone, with sixteen more in Bangkok.313 These missionaries, compared to Asians, were tall and large in stature, with an equally large appetite. Lavon P. Smith, wife of President Smith, decided to cook a Thanksgiving

Dinner for the missionaries to help them overcome their homesickness. “I baked 8 layers of cake one at a time, the day before, and set the salad,” she wrote in her mission journal,

“We had 30 lbs. of meat & we chopped vegetables until I thought we had enough to feed the army but I had forgotten how missionaries eat… I saw that after six missionaries had dished up the tossed salad I’d better take over or half of them would not see it.”314 Of the forty-six missionaries, two came from Canada, two from Australia, one from Hong Kong, and one from Puerto Rico (though he had Caucasian features and the last name

“Bingham”). The remaining missionaries were all Caucasians from the United States.

Therefore, even though not all of them came from America, and two of them were of

Asian descent, the tableau of the missionaries in Singapore was that of a pair of young but large, white American men knocking on doors. Though most of them only spoke

English, and could not communicate with the older generation of Singaporeans who only

313 LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, 1969 October-1972 July, November 14, 1969, Salt Lake City, CHL; Southeast Asia Mission, December 9, 1969, Southeast Asia Mission Manuscript History and Historical Reports, CHL; “Mission Statistics,” Echo Asia (December 1969) in Singapore Mission Minutes— Publications 1969, CHL. 314 LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, 1969 October-1972 July, January 14, 1970. 116 understood their native languages, the missionaries had no problem communicating with the younger English-speaking Singaporeans. With forty-six missionaries jostling for people to teach on this tiny island, they soon became an unmistakable and distinctive sight in the local kampongs and HDB estates.

And Singaporeans responded to the sudden influx of missionaries, even though they had never heard of this religion. Judy recalled that when she first heard the term

“Mormon,” she thought it was some “African voodoo thing.”315 Nevertheless, she and her husband, and many other Singaporeans agreed to listen to the missionaries, and later joined the Church. LaVon P. Smith recorded her delight in her journal that “Our branch is growing by leaps and bounds – 2-6-14 baptisms every Sunday. Where do we baptize? In the ocean on a public beach with many curious spectators and music blasting in our ears…It is not the best but has been very thrilling.”316 Many Mormon pioneers, who later became local leaders of the Church, were baptized around this time, such as Eddie and

Queenie Chew, Helen and Ah Chuan Ho, Alice Cheong Chiu, Patricia Ho, Francis Tan,

Jacob Soh, Rita Sim Woo, Pongkodi and Kalai Selvi Nadarajan. Other notable converts included Canagasabai Kunalan, a Singaporean Olympian once dubbed the “second fastest runner in Asia,” and his wife, Chong Yoong Yin, and Helen Ng, a Miss Asia second- runner up.317 In almost all these cases, they came to know about the Church when the missionaries knocked on their doors. By the end of the year (1969), 118 people were

315 Judy, interview by author, Singapore, May 9, 2016 316 LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, 1969 October -1972 July, January 14, 1970, CHL. 317 “Olympic Star is 2nd Fastest Runner in Asia,” Church News, January 16, 1971, 7 and 10; “SINGAPORE: Convert Named Runner-up in Miss Asia Contest,” Church News, July 9, 1977, 11. 117 baptized, and another 130 converts joined them the following year.318 Membership grew so rapidly that the mission president soon split the congregation into two branches in

February 1970. Each branch numbered over 100 people on record, and consisted of a large majority of young adult Singaporeans, three to four (large) expatriate families from the United States, England, Australia or New Zealand, and the missionaries.319

But President Smith did not just focus on increasing their numbers; high on his list of priorities was ensuring that these converts received sufficient attention and strengthening so that they could become local Church leaders. His vision for the Church in Singapore was for “the member organizations [to be] fully staffed by local members of the Church” and “have the Branches and Districts prepared to become Wards and

Stakes.”320 To do so, Smith turned to the various church auxiliaries for help—Elders

Quorum for the men, Relief Society for the women, Mutual Improvement Association for the youth, and Primary for the children. Auxiliary meetings were held once a week on weekdays, and the smaller gatherings provided more intimate opportunities for learning.

Smith deliberately assigned more experienced and knowledgeable expatriate members and missionaries into auxiliary leadership positions, and the expatriates quickly realized

318 Cox, 9; “Mission Statistics,” Echo Asia in Singapore Mission Minutes—Publications 1969, CHL. Cox’s history states that 124 people were baptized in 1970, but Echo Asia puts the number at 130. 319 Cox, interview by author; G. Carlos Smith, interview by Hartley, transcript p. 59. 320 Southeast Asia Mission, Missionary Handbook (Singapore: Acme Printers Ltd, 1970?), 19. A district is made up of several branches, and led by a district presidency (a president and two counselors). The district presidency reports to the mission president, who is considered the highest authority in that country. When a district grows large enough, and has a certain number of active men who hold the priesthood, the district is converted into an independent Stake, and the branches turned into wards. The stake president and his counselors are considered the highest authority in that stake, and do not report to the mission president. Instead, they report directly to a General Authority within the Church’s bureaucracy. 118 that they needed to start from the basics. Fern Cox, an expatriate wife called to be the

Relief Society president by President Smith, remembered having to act out how to visit teach321 during one lesson. “My counselor and I put on this demonstration,” she recalled,

“I said, first you kneel down and pray together…So we knelt down, and all the sisters

(women) knelt down… Whatever we did, the sisters would do too, bless their little hearts.”322 President Smith and his wife also created a twelve-week Sunday School curriculum for newly-baptized converts that went into greater detail about the Church’s organization, its temples, the basic commandments such as tithing, and other programs like Family Home Evening.323 The lessons allowed converts to become familiar with

Mormon lexicon before they joined the rest of the branch in the normal Sunday School curriculum.

Even with the barrage of information thrown at them, converts did their best to embrace their new religion, despite the steep learning curve. As will be elaborated upon in chapter five, Church membership required their obedience to Mormon teachings, and active participation in church assignments. Coupled with the fact that the Church was led and taught by expatriates, Singaporean converts were thrown into an environment that was foreign to them. Converts struggled to make the adjustment, even after baptism, and some left the Church soon after. Nonetheless, the majority of Singaporean converts made the transition to full membership, and Smith couldn’t have been more pleased. In

321 Visiting teaching is a program of the Relief Society in which LDS women would pair up and go visit and minister another group of sisters in their congregation. 322 Soren and Fern Cox, interview by author, Provo, Utah, May 15, 2013. 323 G. Carlos Smith, interview by William G. Hartley, transcript p. 28-30. The Church encouraged every family to hold a “Family Home Evening” every Monday night. Parents used this time to teach their children more about the gospel, and/ or organized fun activities that helped the family bond together. 119 describing the initial batch of converts, he said, “Some of them I know are chosen people, they would just respond wonderfully. They’re new, they don’t know much about the

Church but they learn… It changes their whole system, their whole way of life. Not all of them can take it….so we have a few of them that become inactive, but I’ve never heard more fervent testimonies given.”324 Not only was the rate of baptismal retention considered high for a LDS congregation (about 60%325), some converts progressed at a rate that so impressed Smith, he felt inspired to call them to high-level “callings” within the branch. In the LDS Church, a calling at a branch/ ward level is an unpaid, lay ministry assignment that lasts for a limited duration, and ranges from being the bishop/ branch president to the Relief Society president to the Primary teacher to the branch usher. Most new converts were usually assigned a smaller calling to help them acclimate to their new environment, and so it was a surprise when Smith called Eddie Chew, a Singaporean convert of less than a year, to become the president of the Singapore First Branch, a position that used to be occupied by the missionaries or expatriates. A year later, when

Chew was called to be the president of the Singapore Second branch, Canagasabai

Kunalan, another recent Singaporean-Indian convert, succeeded Chew as branch president.326 Smith had nothing but praise for Kulanan and converts like him, and said in an interview that “This Brother Kunalan whom I’ve mentioned is as fine a leader as I know…He’s been in the Church two and a half years. He’s just doing a magnificent job.

324 G. Carlos Smith, interview by William G. Hartley, transcript p.10. 325 Ibid, 25. 326 Pang, 91-2. 120

They’re intelligent, able people, capable and they are a great strength.”327 Shelia Hsia, who moved to Singapore from Hong Kong with her family in 1968, was also called as the

Relief Society president until 1970 when she was released due to medical reasons.328 The

Church therefore enjoyed a bounteous harvest in those early years, expanding both its numbers and the strength of its members.

ANTI-MORMONISM

Unfortunately, the blazing takeoff enjoyed by the Church would all come to screeching halt in 1970. The spike in the number of missionaries, and corresponding growth in converts, stirred up the attention of other Christian churches who protested to the government the establishing of the Church in Singapore. The Anglican church in

Singapore was particularly vocal in its dissension, and published several pamphlets and articles condemning Mormonism. The Book of Mormon, it argued, was “a gigantic fraud” because of the lack of historical evidence supporting its content and translation.

Mormons were also hostile to other Christian churches because “they will not cooperate with us. They believe very strongly that only the Mormons are right, all other churches are wrong. They spend a good deal of time trying to persuade Christians to leave their churches and become Mormons…All of us who are members of the Christian Church can only be condemned by them.”329

327 G. Carlos Smith, interview by William G. Hartley, transcript p.11. 328 Sheila Hsia, interview by Ronald O. Barney, Singapore, September 20, 1996. This interview was part of the James Moyle Oral History Program, and a copy of the interview transcript is stored in the CHL. 329 “A Mormon Came to My House: The Latter Day Saints in Singapore,” The Courier (January 1970): 5, National Archives of Singapore (NAS). 121

More significantly, Anglican leaders highlighted gender/ marriage and racial controversies surrounding the LDS Church. They acknowledged that polygamy was

“officially abandoned after 1890,” but pointed out that “the lawfulness of this practice is still a disputed point…By their present doctrine…they appear to look forward to a modified polygamy in heaven.”330 It is important to remember that polygamous marriages were finally outlawed in Singapore in 1961 via the Women’s Charter, and only after

Singaporean feminists fought for years to pass this law. Thus, for the Anglican church to accuse Mormons of believing in a future “modified polygamy in heaven,” less than a decade after the passage of the Women’s Charter, would have raised concerns about the

Church’s troublesome history of marriage.

Worse still, Anglican leaders were not incorrect in pointing out that in the Book of Mormon, “dark skin is a punishment from God…colored peoples of the world are to be condemned as inferior” and that “all mixed marriages are cursed.”331 The Church’s conservative stance on race in the 1960s and early 1970s— its ban of black priesthood ordination, and strong statements against interracial marriages—only fueled such charges. By pointing out the Church’s struggle with racial issues, Anglican leaders contended that Mormon teachings were a “strange amalgam of superstition, fairy tales, and white racist undertones,” and “so depressingly characterized by an aggressive spirit of religious imperialism.” Mormon missionaries, they recommended, “should be

330 Ibid. Since LDS doctrine believes in the eternal nature of the family, hence, even polygamous marriages can endure beyond the grave. Thus, it can be extrapolated that polygamous marriages will exist in the next life after death. 331 Ibid. 122 restrained in the multi-racial society of Singapore…They are a foreign body, financed from overseas, and they will not be able to understand the delicate balance of races and religions which has been established in independent Singapore.”332 Mission president G.

Carlos Smith also remembered that around this time, a “Negro minister” wrote a letter to the Singaporean government telling how the Church discriminated against black people.

“It was at about the time when we’d (the Church) helped the Negro people here in Salt

Lake build their chapel. So I pointed it out to him, and a few other things. I never did hear from him, but he had dropped his drop of poison.”333

Ultimately, the Church’s problematic racial and gender history, and claims of gold plates and visions, proved too fantastic for other religious leaders to accept.

Anglican leaders wrote that “in this technological day and age,” they could understand how someone became an atheist or “free thinker.” What they could not understand was how “any educated person can accept a belief…which is so out of harmony with the mind of the modern man,” implying that it was even more irrational or “un-modern” for a person to become a Mormon than an atheist.334 An unnamed letter published in the national newspaper also described Mormon doctrine as “naïve fundamentalist mediaeval dogmatisms of the American Middle West,” harsh words that positioned Mormonism as

332 Tony Dumper, “The Mormons and the Cathedral—What We Did Not Say!” The Courier (March 1970): 2, NAS. 333 George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, Salt Lake City, September 8-28, transcript p.37. I was unable to find any record of how the LDS missionaries in Singapore defended Church teachings about race in the early 1970s against such anti-Mormon accusations. 334 Tony Dumper, “The Mormons and the Cathedral—What We Did Not Say!” The Courier (March 1970): 2. 123 un-Singaporean and a threat to the nation-building goals of education and modernization.335

Another complaint arose regarding the door-to-door approach of the missionaries.

A “Flat Dweller” wrote in to the Forum section of The Straits Times “to protest against incursions on privacy” caused by “senseless missionaries.” The writer claimed that the missionaries “foisted their religion” upon their audience, and pressured them to read religious books “which in the main are unjust criticisms of other religions.”336 The Inter-

Religious Organization (IRO), a non-governmental representative group of all the major religions in Singapore, also appealed to the government to consider “the possible bad effects of a vigorous door-to-door propaganda-method campaign” started by the

Mormons. The IRO members admitted that they had only received one written complaint and two or three verbal ones from the public, but “as far as we are concerned, we do not accept the Mormons as a religion.”337

To be fair, the IRO’s carefully worded statement did not call for an explicit ban of the Church or the missionaries in Singapore, only that the government investigate the proselytizing methods of the Church. And even though Anglican leaders viewed

Mormonism as a false religion, they recommended that Anglicans “respond to the zealousness of the Mormons by studying the Christian Faith more carefully, and by

335 Cheng Kim Khoo, “Mormons are Under Attack by People and Churches,” The Straits Times, January 28, 1970, 17. 336 Flat Dweller, “Invasion of Privacy: A Protest,” The Straits Times, January 10, 1970, 14. 337 “’Stop Door to Door Campaign by Mormons’ Call,” The Straits Times, February 2, 1970, 9. 124 witnessing to Jesus Christ more faithfully.”338 They even made clear that while they “do not defend the Mormons…We are not prepared to call on the Government to ban another religious body. Once we look to Government action to suppress religious beliefs…then we are inviting a totalitarian ordering of our society.”339

Nonetheless, the letters and appeals from the Inter-Religious Organization and the public, and distribution of anti-Mormon literature, prompted the Singaporean government to intervene. Despite repeated meetings between Smith and immigration officers, on

March 26, 1970, Smith received word that the Immigration Authority of Singapore would not renew the visas of twenty-nine missionaries after their current visas expired in two weeks. The missionaries must leave the country or risk deportation, and only eleven missionaries were allowed to remain in Singapore. “Today is the saddest day of our mission,” LaVon Smith wrote in her journal, “Our hearts are so heavy. I’ve cried most of the day.”340

News of the imminent departures came as a blow to the missionaries, and perhaps contributed to their defeat in the Basketball Association of Singapore’s annual championship game. The missionaries had signed up to play in the basketball league for sport and leisure, and to generate interest in the Church.341 Cheered on by local members on the sidelines, the missionaries made it through each round of the tournament.342

338 John Cook, Mormons? Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints? (Singapore: St. Margaret’s Anglican Church, n.d.). Copy of pamphlet in Southeast Asia Mission, Southeast Asia Mission Manuscript and Historical Reports, 1969-1978, CHL. 339 Tony Dumper, “The Mormons and the Cathedral—What We Did Not Say!” The Courier, 1, NAS. 340 LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, 1969 October -1972 July, March 26, 1970, CHL. 341 Daniel Huntington, “Goal= Score Two Points & Get More Investigators,” Echo Asia (March 1970), 7 in Southeast Asia Mission, Singapore Mission Minutes Publications, 1969-1973, CHL. 342 Jacob Soh, interview; Judy, interview. 125

However, on the night of the championship game, held on April 1, 1970 at the People’s

Association, the missionaries suffered a 60-40 defeat. The Straits Times reported that

“Thong Keng (the rival team) …beat the lanky American missionaries (average height 6 feet to their rivals 5 ft. 8) with their speed, team work and accurate shooting.” LaVon

Smith had a slightly different interpretation— “We had a sharp looking team [but] their

[morale] was gone & they were defeated. However, they made a good showing, received one good write up in the paper.”343

President Smith and his wife held a final meeting with the departing missionaries on April 7, 1970, and invited each Elder to speak for a few minutes. Although the missionaries had only been on their mission for about three to five months, many spoke about the growth they witnessed in themselves, and the love they had for their missions and their companions. Elder Grimley said that his first impression of Singapore was that it was hot, smelly, and sweaty, and was horrified by the cockroaches in his apartment; now, he loved that apartment. Elder Christianson talked about the satisfaction he felt when he saw investigators come to church— “you feel like you have known them all your life.” Yet another Elder shared that he was so busy teaching and baptizing that he forgot the “ache in his legs.”344 Hearing the missionaries talk about their experiences was a bittersweet memory for LaVon Smith, who had come to view the missionaries as part of her family, and recorded, “Of course there were tears, but [we saw] how our boys had matured and [felt] their sweet spirit, their love for the companions and for us.”345 A week

343 LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, 1969 October -1972 July, April 1, 1970. 344 Ibid., April 7, 1970, p.73-77. 345 Ibid., April 7, 1970, p. 73. 126 later, all twenty-nine missionaries left Singapore for their re-assignments in Thailand,

Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Australia.346

President Smith instructed the missionaries on April 22, 1970 to stop knocking on doors as a stopgap measure. Unable to go door-to-door, the missionaries found new ways to talk to people, such as handing out surveys on the streets, and talking to people while riding the public transportation. The Church also introduced the Church’s Scouting program in Singapore, and welcomed young men, member and non-member, to join. The shift in proselytizing methods helped to a certain extent as the complaints and negative press against the missionaries stopped, while still enabling them to find new investigators.347 Smith also began talking to the local men about serving a mission, and in

January 1971, Teo Thiam Chye became the first Singaporean to serve a one-year mission, followed by Michael Lee in 1972.348 In a gesture of goodwill to the rest of the Christian community, the Church also reached out to the Barker Road Methodist Church to put up a Christmas choral presentation in December 1974 that improved the image of the

Church with the Methodist community.349

Yet, prejudice against the Church lingered. When the Church organized its first

“Open House” on July 11, 1970 for visitors to tour the building and learn more about

Mormonism, over 200 people attended but not one invited guest from the press or the

346 Southeast Asia Mission, Southeast Asia Mission Manuscript History and Historical reports, 1969-1978, CHL. 347 Elder Diderickson, “Street Survey == A New Tool,” & “Scouts in Singapore,” Echo Asia (August 1970). At least 5 young men joined the Church due to the Scouting program; see Pang, 11; Adam [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, July 31, 2014. 348 Southeast Asia Mission, Southeast Asia Mission Manuscript and Historical Reports, 1969-1978, CHL. 349 “SINGAPORE: Music Fosters Christmas Spirit,” Church News, December 21, 1974, 11. 127 government turned up. “The paper did not even announce our program,” wrote a miffed

LaVon Smith.350 Anti-Mormon literature continued to be circulated among Singaporeans, and one interviewee shared that she even once bought an anti-Mormon book from a bookstore as a gift for a friend, not knowing the contents inside. “Lucky thing [my friend] is still active in church!” she exclaimed.351 President Smith also met with Ambassador

David Kennedy, a Mormon serving as President Richard Nixon’s U.S. Ambassador at

Large for the United States, when Kennedy visited Singapore in March 1971. Kennedy promised to talk to Lee Kuan Yew about the visa issue during their meeting, but there is no record as to what transpired during the meeting.352 If Kennedy had raised the issue with Lee, it was to no avail as the mission continued to be denied visa renewals over the next year. By the time Miller F. Shurtleff succeeded Smith as the new mission president in June 1972, the government granted only four visas to the mission, including the visa for the mission president. With the number of missionaries drastically reduced, there was a corresponding plunge in the number of baptisms. There were only 29 baptisms in 1971, and 23 the year after.353

Compounding the problem for President Smith was the inadequacy of communication lines with Church headquarters regarding mission problems. LaVon

Smith wrote that about their frustration when Church leaders decided to send more

350 LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, 1969 October -1972 July, July 11, 1970. 351 Audrey [pseud.], interview. See also Leonard Woo, interview by author, Singapore, November 13, 2015. 352 LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, March 3, 1971. 353 “Mission Statistics,” Echo Asia in Singapore Mission Minutes—Publications 1969, CHL. Cox’s history has slightly different numbers: there were 33 baptisms in 1971 and 24 in 1972. Despite the discrepancy, both sources still demonstrate the significant drop in the number of baptisms. 128 missionaries to Singapore, even after her husband had informed them about the visa issue. “If they would only realize the problems,” she lamented.354 Her husband also later related that there were many times when he “couldn’t get any help out of Salt Lake City, it was just too far away. I was there alone with my wife. We had to make decisions right on the spot…so I tell you we prayed a lot, and I felt the influence of the Spirit of the

Lord.”355 Homesickness and family health issues also plagued the Smiths, who were already in their sixties, and hence, they were eager to return to the States at the end of their mission. Nonetheless, they took back with them fond memories of their mission.

“All in all it was a wonderful experience,” LaVon later wrote in her autobiography, “It was a long three years—all but three months—but filled with many choice experiences as well as heartaches.”356 President Smith concurred, and said that it was a “thrilling experience to be able to go into a country where no [Mormon] missionaries have ever been in the history of the world to our knowledge…this has been our privilege in that part of the world…We can see real progress in many areas.”357

The next mission president, Miller F. Shurtleff, struggled throughout his mission to increase the number of visas for missionaries. Shurtleff was from Virginia, and had worked his way up to become an executive assistant to the Secretary of Agriculture. In

1961, he became an executive staff member for the National Science Foundation (NSF), and represented the NSF in a joint project with the government of India from 1967 to

354 LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, January 14, 1970. 355 George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, 56. 356 LaVon P. Smith, “My Story,” September 1986, 40. copy of manuscript in author’s possession. 357 George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, 56. 129

‘69.358 His background in South Asia prepared him to live in Singapore as the next mission president, but he was frustrated by his inability to make any inroads with the

Singaporean government regarding the visa problem. He once took a member of the

Church’s Quorum of the Seventy359 with him to meet a government official, and thought the meeting went favorably.360 Yet, the Immigration Office continued to refuse his appeals for leniency, and in 1973, reduced the number of granted visas to two.361 As such, he and his wife had to constantly travel to Thailand and Indonesia, where most of their missionaries were stationed.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the Church in Singapore still made moderate gains during his presidency, such as completing the construction of a new chapel, mission office, and mission quarters at Bukit Timah Road (where the Church is still located).362

Church members were excited to finally have a permanent building to meet in, and volunteered their time to build the outside brickwork patio. A new convert, Jon Lim, even donated a new and expensive pipe organ for installation in the chapel.363 And even though the Church was small, President Shurtleff noted that the number of active men who held the priesthood was still larger compared to the branches in Thailand and

358 “The Southeast Asia Mission Welcomes a New President,” Echo Asia, May 1972, 6-7. 359 The Quorum of the Seventy is the next governing body of the Church after the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. 360 Pang, 49; Miller F. Shurtleff, “Brief History of Visas for Latter-day Saint Missionaries in Singapore,” and “Report to President A. Theodor Tuttle on the Singapore Mission,” Miller F. Shurtleff Mission Papers, CHL. 361 Miller F. Shurtleff, “Brief History of Visas for Latter-day Saint Missionaries in Singapore,” and “Report to President A. Theodor Tuttle on the Singapore Mission,” Miller F. Shurtleff Mission Papers, CHL. 362 Cox, 6. 363 Pang, 48. 130

Indonesia which had a far larger membership.364 The Shurtleffs felt comfortable living in

Singapore, and said it was “a welcome relief to come ‘home’ to our beautiful and clean

Singapore and the mission home” after their travels. President Shurtleff’s wife, Alice, was a talented musician who threw herself into building up the musical repertoire of local members. Under her leadership, she created a “Singing Mothers” group for the Relief

Society, and organized a conducting class teaching people how to lead music.365 The members enjoyed these activities, and even after the Shurtleffs returned to the States in

1975, kept in periodic touch with them.366 Overall, however, the low number of visas hindered the growth of the Church, and it was a difficult three-year mission with only small successes.

MISSION EXPERIMENTS

When Soren F. Cox took over as mission president in 1975, the only Elders serving in what was now called the “Singapore Mission”367 were Mark Barlow

(American) and Peter J. Tan (Singaporean). Granted, the mission boundaries had been drastically reduced by then, with Vietnam returned to the jurisdiction of the Southern Far

East Mission in November 1970, and with the creation of separate missions in Thailand and Indonesia in 1973 and 1975 respectively. Nonetheless, the mission still covered

Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, and Brunei. “We went into a mission that

364 Miller F. Shurtleff, “Report on Priesthood holders as of 31st December 1973,” February 21, 1974, Miller F. Shurtleff Papers, CHL. 365 Pang, 48. 366 Ibid. 367 The name of the mission was changed from the Southeast Asian Mission to the Singapore Mission in 1974, in accordance with the Church’s worldwide policy to name the missions after the city that the mission headquarters was stationed in. 131 had about 700 million people and two missionaries!” Cox recollected. Tough odds for sure, but Cox began his tenure with one major advantage: he and his family had lived in

Singapore from 1970 to 1972 when he worked as the director of the language center at

Nanyang University. During their first move to Singapore, Soren and his wife, Fern, were put into Church leadership positions by G. Carlos Smith, and they proved to be a much- needed “asset to the branch.”368 Fern was especially popular among the young

Singaporean converts as she taught them American dances, and produced “roadshows” and musicals for them to participate in. Their son, Dale, was called as assistant Scout

Master at 17 years old, having earned his Eagle Scout badge just before he accompanied his parents to Singapore. Soren Cox also used his position working for the university to cultivate good rapport among his colleagues and government officials, contacts he would later tap into as mission president. As the Coxes served in the Church and opened themselves to the people and the culture, Singaporeans in turn embraced them with their hearts. When the Coxes returned in 1975, one Singaporean told Fern, “We knew you’ll come back. We prayed you back! When are we going to have a road show?”369

Under Soren Cox’s presidency, the mission underwent a few significant changes.

First, he pushed more local men to serve regular two-year missions, when previous missionaries only served for one. Moreover, he directed that their mission assignments come from Church headquarters in Utah instead of from the mission president, thus imbuing the mission calls with a greater sense of authority and responsibility. Due to the

368 LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, June 4, 1970. 369 Soren and Fern Cox, interview by author, Provo, Utah, May 15, 2013. 132 difficult circumstances of visa problems, the Church agreed to Cox’s request that all local prospective missionaries be sent back to Singapore. By a stroke of fortune, the first

Singaporean to serve under this new model was Elder Roy Thong, an “extremely able, articulate, ambitious young man” who “established a model that led a lot of other

Singaporeans to consider missions.”370 Many Singaporean young men did have the desire to serve, but faced opposition from their parents who associated the idea of missionaries with lifelong (celibate) priests or the controversial “Moonies” of the South Korean

Family Federation of World Peace and Unification.371 The Coxes decided to meet with the potential missionary and his family to alleviate their concerns, and reassure them that their sons would return home after their missions.372 It helped too that the missionaries could visit their families once every few weeks, unlike today when missionaries are not permitted to see their families the entire two years. These measures opened the way for more young men to gain permission to serve missions, and allowed President Cox to build up the mission force over the next three years. When he left in 1978, there were eight young men on missions, one American, one Malaysian, and six Singaporeans.373

The second major change was the calling of female Singaporeans on missions. In

April 1977, Joyce Kwik and Cynthia Foong became the first “Sisters” to serve a full-time mission of eighteen months in Singapore. Since then, women have always been part of the Singapore mission, and in fact, made up an unusually large percentage of the mission

370 Soren Franklin Cox, interview by John H. Adams, Oral History Program of the Provo, Utah North Stake, Provo, Utah, March 9, 1986, transcription p.32. 371 The Singaporean government banned the Unification Church in 1982. 372 Soren and Fern Cox, interview by author, Provo, Utah, May 15, 2013. 373 Cox, interview by John H. Adams, p.32-33. 133 force compared to other missions.374 Apart from increasing the size of the mission, the

Sisters also motivated the Elders to work harder. Soren Cox appreciated having the

Sisters “because it added a component to the missionary force that made it much more effective… The Elders would be challenged by the Sisters; the Sisters [would] be challenged by the Elders, and they would work together… It was [also] good…for many members to see that the Sisters could serve just the same as the Elders…. It opened up new opportunities, a whole new area of missionary work that you could bring in those sisters.”375

It was around this time that the Church began to cultivate more goodwill with government officials. An astonished President Cox received a call one evening from

Professor E.S. Monteiro, the Singapore Ambassador to the United States. Prof. Monteiro told Pres. Cox that he had met David Kennedy and an Elder Marriott376 in Washington

D.C., and had been greatly impressed by all he learned about the Church and Brigham

Young University. Before the call ended, Monteiro promised to do all he could to assist the Church, and agreed to talk to Lee Kuan Yew about the high moral standards upheld

374 The percentage of female missionaries for the LDS Church around the world hovered between 15-20% from 1975 to 1985, a low number compared to the Singapore Mission, in which females usually made up 30-50% of the mission force. Of course, part of the high percentage is due to the low number of men, but it is still significant that many Singaporean Mormon women served missions. See Tally S. Payne, “’Our Wise and Prudent Women’: Twentieth-Century Trends in Female Missionary Service,” in New Scholarship on Latter-day Saint Women in the Twentieth Century: Selections from the Women’s History Initiative Seminar 2003-2004, eds. Carol Cornwall Madsen and Cherry B. Silver (Provo, Utah: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, 2005), 127. There is no available official record on the number of female missionaries who served in the Singapore Mission from 1975 to 1985, but I obtained my statistics from mission pictures found in Pang’s History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Singapore: Journey to Stakehood, 1964-1997. Furthermore, many interviewees claimed that when they were on their missions in Singapore, there were about an equal number of Elders and Sisters. 375 Cox, interview by author. 376 There is no other identification of who “Elder Marriott” was but he was most likely J. Willard Marriott, founder of Marriott International, or J. Williard “Bill” Marriott Jr., his son. 134 by Mormons. The Church also started a scholarship program with the Singapore Public

Service to grant one non-member recipient a full-ride scholarship to Brigham Young

University.377 This annual scholarship later sponsored several Singaporean competitive swimmers to train under BYU’s swimming coach, Tim Powers, in the 1980s.378 In April

1976, Cox used his contacts to secure a meeting with Goh Keng Swee, the deputy Prime

Minister of Singapore. Upon meeting Cox, Goh remarked, “I guessed your church was about extinct here, wasn’t it?” Cox was taken aback, but regained enough composure to carry on with the meeting discussing the Church in Singapore, and its emphasis on families. To Cox’s delight, as he was about to leave, Goh shook Cox’s hand and said, “I hope your church flourishes.”379 Even though the number of visas granted to foreign missionaries remained at two—one of the mission president and the other for a young

Elder—the Church did gain a better reputation among government officials.

Failing to obtain more missionary visas, President Cox sought to boost the strength of the membership via another method: applying for more expatriate Mormons to live in Singapore. In this, Cox was more successful. On December 19, 1977, the

Singapore Immigration Department granted Lionel F. Walters and his family permission to live in Singapore to direct the Church’s Education System (CES). Walters, a

Singaporean-Eurasian who migrated to Australia as a teenager, oversaw the running of institute classes (i.e. Bible study) for adults and the early-morning seminary program for

377 Cox, interview by John H. Adams, p.33; J. Talmage Jones, In Singapore and other Asian Cities (Salt Lake City: Publishers Press, 1984), 28-29. 378 Kevin Stoker, “Bout of Insomnia Let to Spiritual Discovery,” Church News, October 3, 1987, 11. 379 Cox, interview by John H. Adams, p.33-34. 135 the youth. Soon after, Cox applied for a Brother Thatcher to enter Singapore as a family genealogical representative. Immigration authorities again granted the visa to the Church, although they asked Cox how many departments the Church had.380

These changes allowed the Church to keep growing its membership, albeit at a slower pace. To increase the visibility of the Church, Cox approached the government with a proposal to put up public displays on the Church’s health code (also called the

“Word of Wisdom”) in shopping malls across the country at no cost.381 Not only did the government agree to Cox’s request, they allowed him to put up two other displays titled

“Man’s Search for Happiness” and “Families are Forever.” Fern also organized a

“Mormon Missionary Choir” that performed at malls and hotels around the Christmas season. These activities generated positive publicity and interest in the Church, and helped missionaries find new investigators, beside those referred to by members.382 In

1975, forty-five people received baptism, and in 1977, that number increased to seventy- eight. These figures are not high but considering the size of the mission force, the average rate of baptisms per missionary in a year was ten, the highest of all the missions in Asia, including those that did not have visa restrictions imposed on the mission.383 As a result,

Church leaders received permission from Church headquarters to draw up expansion plans of the church building to accommodate the growth in membership. The Church

380 Ibid., 38. 381 Lionel F. Walters, interview by author, Singapore, November 21, 2015. 382 Cox, , interview by John H. Adams, 36. 383 Ibid., 35 and 37. 136 began to bounce back from the turbulence of the early 1970s, and Cox felt optimistic about the future of the Church in Singapore.

It was thus a blow to Cox when he learned on May 18, 1978 that the mission would be absorbed into the Indonesian Mission after his tenure as mission president ended in two months. The idea of combining the missions had been tossed around as early as October 1977. Cox had flown to Seoul, South Korea for a mission presidents’ training seminar. At the conference, he met with Apostle Thomas S. Monson, who told

Cox that unless he increased the number of missionaries, “we were not justified in having a Singapore Mission.”384 A dejected Cox returned to Singapore, but after praying and studying the issue, recommended that Singapore remain an independent mission. Yet, despite his recommendation and the high baptismal rate in Singapore, Church leaders deemed the situation unsustainable in the long-run, and dissolved the mission in July

1978. Singapore therefore came under the jurisdiction of the Indonesia Mission, while

Malaysia and South Asia was put under the International Mission385. Nonetheless, even though the mission headquarters moved to Jakarta, the Church had to station an American representative in Singapore to maintain its legal status and other logistical reasons.386

Church leaders thus called Winfield Q. Cannon and his wife to Singapore for eighteen months to fill this position, and designated Cannon as the “first counselor” or second-in- command to the Indonesian mission president, Lester Hawthorne. However, because the

384 Ibid., 37. 385 For more information about the International Mission, please see Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History, s.v. “International Mission” (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2000). 386 Cox, interview by John H. Adams, p.39. 137 members in Singapore saw Cannon more often, he is remembered in their memory as the next mission president.

Under Cannon’s presidency, the Church continued to foster goodwill with the government, supporting the numerous public campaigns of the 1970s and ‘80s, such as the “Speak Mandarin Campaign.” Launched on September 7, 1979 by Lee Kuan Yew, the Speak Mandarin Campaign sought to improve communication among the Chinese by encouraging them to forego their dialects and speak Mandarin instead.387 In response to the campaign, the Church choir performed a hymn in Mandarin during one of their services. There were other Christian churches in Singapore whose services were conducted solely in Mandarin or dialect, so it wasn’t the act of singing in Mandarin that was unusual. Rather, it was the perception that this “American” church was encouraging its members to use Mandarin, and doing its part to support the campaign. The Straits

Times even published a letter submitted by an anonymous member, a “Gratified Student,” who wrote that learning the hymn was her “first Mandarin lesson ‘without tears’”.388

Cannon also wanted to help prospective missionaries receive adequate training before they entered the mission field. In this, he enlisted the help of Pang Meng Hock, the first Singaporean missionary to go through formal training at the Missionary Training

Center (MTC) in Provo, Utah from June to July 1979. Cannon instructed Pang to design a similar training program to the one in Provo, and in December 1979, the first batch of

387 “Speak Mandarin Campaign is Launched, 7th Sep. 1979,” History SG: An Online Resource Guide by the Singapore Government, http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/0daaa112-a100-4bbf-8907- 8ea4472c26c3 (accessed March 11, 2017). 388 Gratified Student [pseud.], “My First Mandarin Lesson ‘Without Tears,’” The Straits Times, September 21, 1979, p.19. 138 twelve prospective missionaries entered the “Singapore Missionary Training Center

(SMTC).” The group met every Sunday for four hours, and the entire course took fourteen weeks. The significant demands of the training sessions weighed on the members, and the course was later shortened to six weeks for the next two groups.389

Nonetheless, prospective missionaries still benefitted from the training course, and the

SMTC continued for a few more years before being discontinued in November 1985 when the first Singaporean was sent to the Manila Philippines MTC for training.390

Thus, the Church in Singapore, which now comprised about 700 members, continued along when for reasons unknown, Church headquarters decided to reinstate the

Singapore Mission in January 1980. The mission would only comprise Singapore and

Malaysia, however—a much more manageable size for the mission president given that there were only eleven missionaries in Singapore and none in Malaysia. J. Talmage

Jones, a man who possessed a sharp and sarcastic wit from Leeds, Utah, was appointed to be the next mission president. Jones and his wife, Vera Jean, relished their new adventure in Singapore. On the local traffic conditions, Jones wrote, “Tests for driver licenses are required, but do not include a written exam to test your knowledge of traffic laws. The only test that is required is a heart and blood pressure exam.”391 The authoritarian reach of the government also took some getting used to. “In Singapore,” Jones observed, “Not

389 Pang Meng Hock, Journal Excerpts, 1979 July to 1980 October, CHL. 390 The 6-week MTC course was still being held during President Lionel F. Walter’s presidency (1982-85). See President Walters mission journal, entry February 9, 1983, William F. and Marianne Walters mission papers, 1982-1985, CHL. See also Pang, 8 for a brief record of the first Singaporean to enter the MTC in Manila. 391 J. Talmage Jones, In Singapore and Other Asian Countries (Salt Lake City, Utah: Publishers Press, 1984), 6. 139 one sparrow shall fall to the ground without Lee Kuan Yew knowing about it. Some even say that Mr. Lee is about to demand that the sparrows only fall in a restricted area.”392

The government’s multiple campaigns of the 1970s and ‘80s were another source of humorous fodder, especially the anti-natalist “Two (children) is Enough,” which disconcerted many American Mormons known for their large families. Soren and Fern

Cox shared that when their family first came to Singapore, Singaporeans “nearly died when they heard we had five children.”393 The Joneses, the parents of seven adult children, were equally amused by the population policies. At a dinner held for thirty local church leaders and their wives, Jones announced that “this was a Singapore-type dinner and the serving of 210 satays (skewered meat) would follow the government Family

Planning slogan— ‘two is enough.’” Of course, no one heeded him, and “when the tumult and the shouting died, not one satay remained.”394

But the Joneses grew to love the country. Singapore, they frequently observed, was “green, clean and efficient,” a “Garden of Eden” and “Camelot City” compared to other parts of Asia.395 Returning from a trip to Malaysia, President Jones wrote, “Coming back to Singapore is now the feeling of returning home. We are comfortable here and happy to report that all is well…”396 The Joneses were equally impressed by the character

392 Ibid., 20. 393 Cox, interview by author. 394 Jones, 46. On the “National Courtesy Campaign,” launched in 1979, President Jones wrote, “This move…is just now getting underway, so we don’t know how effective it will become. However, we did observe just today at a long queue in the grocery store, a large Chinese woman push and trip an old lady… As the old lady struggled to her feet her attacker muttered ‘solly’ (sorry). That is an indication that the campaign is helping because we haven’t heard ‘solly’ before in all of Singapore.” (Jones, 28). 395 Jones, 4, 32 and 107. 396 Ibid., 11. 140 and maturity of the missionaries they led, though they could not help but note (in typical

“Jones”-humor) the diminutive stature of their mission force. “Our one American is a bean-pole, six feet, four inches and weighs 175 lbs.,” they reported, “Four of the five

Chinese elders are less than 120 lbs. and the ‘fat one’ 135. The five lady missionaries come in at 100 to 115 lbs. each.”397 While other missions worried about obesity, their missionaries had the opposite problem of being too lean! But their physical size belied the level of spirituality and faith of the missionaries. The Joneses were “touched in our hearts to see that these who make up our tiny force of Singaporean missionaries are offering a more sensitive sacrifice.” The decision to serve a mission “usually costs priceless and irreplaceable possessions,” such as one Sister who persisted on coming on a mission even though her family disowned her, and she used all her savings to pay for her mission.398 Since missionaries could not enter Malaysia until September 1980399, the

Joneses appreciated being able to concentrate their resources and time encouraging and training their small mission force in Singapore.400

The Singapore Mission received a major boost when Donny and Marie Osmond visited Singapore with their parents and five of their six siblings in June 1980. The

Singapore Tourist Board had invited the Osmond siblings to Singapore as part of their promotional campaign, and hoped that the entertainment duo would use their massive appeal in the United States to promote Singapore as a tourist resort for Americans. But

397 Ibid., 6. 398 Ibid., 45. 399 Ibid., 42. The Malaysian government refused to grant visas to foreign missionaries, and thus President Jones was excited to learn that two Malaysian men, who had converted in Melbourne and London, wanted to serve missions. They began their mission in September 1980. See also Jones, 112. 400 Ibid., 12. 141

Singaporeans were as enamored of the Osmonds as their American fans: they mobbed the airport when the duo touched down, and more than 20,000 people packed the National

Stadium for their concert.401 One reporter even dubbed their visit the “entertainment event of the year.”402 More significantly, the Osmond visit garnered several favorable articles about the Church in The Straits Times. One article commented about the Church’s focus on families, and highlighted the Church’s worldwide missionary program, the relation between its strict health code and the general physical fitness of Mormons, the status of women in the Church, and the religion’s civic engagement in Singapore.403 A week later, The Straits Times ran another article about Donny and Marie’s parents,

George and Olive Osmond, commending them for keeping their large family “happy

[and] healthy” when other Hollywood families had cracked under the pressure of show business. “Firmly believing in their Mormon Church’s teachings,” the article read, “One of them admonishing that no other success in life can compensate for failure in the home

– the Osmond parents have worked hard to make their home a haven for their nine children.”404 The positive publicity was a boon for the mission. “For days our telephone was constantly busy,” President Jones reported, even as he acknowledged that some of the calls were about free tickets for a private event held by the Osmonds for church

401 “That Osmond Smile…” The Straits Times, June 12, 1980, 1; “Enchanted by Osmonds,” The Straits Times, June 13, 1980, 8. 402 “Cameras to roll for an Osmonds’ Singapore Special,” The Straits Times, June 7, 1980, Section 2, 3. 403 Gretchen Mahbubani, “The church with a focus on families,” The Straits Times, June 7, 1980, Section 2, 11. 404 Geraldine Tang, “Practising what they preach,” The Straits Times, June 16, 1980, Section 2, 3. 142 members.405 Still, the number of investigators willing to meet with the missionaries tripled overnight, and at least sixty-one people received baptism that year.406

However, just as President Jones settled in to the mission, he received a letter from Church headquarters informing him that effective July 1, 1980, the mission would again include India and Sri Lanka. Thankfully, the Church had assigned four Caucasian senior couple missionaries (retired couples who volunteered to serve missions) to minister in India by then, and they helped ease the transition into the Singapore

Mission.407 But the bigger shock came at the end of November 1980 when Jones received a call from Church leader Marion D. Hanks, who told him that Indonesia would now be incorporated into the Singapore Mission. The Indonesia mission president, Les

Hawthorne, had suffered another mild heart attack, and needed to return to the United

States for treatment. In addition, the Indonesian government (perhaps taking a cue from the Singaporean government) refused to renew the visas of all foreign missionaries in

Indonesia, including that of the mission president. Like Singapore, the Church in

Indonesia would now have to rely solely on local members and missionaries, all of whom were also first generation converts. Jones was floored, and in taking over the reins, was now in charge of a mission that encompassed a boundary of five countries and close to

900 million people. Between conducting training sessions and conferences for missionaries, ministering to the members, answering correspondence, applying for visas

405 Jones, 29-30; Pang, 36-37. 406 Pang, 36-37; Jones, 47. 407 Jones, 25. 143 for the couple missionaries in India, and making periodic trips to each country, Jones and his wife were swamped with work.408

It is to the credit of the Singaporean missionaries that they rarely created major problems for their mission president, which allowed him to concentrate his attention in countries that were more poverty-stricken and in need of more ministering. Moreover, their consistent proselytizing efforts paid off as the two branches grew large enough to be split into four by the end of 1981 (Singapore, Clementi, Toa Payoh, and Bedok branches).409 In June 1983, the Church also began a branch for Mandarin Chinese speakers. The creation of three new branches in three years expedited the need to find another chapel for worship, although the land scarcity in Singapore made this a difficult task. “Finding a parcel of land on which we can build our second chapel is like finding a new American manufactured car—there aren’t any,” Jones wryly observed, “Real estate on this island is expensive to buy and difficult to find…For religious purposes it is very restricted.”410 It took many years before the Church finally gained permission and enough resources to renovate and expand their current meetinghouse in 1987, and to later acquire a second piece of property in 1989.411 President Jones also took a leaf from President

Cox, and applied for two “welfare services missionaries” to come to Singapore under the sponsorship of the Singaporean government and work with handicapped children. To his surprise, the Singaporean government agreed to his request, and Sister Kraus (Oregon)

408 Jones, 61-2. 409 Pang, 44. 410 Jones, 72; Pang, 37. 411 Pang, 83-4. 144 and Sister Lockmiller (Florida) arrived in December 1980 for an eighteen-month mission.

Though they did not engage in a traditional proselytizing mission, President Jones reported that “these Sisters have done a good work and we have established a little more strength with the Singapore government.”412

By the time the Joneses ended their tenure in June 1982, they were ready to return home and rest, having overseen the expansion of the mission from eleven missionaries in two countries to seventy-six missionaries in five countries within a span of two and a half years. In his last letter home, President Jones wrote, “These have been thirty marvelous months. We have enjoyed most of them. But when a call comes for a specified period, going home on time is the most delicious reward of the entire experience.”413 While they would miss their friends in Asia, especially their missionaries, “the work will move onward without even a pause is our firm conviction…and that is the greatest compliment we would want.”414

The next mission president was no stranger to Singapore—Lionel F. Walters, the

Australian who oversaw the Church’s Education System (CES) Program from 1977 to

1979. At the end of his assignment in Singapore, Walters was promoted and moved to

Hong Kong to work for the CES head office. As a Church employee, Walters and his family did not enjoy many of the same job benefits given to expatriates, such as a domestic worker for their home or chauffeur-driven transportation. At the same time, they were given the normal home leave, and access to the exclusive clubs popular among

412 Jones, 152. 413 Jones, 161. 414 Ibid. 145 expatriates. As such, they lived in Asia in a half-way state between the expatriate and local lifestyles, which gave them unique access to both groups of people. For President

Walters, returning to Singapore in 1977 after being away for two decades also stirred up faint echoes of his childhood, and he sought out the local cuisine and childhood friends with much eagerness. The Walters thus had a better grasp of the local culture compared to other foreigners, and in fact, their children grew so accustomed to living in Asia that when they returned to Australia for home leave, one of their sons exclaimed, “Mom, they are all white people!”415 Returning to Singapore as the mission president and his wife was thus very exciting for the Walters, who described it as “coming home.” The Walters were especially pleased that the current mission boundaries allowed them to travel to Sri Lanka and India, two countries to which President Walters had Eurasian ancestral ties. The mission was thus both a religious assignment and personal at the same time.

Because of their unique understanding of the local culture, the Walters implemented changes to the mission rules based upon certain Asian values, such as filial piety and emphasis on education. Under the previous mission president, missionaries were only allowed to visit their families during Chinese New Year, Christmas, and family funerals.416 But President Walters was more sensitive to the fact that these first generation of converts struggled to relay to their families that the mission was not a permanent estrangement. Hence, Walters allowed the missionaries to return home more often with the caveat that they did not stay for long. They also hosted a meeting once a year for the

415 Lionel F. and Marianne Walters, interview by author, Singapore, November 21, 2015. 416 Jones, 21. 146 families of the missionaries to visit their sons and daughters at the mission home. These meetings were special to the Walters, not only because they met the families of their missionaries, but also because many parents finally understood the value of going on a mission. “It was really beautiful to watch,” President Walters recalled, “[The] tears in the parents’ eyes, to see what had happened to their daughter or son…the kind of education you get on the mission where there is a study time, there is disciplined scheduling, making appointments, organizing your day, [communicating] with people. This was an education better than you can get at a university.”417 For these parents, it was comforting to know that their children were still developing life and employment skills during their time away from home.

Walters also pushed hard for a greater public presence of the Church by obtaining permission to put up more displays in the shopping malls again, and in December 1984, held a special screening of Mr. Krueger’s Christmas at Centerpoint Shopping Center. The latter activity attracted an exceptionally large crowd, and gave missionaries the chance to talk to a “steady stream” of visitors.418 When Walters learned that one of Brigham Young

University’s performance groups, the Young Ambassadors, was considering a tour of

Asia in the summer of 1983, he petitioned the performing group to visit Singapore and

Malaysia, and persuaded the Kiwanis Club of Singapore to sponsor the event. Not only did the Young Ambassadors agree to a three-day performance (June 23-25), Mrs.

Dhanalatchimi Devan Nair, wife of the president of Singapore, Devan Nair, attended the

417 Lionel Walters, interview. 418 Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, December 17, 1984, William F. and Marianne Walters Mission Papers, 1982-1985, CHL. 147 last performance as a guest of honor.419 The National Productivity Board of Singapore also invited the Church to put up a roadshow for Singapore’s 1984 National Exhibition, a month and a half long exhibition commemorating the 25th anniversary of the nation’s transition from full self-government in 1959. A staff members of the Productivity Board had attended a roadshow put up by the Church a year before, and thought that the “short, spirited, light-hearted production” would be “particularly suited for Singapore’s ‘soft sell’ of productivity themes.” The Church jumped upon this chance to increase its visibility, and put up a successful show over the scheduled three weekends. In fact, the

National Productivity Board enjoyed their performance so much, they asked the Church to perform once more on the closing night of the National Exhibition.420 Once again,

Church members sought creative ways to improve their image and foster ties with the

Singaporean government, even as they hoped these activities attracted the interest of non- members.

The Walters felt strongly that the local missionaries and members were ready to take on more leadership responsibilities and be more spiritually self-reliant. President

Walters often noted in his mission journal how he was “impressed with the caliber of leadership in the church here. All thus augers well for the future of the church in

Singapore.”421 On the missionaries, he was struck by “the way the missionaries maintained a cheerful spirit in the face of much rejection and discouragement. Bless their

419 Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, June 27, 1983, CHL. 420 Lionel F. Walters, LDS Singapore District Contributes Roadshow to National Exhibition, no date, William F. and Marianne Walters Mission Papers, 1982-1985, CHL. The Church declined to perform on the last night on a Sunday because it was the Sabbath Day. 421 Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, January 16, 1983, CHL. 148 hearts. They are trying to do their best yet the rewards seem to be so meagre compared with what I feel they should be reaping.”422 When Marianne first came to Singapore, her branch president called her to be the Relief Society president for her branch. In the early days, the sisters met on a weekday for Relief Society lessons and “homemaking/ enrichment nights.” Due to the sparseness in numbers, the women from both branches used to combine their meetings, which were, according to Marianne, “dominated by and ran by the expatriates.” But when Marianne became president, she and the branch president decided that the Relief Societies needed to meet separately to give local sisters more opportunities to serve in the Relief Society. Marianne also made sure to choose two local women as her counselors, while assigning expatriate women to be consultants rather than be directly over Relief Society affairs. It was important to Marianne that the locals took on more responsibility, and that they understand that “expats don’t know everything! And sometimes…we had [that] impression as a group…We didn’t have all the answers, and that’s why we needed to work together to make it work.”423

This is not the say that new members and missionaries did not make mistakes.

Marianne remembered that a Singaporean once stood up to give a “talk” (mini-discourse) during sacrament meeting, the Church’s most solemn and sacred meeting. The man proceeded to air his grievances about the anti-Mormon literature circulating in public, and then, to Marianne’s chagrin, “held up a poster with a very rude word on it.”424 Many

Singaporeans also recalled with a mix of nostalgia and chagrin that they used to go to the

422 Ibid., February 28, 1984. 423 Marianne Walters, interview. 424 Marianne Walters, interview. 149 nearby food center, Newton Circus, in between Sunday meetings for lunch, thus breaking the Sabbath Day as a community. The practice stopped when the Church consolidated all its meetings into a 3-hour block in 1980, and as more Singaporeans went to Brigham

Young University and learned what was considered appropriate-Sabbath Day behavior from their schoolmates. The Singaporean missionaries also gave the Walters minor disciplinary problems and for a while, President Walters felt like he was “in a confrontation mode with the missionaries as they seem to not be working as well as I think they could and should be.”425 And once, during a mission cooking competition, a pair of Elders (in)famously made “Moussaka” from dog food as that was all they could afford to purchase.426

Still, the Walters were relieved that compared to the other missions in Asia, their

Singaporean/ Malaysian missionaries “worked very hard” and “were highly disciplined.”427 Notwithstanding the occasional miscreants, the Walters felt “blessed and

[privileged]…to be able to labor with such fine spirits.”428 The relatively high baptismal rate in Singapore was the icing on the cake— there were thirty-five baptisms in 1983, and sixty-eight in 1984.429 Once again, these figures by themselves are meagre, but when

425 Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, August 13, 1984, CHL. 426 Lionel F. and Marianne Walters, interview. 427 Ibid. 428 Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, June 24, 1983. 429 “Statistics,” The Ambassador 3 (1), January 1984; “Mission Statistics,” The Ambassador 4(1), January 1985. Lionel Walters also recorded in his journal on October 31, 184, “The mission continues to roll along with Singapore doing well as far as baptisms are concerned – eight in October. We were rated seventh in the Asian zone of the Church as far as monthly baptisms are concerned, for the month of August. Only two missions in Korea and the four Philippines missions did better that we in that regard. Our rate of baptisms is higher than any mission in Australia. And so we feel that we are doing some good.” 150 contextualized to include the size of the mission force and public antipathy toward the

Church, the average number of baptisms per missionary is quite high.

Pleased by the performance of their missionaries, the Walters entrusted them with additional responsibilities on top of their proselytizing duties, both as a gesture of trust, and to hone their leadership and presentation skills. Every two months or so, the mission held “zone conferences” for the missionaries in Singapore and Malaysia. The Walters would book the venue and provide overall guidance, but the rest of the conference was run by the missionaries, from the workshops and seminars, to the games and activities, and musical presentations. “It was just fantastic to watch them,” President Walters recalled.430 It was also Walters who began to assign Singaporean missionaries to serve in

Malaysia, which not only helped the mission circumvent the strict visa restrictions of

Malaysia and boost the Church there, it gave Singaporeans the experience of serving in another country. Marianne also changed the dress code for the Sister missionaries that had been put in place since 1977 to allow the Sisters more freedom in their choice of clothing. Fern Cox had given the first Sister missionaries a standard set of uniforms

(white and blue dresses, and a grey jumper with a red blouse) to wear, even though this was not a standard practice in other missions. The Sisters accepted it, however, because they were accustomed to wearing uniforms for school, and the Elders also had a standard dress code. In addition, Cox hoped that the uniforms would cut the cost of going on a mission, while ensuring that it prevented “any jealousies or anything like that because

430 Lionel F. Walters, interview. 151 they were all alike.”431 Subsequent mission presidents continued this practice, while making changes to the uniforms. The Walters decided to stop this practice, but they also counseled the Sisters to remain modest in their dress.432

In return, the missionaries felt inspired by the trust Walters placed in them, and stepped up their efforts to be better themselves. Mark remembered approaching Walters about a small problem in the mission, and instead of telling him what to do, Walters asked Mark to resolve the issue. When Mark returned with a viable solution, Walters gave his approval and asked Mark to implement it. The response of his mission president surprised Mark who said of his mission president, “You realized that when [President

Walters] calls you as a [mission] leader, he expects you to carry out your duty as a leader, and give him your suggestions…[and] recommendations, and let him just [give] his approval.” Being able to run ideas by his mission president gave Mark the confidence to later propose a more radical idea that changed the way older couple missionaries served in the mission. One of the significant problems of the mission was the constant merry-go- round of couple missionaries serving in India who had to make visa runs in Singapore.

These couples would fly to Singapore for a week or two while the mission office renewed their visas, before flying back to India to complete their mission for a few more months.

Not only was it disruptive for these couple missionaries and the Church in India, the mission home had to temporarily host these couples who were constantly coming in and out. Mark proposed to keep these couples in Singapore and Malaysia for the remainder of

431 Fern Cox, interview. 432 “Attention Sister Missionaries,” The Ambassador 3 (12), July 1984, 4. The Ambassador is found in William F. and Marianne Walters Mission Papers, 1982-1985, CHL. 152 their mission, and use them to fellowship the members in these countries, while a new couple was sent to India to replace them. In this way, the outgoing couples could still be an asset to the mission while lessening the paperwork and problems created by the visa renewals.433 Walters accepted Mark’s proposal, and within a few months, sent couple missionaries to Malaysia and Indonesia on temporary visas, or kept them in Singapore to finish out their missions. These couples did provide additional fellowship to investigators and new converts, but more importantly, it freed up two senior couple missionaries (the

Skidmores and Dalbys) to open East Malaysia for missionary work in February 22,

1985.434

However, in as much as President Walters was pleased with the strength and tenacity of his missionaries, he struggled to increase the size of his mission force, especially the number of Elders. Walters often gave speeches during church meetings about the blessings of serving a mission, and formed a “Return Missionary Committee” to in hopes that “the returned missionaries in Singapore will continue to be an inspiration and motivation to others to serve.” The “Return Missionary Committee” held activities for potential missionaries, and put up a play titled “The Call” to entice more members to serve missions, but little success came out from their efforts.435 The number of

Singaporean missionaries never went over fifteen, and at one point, there were even twice

433 Mark [psued.], interview by author, Singapore, July 16, 2015. 434 Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, February 22, 1985. East Malaysia now has a core group of young and older couple missionaries stationed there, and has one of the fastest growing rates of membership in Southeast Asia. 435 Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, August 13, 1984. 153 as many Sisters as Elders (ten Sisters to five Elders)!436 This problem wasn’t just confined to Singapore though; President Walters had to petition the Church to send missionaries from South Asia back to their home country to aid the couple missionaries and strengthen the branches there.437

But the most frustrating aspect of the mission was the inability of Church headquarters to comprehend, and thus provide adequate support, for a mission of this size and magnitude. This problem already existed since the creation of the mission, but because G. Carlos Smith concentrated his efforts in Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, and

Vietnam, he didn’t have to travel as frequently to South Asia. Even then, Smith struggled to help his peers in Utah understand the complications of working in the region. When the secretary of the General Missionary Committee in Salt Lake asked him why the

Church was having problems obtaining visas in “that little dinky country of Indonesia,”

Smith wrote in reply, “This ‘little dinky country’ you speak of is 14,000 islands... There are 130 million people living in that little country you’re talking about,” and attached a newspaper clipping of a twelve-foot python captured in a room of a hospital in

Singapore. “Then I put ‘ho hum’ after the clipping,” he said, “[That man] got the point.”438 J. Talmage Jones also related that when he met with a representative of the

436 Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, May 1, 1985. The Elders usually outnumber the Sisters in any mission, but as mentioned above, the ratio of Sisters in the Singapore mission was unusually high compared to the rest of the world, and this instance of having twice as many Sisters as Elders is unheard of. Walters noted in the same journal entry that “there are a number of elders who plan to begin their missions later this year, and we hope this eventuates so that President Harold De La Mare (Walters’ successor) has some elders to work with in the mission.” 437 Prior to this, missionaries from South Asia were sent to other countries, like the United States, to serve missions. See Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, January 6, 1983 and May 8, 1958. 438 George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, Salt Lake City, September 8-28, p.59. 154

Quorum of the Seventy to discuss his assignment, the representative “described it as a kind of a holiday…One little island (Singapore), 2,300,000 people, ten missionaries, 700 members – a breeze. Before we left…he said casually that the Committee had decided to include Malaysia in our mission.” When headquarters later tossed in South Asia and

Indonesia into the mission boundaries, Jones dryly quipped in his letter home, “Some holiday.”439 The constant traveling exhausted them as well, and explains why they appreciated the level of discipline demonstrated by their missionaries. Smith estimated that by the end of his mission, he had slept in “500 different beds and traveled on about

500 different air planes, most of them old planes discarded by [the United States] …

Every trip was an adventure and an anxiety.”440

Even expatriate members felt that Church headquarters could be more sensitive to local customs and conditions, such as Richard Rands who arrived in Singapore with his family in 1963 on assignment from Hewlett-Packard. The Church in Singapore had just received the green light to build a new chapel, but the plans were drawn up by architects in Utah who “had never been to Singapore.” As a result, the chapel was ready in 1975, it was unsuitable to the hot and humid climate of Singapore. Rands observed that the building had a large air-conditioning system but no windows that could be opened, which necessitating the constant usage of the air-conditioning. When Church leaders received

439 Jones, 60-1. 440 G. Carlos Smith Jr., “My Story,” January 16, 1979, CHL. 155 the air-conditioning bill, they were shocked to discover that it would cost most of their annual budget.441

The lack of understanding from Church headquarters especially grated on

President Walters because it was an additional hindrance to his already demanding load.

The Walters were only in their late-thirties and early-forties with three young children when they were given this assignment, and their last child was born to them during the mission.442 To improve his post-mission employment qualifications, President Walters also began a distance-learning Masters course in teaching and education from Australia’s

Deakin University while on the mission. To top it off, the Church set up a Presiding

Bishopric Office (PBO) in Singapore to administer the temporal affairs of the Church, but the PBO only added to his problems as it was run by volunteer expatriate members who could not dedicate much time to this additional assignment. All decisions still needed approval from Salt Lake. Hence, the mission stood in limbo for months over decisions to purchase new properties and hire translators.443 Exhausted from constantly juggling between family, school, church, and traveling, Walters was understandably irritated by the anemic response of “the bureaucratic powers of our Church” to “our poor farflung[sic] mission area.”444

441 Richard Rands, interview with author, via Skype, June 19, 2015. Rands also mentioned that the Church only installed Western-style lavatories with sitting toilet bowls. Singaporeans, especially the older generation, were unfamiliar with these toilet bowls, and would squat on them, creating a filthy mess. 442 Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, June 12, 1983 and January 29, 1984. The Walters estimated that out of the 1095 days of their mission, their children had their parents to themselves for only 335 days, and had to spend 342 nights with either parents or both parents away from home. See “Interesting Mission Home Statistics 1982-1985,” William F. and Marianne Walters Mission Papers, 1982- 1985, CHL. 443 Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, February 20, 1985. 444 Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, June 20, 1984. 156

The last straw came when the Walters discovered that the Church had called a new Asia Area Presidency to oversee the Asia region in 1984. The Church had created a new position within the Quorum of the Seventy called the “Area Presidency” to facilitate communication between Salt Lake and the rest of the world. The biggest difference between the Area Presidencies and previous Church leaders was that these Area

Presidencies now lived in the region for the duration of their assignment. Under this directive, the new Asia Area Presidency managed all affairs from Japan down to

Indonesia and South Asia from their headquarters in Hong Kong. Walters hoped that the change in bureaucratic structure would help upper-tier leaders better understand his difficulties; instead, the new presidency inadvertently exposed its ignorance to the problems of the Singapore Mission. Walters received a call from the new president,

William R. Bradford, in June asking Walters for a brief report of the mission. When

Bradford let slipped that he was more focused on other parts of the area, a peeved

Walters refused Bradford’s request and told Bradford that he would need to make a personal visit if he wanted the report. Bradford was taken aback, and to his credit, arranged to tour the mission with his two counselors two months later.445 It was an eye- opening experience for the new presidency, and after the tour, Walters noted that “there seems to be more action being taken in response to my pleas to purchase land and begin building projects. I feel also, that my suggestions on other matters of improvement for the mission have been given consideration.”446 Other Church leaders began visiting the area

445 Lionel F. Walters, interview; Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, August 16 and 17, 1984. 446 Ibid., November 21, 1984. 157 more often, including a visit from Joy F. Evans of the General Relief Society presidency, and a reporter for the Church News.447

Notwithstanding the increased awareness and assistance from Church headquarters, the more pressing issues of dealing with the Church’s massive bureaucracy, staffing the mission and constant travel for the mission president remained for the rest of

Walters’ presidency. To be fair, the Church was constrained by circumstances outside their control as well. Church leaders, for example, agreed with Walters’ emphatic recommendation that Indonesia and India be separated into independent missions.

However, finding a suitable mission president for each nation was difficult due to the visa issue, and the local members, who were almost always first-generation converts, lacked the spiritual experience to lead a mission. Church leaders found a suitable Indonesian candidate (Effian Kadarusman), and Indonesia became its own mission again in 1985 under its first local mission president.448 But when Kadarusman’s tenure ended in 1989, the same problem popped up again, and Indonesia was incorporated back into the

Singapore Mission.449 Thus, as much as Church headquarters tried their best to alleviate problems, the mission presidents still faced daunting circumstances with little hope for

447 Gerry Avant, “By air, by land or by sea, leaders set quick pace for mission growth,” Church News March 10, 1985; Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, November 7, 1985. The trip was very memorable for Evans, who brought along her husband and two children on the tour. The Walters took the Evans family through a wet market in Singapore, where they were unprepared by the sight of ducks being slaughtered. Years later, the Walters met the son who told them that he can still remember that scene. 448 “Educator called to serve as mission leader,” William F. and Marianne Walters Mission Papers, 1982- 1985, CHL. 449 Indonesia would become a permanent independent mission in 1995, while the first independent South Asian mission (the India Bangalore Mission) was created in 1992. See R. Lanier Britsch, “Expansion into Southeast and South Asia,” in Unto Every Nation: Gospel Light Reaches Every Land, eds. Donald Q. Cannon and Richard O. Cowan (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003). 379-90. 158 change. Eight months before his assignment ended, Walters noted his journal, “I feel as if there is not much I can do now that is new and visionary. The system has not caught up with what I have been trying to achieve so far, and so to try further innovation would be futile.”450

By the time the Walters ended their mission in July 1985, they were burned out, and eager for a reunion with family and friends in Australia. Yet, even as they bid farewell to Asia, they went back with fond memories of the people and culture. Marianne was deeply honored when during a farewell meeting in Indonesia, several people expressed that “Lionel was the most understanding mission president they had had, because he made the effort to learn to ‘know’ the people.”451 When the Walters flew home on June 30, 1985, over eighty people turned up at the airport to send them off.452

The Walters have visited Singapore a few times since their mission, and every time they return, Marianne describes their reunion with the Singaporean Mormons akin to

“[picking] up where you left off. The camaraderie is just wonderful. It's tangible, and makes me very grateful for the connections that the Church has enabled us to have with people in this country and other places.”453

The next mission president was, as one Singaporean missionary described,

“completely different” from Walters.454 Perhaps the Church realized that calling parents

450 Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, October 23, 1984. 451 Marianne B. Walters mission journal, June 12, 1985. A copy of her journal is in the author’s possession, and in the CHL. 452 Ibid., June 30, 1985. The members also sent off the mission presidents before them, so it wasn’t an uncommon practice back then. However, it demonstrates the close relationship between the members and all the mission presidents in the early years of the Church. 453 Marianne Walters, interview. 454 Holly [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, July 22, 2014. 159 with young children to serve as mission presidents of the Singapore Mission was not a prudent decision, as subsequent mission presidents were all older couples. Harold B. and

Carolynn De La Mare were the parents of seven adult children, and lived in Houston,

Texas where President De La Mare, who has a Ph.D. in organic chemistry, worked as a research associate for Shell Development Company, before retiring in March 1985 to take on this Church assignment.455

When the De La Mars arrived in Singapore in 1985, they were struck by its level of cleanliness and development. “Singapore,” they wrote, “[was] truly the ‘clean and green’ capital of the world,” and were proud to show off the city to visitors. And like the

Shurtleffs and Joneses, the De La Mars viewed Singapore as a “home away from home” during their travels through Malaysia, Sri Lanka, India, and Hong Kong. It took them a while to get used to the diversity of languages and cultures in their mission, but they quickly noted that “the Asian people” had “hardworking habits” and “love[d] their families and country.” And like previous mission presidents before them, the De La Mars had nothing but praise of the members. They described the locals as “dedicated and committed,” while the expatriates “did much to build the Kingdom [of God] by joining hands with the Singaporeans [when] it would have been easy for these members to rest on their laurels.”456 When the Church finally acquired two new properties in 1988, the De

455 “New Mission President,” The Ambassador 4(7), April 1985, 3. 456 Pang, 52. 160

La Mars were sure that the Singapore District457 would soon have enough members to be converted into a stake with wards.458

However, if the Church wanted to attain “stakehood,” membership needed to grow at an accelerated pace. Unfortunately, the logistical nightmares of managing the mission remained, even without Indonesia. Marianne Walters joked that when they handed over the mission to the De La Mars, “we spent the next couple of days cramming the De La Mars full of all the affairs of the mission, and left them sufficiently confused to be able to struggle on by themselves.”459 The never-ending schedule of traveling, speaking, counseling and writing demanded all their energy and attention, and this might be why the De La Mares were especially appreciative of their missionaries whom they said “exhibited remarkable self-discipline and diligence.”460 But as long as the number of missionaries in Singapore remained in such low numbers, the Church would not be able to grow sufficiently in size for years to come. It seemed that no matter how many overtures the Church made to the authorities and the public over the years, the government refused to repeal the visa ban.

The Church was thus shocked and elated when the Singaporean government suddenly reversed its policy in 1988 after a direct intervention from Prime Minister Lee

Kuan Yew himself. Jon M. Huntsman Sr, president of Huntsman Chemical Corporation

457 A district is made up of several branches, and led by a district presidency (a president and two counselors). When a district grows large enough, and has a certain number of active men who hold the priesthood, the district is converted into a Stake, and the branches turned into wards. The stake president and his counselors are considered the highest authority in that stake, and do not report to the mission president anymore. Instead, they report directly to a General Authority. 458 “Asia Area: Two properties acquired,” Church News, July 30, 1988, 12; Pang, 52. 459 Marianne B. Walters mission journal, July 17, 1985, CHL. 460 Ibid. 161 and a Mormon, visited Singapore in March that year with Mormon Apostle M. Russell

Ballard and Utah Senator Jake Garn. Lee requested a meeting with Huntsman to probe if

Huntsman would be interested in expanding his corporation into Southeast Asia via

Singapore. Huntsman took the opportunity to introduce Lee to Ballard and Garn, and at the conclusion of their meeting, Lee, perhaps knowing the reputation of large Mormon families and thinking about his own nation’s struggle to increase the birthrate, asked

Huntsman how many children he had. Huntsman told Lee, and used it to pivot into a discussion about the Church and its emphasis on families. Huntsman later recalled that

“this naturally led to the issue of the ban on the numbers of missionaries. I came right out and asked if it could be lifted.” Lee was surprised to learn of the ban, and told the group,

“Of course it can. I did not know there was a ban.” He then instructed his secretary to

“see that this is implemented. The Mormons are fine people…”461 Whatever the motivation behind Lee’s acquiescence—whether to gain Huntsman’s favor or because of genuine esteem for the Church—his intervention finally allowed the Church to bring in twelve foreign missionaries. It is unknown why Lee granted only twelve visas, a far cry from the original number of forty-six in 1969, nor do the records indicate the responses of the IRO or other Christian churches to Lee on this matter. In any case, the Church took up Lee’s offer, and began to send foreign missionaries to Singapore again. The missionaries were still banned from knocking on doors and preaching to Muslims, but

461 R. Lanier Britsch, From the East: The History of the Latter-day Saints in Asia, 1851-1996 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1998), 465. 162 they were free to talk to people in public places, and to stay in Singapore for the duration of their mission. It was a triumphant moment for the Church.

When the Church set up a mission in Singapore in 1968, it hoped to replicate the same success witnessed in East Asia and the Philippines. But the Church’s expeditious start was cut off by opponents who convinced the Singaporean government to ban foreign missionaries from entering Singapore, and from proselytizing door-to-door. Mission presidents worked around these restrictions by encouraging new converts, including women, to serve missions, finding new investigators through public displays and presentations, and promoting goodwill between the Church and government officials.

Despite being thrown into what must have been a bewildering environment in Southeast and South Asia, each mission president and his wife grew to love the people and the culture, and left their mark in the mission through their unique ideas and style of leadership. They held the fort even when Church headquarters remained ignorant of the formidable circumstances under which they labored. The twenty years between the mission’s inception to Prime Minister Lee’s intervention in 1988 were not kind toward the Church, but the fact that the Church survived and even multiplied into five branches is testament of the mission presidents’ dedication to their assignment, the diligence of both the foreign and local missionaries, and the faithfulness of Singaporean converts who clung to their new religion.

Ironically, even as Church leaders assigned more foreign Elders and Sisters to the

Singapore Mission, they began posting local missionaries overseas since the presence of foreign missionaries negated the necessity of keeping locals in their home mission. Over

163 the years, the mission force in Singapore did not grow much bigger (less than twenty at any one time), but the racial profile has undergone a complete flip, from being fully staffed by locals and one American, to now being all foreigners (mainly from the United

States). If a Singaporean was assigned to serve in the Singapore mission, he/ she was usually posted to Malaysia or South Asia. Thus, the image of the Mormon missionary in

Singapore was once again that of two (mostly) Caucasian young men or women, rolling up their sleeves, and setting off to find people. In a way, the story has come full circle, except for one factor – by the 1990s, Singapore was no longer an impoverished and underdeveloped country. It now had one of the strongest and wealthiest economies in

Asia, and had transformed into a modern, consumeristic society. Singaporeans were no longer kampong-people with simple needs, willing to listen to foreigners about religion.

The new wave of missionaries would have to engage with the local people in ways different from the generation before.

164

CHAPTER 4: CONVERTS

The last chapter provided an overview of the history of the Singapore Mission as seen from the perspective of the various presidents from 1968 to 1989. The mission struggled to overcome the prejudice of other Christian churches in Singapore, and expand the size of the mission force. Yet, despite these obstacles, the Church continued to attract a small stream of local converts. This chapter tells the history of the Church in Singapore from their perspective: their conversion stories, the motivation for joining a religion so foreign to them, and the reaction of their families and friends to their conversion.

In discussing the conversion of Singaporeans to Mormonism, the main story arc is predominantly that of non-Christian Asians converting to a Western, and more specifically, American religion. Such an examination of religious conversion has rarely been undertaken by historians, the closest example being that of African American slaves and Native Americans converting to Christianity in antebellum United States.462

However, the circumstances under which slaves and Native Americans converted to

Christianity is so different from this case study that it is difficult to draw parallels between these disparate groups. Other scholars have undertaken studies of American

462 Albert J. Raboteau’s Slave Religion: The “Invisible Institution” in the Antebellum South (Oxford University Press, 2004) is still a classic since its first publication in 1978. For a good overview of Christian missionizing efforts to American Native Indians, please see Carol L. Higham’s article, “Christian Missions to American Indians” in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History (USA: Oxford University Press, 2016), http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore- 9780199329175-e-323?print=pdf (accessed March 27, 2017). 165

Christians, especially the Protestants, volunteering in foreign missions all over the globe, but these groundbreaking works suffer from Eurocentrism and a concentration on the experiences of the missionaries.463 The remaining trends of American religious history highlight the influence of Christianity and Judaism on politics, economics and the wider society within American domestic borders.464 An undertaking of this sort is therefore unique, and there are few models on which to draw upon. As such, I have chosen to analyze the conversion history of Singaporean Mormons by using the story of Claire as a representative case study. Her journey from investigator to convert will serve as the backbone for this chapter as her story contains many common themes found in other conversion histories. I will also interweave stories from other Singaporean Mormons to demonstrate similarities and differences in the conversion process.

463 For a concise overview of the historiography of American foreign Protestant missions, see Dana L. Robert, “From Missions to Missions to Beyond Missions: The Historiography of American Protestant Foreign Missions Since World War II,” in New Directions in American Religious History, eds. Harry S. Stout and D. G. Hart (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). One rare exception is sociologist Chai-sik Chung’s examination of Korean Confucian progressives and their response to Christianity. See Chai-sik Chung, “Tradition and Ideology: Korea’s Initial Response to Christianity from a Religious and Sociological Perspective,” in Asia Munhwa 4 (1988): 115-46 464 Two works that provide historiographical essays on American Religious history are Harry S. Stout and D. G Hart, eds., New Directions in American Religious History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), and Thomas A. Tweed, ed., Retelling U.S. Religious History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997). The latest development in American religious history is the examination of the New Religious Right in the twentieth century, and its impact on U.S. domestic and foreign politics and policies. Some prominent books about the New Religious Right and its growth in the United States are Darren Dochuk, From Bible Belt to Sunbelt: Plain-folk Religion, Grassroots Politics, and the Rise of Evangelical Conservatism (USA: W.W. Norton & Company Inc 2011); Daniel K. Willaims, God’s Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); Bethany Moreton, To Serve God and Wal-Mart: The Making of Christian Free Enterprise (USA: Harvard University Press, 2009). Books that look at the impact of religion on American policy makers include Andrew Preston, Sword of the Spirit, Shield of Faith: Religion in American War and Diplomacy (New York and Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012); William Imboden, Religion and American Foreign Policy, 1945-1960: The Soul of Containment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Jonathan P. Herzog, The Spiritual Industrial Complex: America’s Religious Battle against Communism in the Early Cold War (USA: Oxford University Press, 2011); Sarah Miller-Davenport, “Their blood shall not be shed in vain”: American Evangelical Missionaries and the Search for God and Country in Post-World War II Asia,” Journal of American History (March 2013): 1109-1132. 166

Admittedly, the conversion stories I draw upon are from the oral histories I conducted, and these are mainly the conversion stories of members who are still active.

However, when I interviewed the two inactive members, they openly shared their conversion stories, and their experiences demonstrated the same themes and patterns as those who were still active. Furthermore, they spoke fondly of the missionaries who taught them, and their conversion process. Thus, even though they were no longer practicing Mormons, they continued to have good memories of their early years in the

Church.

Claire grew up the eighth of ten children in a low-income household. Her father worked odd jobs at the harbor, and when he received the occasional work bonus, bought her mother jewelry. Unfortunately, he always took back the jewelry soon after and pawned them to feed his alcohol and opium addiction. His opium addiction soon landed him in prison, and for many years, Claire would accompany her mother to visit him. Her mother was forced to take on menial jobs to support the family, and later her older siblings stopped school after a few years of education, and went out to work. As one of the younger siblings left at home, Claire learned to cook and do household chores from a very young age. Money was always tight, and her family “would go to the market and buy from the stall holders those vegetables that they were going to throw away for a few cents [because] that’s what we could afford at that time.” Unfortunately, unable to cope with the poverty and the lack of parental guidance, her second brother fell into bad company and became a drug addict as well.

167

Perhaps heartbroken by the breakdown of her family, and needing divine comfort and intervention, Claire’s mother became a devout Taoist and worshipper of Tau Pek

Gong (a pantheon Taoist god in Southeast Asia). Aside from consulting the mediums whenever her children fell sick, she would join one-day tours that took worshippers to various Taoist temples around the country to pray. Even when passing by small idols or tablets placed along the road, her mother will ask her children to pray with her. “I remember my mother will always say, ‘Popi, popi (protect) our children, our family,”

Claire said, “So my mother is a very religious person… She will pray for everyone [and] had a lot of reverence for God.” Claire often followed her mother to the temples to pray, but she did not fully understand Taoism because “they have so many different idols and different names, so I didn’t really know which is which. I just followed my mother to pray.” Nonetheless, Claire says her mother’s devotion is “where I learned…about worshipping God.”

Like Claire, most Singaporean Mormons learned about the existence of a deity or some nebulous divine power as children. Only four interviewees reported that both parents were atheists (“free thinker” is the word used in Singapore) who rejected all forms of religious liturgy. Two of the four were Indian sisters whose father was the leader of the Hindu Reformist movement in Singapore in the 1960s. He imparted a knowledge of Hinduism to his children with the intent of demonstrating the negative effects of mindlessly following Hindu traditions, and thus didn’t teach his children to practice the religion itself. The other two were Chinese sisters whose parents simply did not feel the need to be religious. One of them shared that there was once a Chinese funeral procession

168 held downstairs in her apartment building, accompanied by loud chanting that went on into the night. Her free thinker-mother grew so irritated with the chanting, she told her daughter that she forbade any religious chanting to occur during her funeral. All the chanting did, she exclaimed, was “disturb both the dead and the living!”

For most Singaporean Mormons, however, at least one parent or close family member engaged in some form of religious practice in the home. Not surprising, the most dominant religions of their childhood were Taoism and Buddhism. Almost all of them mentioned that their homes had an altar with statues of Chinese gods or the tablets of deceased ancestors. However, such an outward manifestation of faith did not necessarily equate to an internal piety, as the same refrain emerged in many of the interviews that their parents were not devout Taoist or Buddhist, but more followers of traditional

Chinese ancestral worship. Ancestral worship and the need to reinforce family ties with the dead, not the belief in Chinese deity, seemed to be the focal point when carrying out religious rituals.

Yet there were also families that were staunch worshippers of the Chinese faith, such as Holly and Anne’s fathers who were Taoist mediums. Anne’s childhood home used to house an altar that was so big and ornately decorated with multiple statues and offerings that tourists who passed by her home used to think that it was a small Chinese temple.465 Other families would engage in the elaborate, sometimes night-long, rituals during the Seventh Month “Hungry Ghost” Festival, Qingming (“Tomb Sweeping day”),

Dragon Boat Festival, Mid-Autumn Festival, and most important of all, the Chinese New

465 Anne [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, July 11, 2014. 169

Year. Some parents, like Claire’s mother, also made special visits to the temples when the family needed extra “blessings” from the Gods, be it over an exam that their child was taking or more serious matters, such as imprisonment or death.

There was a minority who grew up in Christian homes, including three interviewees who grew up as Latter-day Saints, and had understood basic Mormon teachings as children. But for those who grew up in non-LDS Christian homes, the common pattern seemed to be that their parents were not devout Christians. Laura said that her father had converted to Catholicism when he married her mother, but didn’t bring his family to church. On top of that, her father supported communism, read a lot of pro- communist literature, and was a proud Chinese man who disliked white people and culture.466 Adam’s father also brought his family to church, but stopped going after he got into a disagreement with the pastor.467 Hence, despite growing up with Christian parents, both Laura and Adam were unfamiliar with the tenets of their parent’s religion.

Still, regardless of the level of piety of their parents to religion, Singaporean

Mormons were taught to believe in divine power as children, be it from Tau Pek Gong,

Buddha, Jesus or their ancestors. Even if they did not have the same level of understanding or faith as their parents, they still learned to believe in a deity or source of

Higher Power.

Due to her family circumstances, Claire started working to support her family once she hit the legal working age. After bouncing around a few jobs, she ended up

466 Laura [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, January 13, 2016. 467 Adam [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, July 31, 2014. 170 working as a part-time waitress in a restaurant frequented by expatriates. It was her first personal interaction with Americans and Europeans, and changed the way she thought of them. Growing up, she regarded them as “the Other,” a people with a culture diametrically opposite to hers, and a culture that she disapproved of. To her, “they are ang moh lang (Caucasian people) …and I’m always being told that the Western influence, the 西方文化 (Western culture) they are very liberal, 太开放 (too open- minded/ liberal) and I honestly didn’t like them because they were very 开放 and I’m very conservative.” However, despite her discomfort with Western culture, she noticed that Caucasians were “very kind and generous” customers, more so than the locals.

“Because our salary is so little, we depended on extra income from the tips,” she said,

“The locals would not give us tips. It’s always the 洋人(Caucasians) who gave us more tips, and so I had a very good impression about them…Yet I didn’t like their [culture] and things like that.”

Opposed as she was to Western culture, it was still inevitable that her growing up years were shaped in some form either by Singapore’s British colonial heritage or

Hollywood/ British entertainment and media outlets that trickled into Singapore. Claire did not follow much Western entertainment or literature in her childhood, but when she was eleven years old, she decided to follow her friends and adopt a “Christian name.”

Chinese Singaporeans were given a Chinese name at birth, and only parents who were

Christian gave their children an additional English name. But in the 1960s and ‘70s, as the level of education rose and English became a more common language, and as the society became more exposed to Western culture, the younger generation of 171

Singaporeans adopted the practice of giving themselves Christian names. “It’s a trend,”

Claire explained, “You just followed one another. We didn’t really know what is the implication. Some friends had it, like ‘Peter.’ Their parents gave them the name, so we thought, ‘Oh, we also want to have one.’ And so we started to follow each other.”

Coincidentally enough, Claire found her name while writing in one of her friend’s

“autograph book,” another Western memento that used to be popular among young

Singaporeans.

Although Claire remained rooted in her Chinese traditions, traditions reinforced by her Taoist mother, there was no denying that American Western culture was having a greater influence among younger Singaporeans. Contributing to the rise of American-

Western influence was the strength of the American economy and military power in the

1960s and 1970s, while China, the ancestral Fatherland of Chinese-Singaporeans, was suffering from the throes of poverty due to the disastrous Great Leap Forward and

Cultural Revolution, and thus in no position to challenge the rising American global hegemony. Claire recalled that her eldest brother, who attended a Chinese-medium school468, would talk to her about China and communism into the wee morning hours.

Even though Claire wasn’t interested in what he shared, she remembered him saying that

“communism wasn’t good for China…because…they just took everything away from the farmers, and everyone was given the same amount of food… He said that’s not right about the government.” Hence, even for Claire, a cultural conservative, she recognized

468 In the 1950s and ‘60s, Chinese-medium schools used to be hotbeds for communists to recruit students since these students were educated in the Chinese language, and more oriented toward Chinese culture. The government soon clamped down on communist recruitment activities. 172 the economic and political weaknesses of 1960s China, and the wealthier status of the ang moh lang.

Singaporean Mormons grew up with similar worldview of an East-West divide, in which the West was rich and powerful, while the East was poor and weak. Their characterization of the East stemmed not only from their observations of an underdeveloped Singapore/ developed West, but also from family stories about China. As difficult as their lives were in Singapore, their Chinese relatives seemed to be worse off.

Leonard Woo’s parents migrated to Singapore before World War II, and were “proud

Chinese” who “talked good about China,” yet even they recognized that life was harder there. When Woo’s relatives wrote to his parents asking them for old clothing, Woo remembered thinking that “we were already a poor family, so to [ask us to] send back the old clothing we had…how rich could they be? So things were tough in China.”469 Other

Singaporeans also spoke of their relatives asking for money, household appliances, and bicycles to be sent to them.

Compounding their unfavorable view of China was the social unrest caused by communist activists in Singapore. Thomas, for instance, described his dad as a

“nationalistic” Chinese man who called China “a great country” but “he did not favor communism.”470 Francis Tan also remembered Chinese propaganda broadcast over the

Singapore radio when the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) broke out in China, and how pro-China Chinese Singaporeans scrambled to obtain Mao’s Little Red book. Yet the

469 Leonard Woo, interview by author, Singapore, November 13, 2015. 470 Thomas [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore. August 21, 2016 173 election results in the 1960s demonstrated that Singaporeans still favored the anti- communist PAP government over more left-wing parties.471 More significantly, communism was associated in their memories with the racial riots and community upheaval in the 1950s and 1960s. When asked if they had any brushes with communism growing up, many interviewees, who were only children then, spoke about leaving school early and having to remain indoors due to the emergency curfew imposed by the government from the rioting. This memory is actually a fallacy as the racial riots that broke out between the Malays and Chinese in the 1960s were not caused by communist agitation. However, Lee’s political suppression of communism and ousting of the Barisan

Sosialis occurred around the time that the riots happened, and therefore young

Singaporeans remembered the two as being interconnected. However, Singaporeans who did have first-hand brushes with communism still associated it with social upheaval. One interviewee revealed that her sister was one of the pro-communist students jailed by the government, and seeing her mother’s anxiety and grief over her sister hardened her resolve against communism. “I found that [in] getting involved in that, there was no peace,” she said, “[It was] always dangerous. It’s not about agitating for change…because you will go to jail and you are always in hiding.”

As for the rest of Asia, Singapore’s immediate neighbors, Indonesia and

Malaysia, were undergoing their own processes of development; Vietnam and Cambodia were mired in war; and South Asia was rife with political turmoil. The rest of East Asia

(Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) had outpaced the rest of the continent in

471 Francis Tan, interview. 174 terms of development with the help of American and British aid, but these countries were too far away to have much personal impact in the lives of Singaporeans. In all, their understanding was that Asia was still staking out a foothold in the new emerging world order, and possessed little geopolitical and economic power.

In contrast, “the West,” meaning the United States and Europe, seemed affluent and attractive. Not that Singaporean Mormons could afford to visit these countries or learned much about them in school; most of their information came from reading fictional books—Enid Blyton’s books and the Hardy Boys series to name a few—and watching Hollywood movies and television shows. American cop shows, such as Hawaii

Five-O and The Streets of San Francisco, and the James Bond movie franchise, gave off a sense of mystery and adventure, and were very popular among the younger crowd.

Music was another influencer, with Singaporeans citing Elvis Presley, the Bee Gees,

Abba, and the Osmond siblings as a few of the more sought-after acts. Aside from

Western entertainment, the technological advances of the United States intrigued many

Singaporeans, who followed along the space race to land the first human on the moon.

Others, like Melissa, simply liked the English culture and lifestyle, which was opposite from her local culture in many ways. “Somehow, I just loved [England],” she said, “I loved the buildings, the houses there, not the high rises but cottages. I thought it was so cozy.” Based on what they learned about Western countries from these sources, and adding to that their impressions of the expatriate lifestyle in Singapore, it is no wonder that Singaporeans had a more favorable impression of the West, and absorbed as much information as they could about it. One Singaporean, for instance, thought as a child that

175

“Western people, they are very rich. They have good food, good clothing, they traveled.

So I liked Western-style things, and I wished I could be like them.”

It must be understood that this East-West dichotomy is not the same as

Orientalism, which is posited on a divide that necessitates Western intervention and

“rescue.” To Singaporean Mormons, the “backward” state of Singapore was caused by underdevelopment, not an inherent inferiority of culture or society, and thus no Western nation should use military force to create change in their society. In as much as many

Singaporeans viewed the United States with a favorable eye, they were repulsed by the

U.S. bombings of Vietnam and Cambodia.472 In discussing British colonial rule, many agree with Emma who explained that “the British took care of Singapore, gave us a livelihood, [and] provided jobs for the people in the naval base…In fact, when the British withdrew, lots of Singaporeans lost their jobs.” But Singaporean Mormons were proud of their nation’s accomplishments as well, and acknowledge that “we wouldn’t be where we are today if the British didn’t leave.”473 Furthermore, they admired the lifestyle and technological advances of Westerners, but, like Claire, disapproved of the more liberal aspects of Western culture, especially in matters of morality. Whether this disapproval stemmed from the government’s campaign against “hippie-ism” or personal, innate aversion to such liberalism does not change the fact that the Western culture of open

“cohabitation, drugs [and] per-marital sex” was simply “not acceptable.”474 Hence,

Singaporean Mormons didn’t accept Western culture with arms wide open. Rather, they

472 Francis Tan, interview. 473 Emma, interview. 474 Elizabeth, interview. 176 filtered it through a critical, but not harsh, lens that allowed them to see what they deemed as the positive, more attractive aspects of Western society, while rejecting the parts they deemed immoral. Nonetheless, even with their misgivings about liberal

Western culture, many acknowledged that in terms of global economic and technological power, the West outstripped Asia, and this disparity contributed to a local mindset of an

East-West divide. This divide would shape the way they viewed Western cultural elements—entertainment, food, religion—seeping into their society.

When Claire was sixteen years old, one of her friends came into class one day and began telling her classmates about a new church she had started to attend. The only contact Claire had with Christianity up to that point was through a welfare-assistance program organized by a Catholic church near her home when she was in Primary

(elementary) school. The Catholic church brought donated rice, biscuits, powder and money to her home every month, organized a tuition class for students on welfare, and held occasional garage sales for people to buy clothes, books, and other items at a very low cost. Although Claire’s family remained staunch Taoist, she never forgot the kindness of the church. Later, when she was in Secondary One (Grade 7), she participated in a Christian camp at the invitation of her mathematics teacher. Although she didn’t know anything about Christianity, she still “liked the way we blessed the food every time, and then we would have activities…and games.” Overall, Claire enjoyed the feeling of being in a Christian environment, and so when her classmate told her about the church she was attending, Claire listened with interest. But another friend found out which church their classmate attended, and told her that it was a “cult church.” Although 177

Claire had no idea what the word “cult” meant, she did not want to be left out, and so followed others in warning that friend, “Yah475, it’s a cult, you should not go [there].”

Fast forward two years, and by then, Claire had graduated from Secondary School and started working. One day, she bumped into that same friend at a bus stop and began chatting with her. It was then that Claire noticed that “she looked very happy. I could see the glow on her face.” Curious as to how her friend could look so happy, Claire asked her, “Are you still going to that church,” to which her friend replied in the affirmative, and then invited Claire to go with her to an upcoming activity. “I said, ‘Okay, sure, why not?’” Claire recounted, “I mind as well check it out.” As the activity was a held at a beach, Claire showed up wearing a sleeveless top that was cut deeply in the back. A man came up to her and gently told her, “Our church believes in dressing modestly, so would you like to have my jacket?” Instead of taking offence, Claire accepted his offer, and as she slipped on the jacket, thought to herself, “If it’s a bad church, 不可能教好的东西 (it won’t teach good things). 不可能会教(It will not teach) modesty in dressing.” She was so impressed by what she observed that “when the missionaries asked me if I wanted to take up the discussions, I said, ‘Sure, I would like to learn more…’ That’s how I started learning the gospel.”

Like Claire, Singaporeans who grew up in non-Christian homes did not have many encounters with Christianity, but what they knew about the religion was that it projected a “vibe” and engaged in charitable acts different from the traditional religions in Singapore. As one Singaporean explained, “[Churches] ran schools and hospitals,

475 This word means “yes.” 178

[and] did more good things than [the] Chinese who just prayed to the gods and ate the chicken after making sacrifices.” This is, of course, a simplification as other religions contributed to their communities as well, but Christians in Singapore had a long history of setting up social services, and had a more established system of giving to the poor.

Young Singaporeans were also drawn to the spirit of Christmas, and enjoyed listening to carolers who went around the island singing in the neighborhoods.476 Dorothy Chen recalled being invited to Christmas mass by her friend when she was a teenager, and when she stepped inside the building, she noticed that “the church was so beautiful. I saw

[people dressed as] angels…and everything… It was so nice! I had a very good feeling about church.” Others picked up bits and pieces of Bible stories from their friends or books. Anne’s history textbook discussed the crucifixion of Jesus, and Anne recalled thinking that Jesus was “a very merciful person.” In one rare case, an interviewee shared that when she was young, she once dreamt that Jesus appeared to her and her siblings, even though she grew up in a home that practiced devout ancestral worshipping.

Young Singaporeans also extended their undeveloped East/ developed West dichotomous worldview into religion, and looked at Christianity as being more meaningful and “modern” when compared to traditional Asian religions. Hannah said that as a young woman, “when you became a Christian, it’s like you’re ‘in.’ It’s like a trend.”

Indeed, Christianity in Singapore grew rapidly in the 1950s, and the trend has continued since then. Between 1980 to 1990, one sociologist noted that converting to Christianity

476 Leonard Woo, interview; Hannah, interview. 179 was “particularly prevalent among the young.”477 Michael Ang echoed Hannah’s words when he said that when he and classmates talked about Christianity, “all we knew was that if we went to church, we were joining something that was not traditional…meant for

European people.”478

In comparison, Singaporean Mormons viewed Asian beliefs as outdated and superstitious, and had no rational logic behind its rituals and ceremonies. Like many other young people who converted to more mainline Christian churches in the 1980s,

Singaporean Mormons found “little reality in the Chinese religion.”479 Anne’s father was a Taoist medium who enlisted his wife to help him prepare the animal sacrifices and joss papers for the rituals, a task that took hours and a lot of money. When Anne asked her mom why she invested so much time and energy into these tasks, her mom replied that she was only doing it for the sake of her husband, and joked that when he died, she wanted to be a Christian because “it will be very easy. Just go to church and come

[home].” Andrew also observed that Christianity appealed to people because “it’s clean, it’s not [like] some of the Chinese temples [which] can be quite scary because of the alters of the Gods, the smell, the chanting and stuff.” Others also mentioned that

Christianity was “more modernized, easy to relate to,” compared to the practice of ancestor worship which was “like superstition,” a mere tradition that had no rationale

477 Chee Kiong Tong, Rationalizing Religion: Religious Conversion, Revivalism and Competition in Singapore Society (Leiden and Boston: Koninklijike Brill NV, 2007), 96. 478 Michael Ang, interview by author, Singapore, July 8, 2016. 479 Tong, 110. See also section “9.6 Renouncing Traditional Chinese Religion” (pages 112 to 115) for more elaboration. 180 behind the rituals.480 Christianity was therefore a novel and attractive choice for young

Singaporeans seeking to change religions, and explains why most Singaporean Mormons joined either as teenagers or single young adults. Even the few married couples who converted were young couples with small children.

When Singaporean Mormons decided to become a Christian, they frequently followed their friends to visit and try out different churches. Such behavior was common among Singaporeans seeking to join a church in the 1970s and ‘80s, and one scholar termed such behavior as “window-shop[ping] for a church.”481 Many interviewees related that when they began searching for a church, they often accompanied their friends to church, or would pick one near their home. Others selected a church based on its reputation, such as Anne, who attended The Church of Saint Alphonsus, more commonly known as the “Novena Church,” because it was the most well-known Catholic church in

Singapore.

If Singaporean Mormons had the opportunity to “window-shop” the many options of churches available in Singapore, why they did they choose to learn more about The

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? First, converts were active in sharing their faith with non-members, like Claire’s friend who introduced her to the Church. Like a rolling snowball that gathers in size, new converts told family and friends about their new religion, thus sparking their interest to learn more. This method seemed to be very

480 Jason [psued.], interview by author, Singapore, December 3, 2015; Judy [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, May 9, 2016. 481 Jon S. T. Quah, “Religion and Religious Conversion in Singapore: A Review of the Literature,” Report prepared for Ministry of Community Development (December 1987), 55. 181 effective as Soren F. Cox, the third mission president of Singapore, reported that the primary way his missionaries contacted non-members was through member referrals.482

The small sample size of the fifty-four interviewees back up this claim: about thirty of them came to know the Church through someone they knew. In tracing the “conversion genealogy” of the interviewees, four types of networks immediately jumped out:

1) FAMILY: The family, especially siblings, was the natural first choice for converts to want to share their religion. About one-fifth of the interviewees came to know the Church through a sibling.

2) SCHOOLMATES: There was a core group of pioneering members who attended Rangoon Secondary School (now defunct), and were introduced to the Church through Francis Teo. Teo’s brother was Teo Thiam Chye, the first Singaporean to serve a mission, and who taught his brother about the Church. Francis was fearless in inviting his friends to church, and his network of convert-friends soon mushroomed to include future local church leaders like Michael Ang, Norman Chia, Cecilia Hah, Beryl Lai, Stephen Lai, and Wong Sai Lim.

3) NEIGHBORS: The friendships developed in the kampongs and early HDB estates allowed members to invite their neighbors to church activities. Jean Loh came to the know the Church through her brother, Edwin, who learned about it from their neighbor, Danny Yeo. When Jean went to Church, she was surprised to see another two of her neighbors, Bathma and Erani Kerupiah, at the meeting, which helped put her at ease in this new environment.

4) COLLEAGUES AND CO-WORKERS: Several members learned about the Church from their colleagues. Dorothy, for example, met the missionaries through her co- worker, Katherine Chai. Dorothy then introduced the Church to her boyfriend, Victor Chen, who later became the second Stake president in Singapore.

The diversity of networks, and number of converts from these networks, is testament to the fact that Singaporean Mormons shared their faith with others regardless of the setting and environment, and demonstrate that their efforts were crucial to facilitating the growth of the Church at a time when there were just too few missionaries in Singapore.

482 Cox, interview by John H. Adams, 36. 182

The second reason why Singaporeans were drawn to this Church instead of others was the Church’s missionary program for evangelizing and teaching non-members. The fear that other churches had about the “aggressive” methods of the missionaries was not without some justification. These methods worked! Many interviewees said that they had attended other churches, but did not know how to join that church because there was no

“beginner course” to take or people to talk to. Hannah, for example, had received pamphlets from other churches but “this church sent missionaries into our homes…whereas those (other churches) did not. If they had, I might even [have joined them] …who knows, but our church sent missionaries [who] came knocking on our door…so that was the difference.” Because they were unfamiliar with Christianity, having the missionary discussions were important to them. Tan Chew Yian said that one of the biggest draws of this church was the “structured lessons” of the missionaries. “The discussions were organized,” she said, “[And] went step-by-step from the very basics,

[like] who is Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.”483 The act of baptism was also a distinct marker that they regarded as part of a Christian identity, and hence they didn’t feel like they belonged to a church unless they got baptized. Amy joked that she became a member “by default” because “all those other churches [didn’t] ask me to get baptized.”

In contrast, after taking the discussions with the missionaries, “they asked me to be baptized, [so] okay lah484, get baptized!”485 The conduct of the missionaries was also imperative in helping investigators feel comfortable in this new religion. When Francis

483 Tan Chew Yian, interview by author, Singapore, May 3, 2016. 484 The “lah” here has no meaning, and is simply an exclamation. 485 Amy [psued], interview by author, Singapore, July 11, 2012 and June 14, 2014. 183

Tan met the missionaries for the first time, he remembered that “the thing that had the most impact upon me was the sincerity of the missionaries, [and] the way they spoke.

They were very polite; they were very respectful and so forth.” Leonard Woo also said that even though he had doubts about the Church, whenever he met the missionaries, they were “honest and sincere and so forth, very friendly.”

Finally, the Church’s distinct worship service and its auxiliary programs set it apart from other churches, and drew investigators to them. Many interviewees shared that in their quest to find a church, they had attended a Pentecostal service, but the experience of seeing people speak in tongues was “quite scary.”486 In contrast, individuals such as

Jason liked “the quiet, the calm, [and] the serenity” of the more solemn nature of

Mormon worship services, while Christina Chan said that for some reason, “when I went to [this] church, I felt comfortable. It was like a homely kind of feeling.” Beth was particularly impressed by the sight of families worshipping together during sacrament meeting because in her previous church, the youth met separately from their parents.487

The Church’s auxiliary organizations (Mutual Improvement Association for youth and

Primary for children) also held activities that drew the younger crowd. Adam came to know the Church through his neighbor who invited him to join the Church’s Scouting program, and Tina Khoo said that she still remembers the music, snacks and “interesting lessons” from her time in Primary. In all, the Church’s activities and worship service, its

486 Anne, interview. 487 Beth [psued.], interview by author, Singapore, July 23, 2012 and July 1, 2014. In Beth’s previous church, the youth and adults met separately because the youth service utilized a more upbeat and contemporary style of music with guitars and drums, whereas the adult service still used more traditional hymns and instruments of worship. 184 missionaries and structured lessons for investigators, and the evangelical spirit of the members all drew Singaporeans to want to learn more about this church.

It is crucial to understand that during the initial encounters with the missionaries, investigators did not harbor prejudice or preconceived notions about Mormonism because they did not know the difference between the LDS Church and other churches. This was especially true for those who came from a non-Christian background. Leonard Woo said that when he started going to different churches as a young adult, he did not like the divisions among the denominations, and wanted to join a non-denominational church.

When he told his former girlfriend, who was a Mormon, about his desire to join such a church, she invited him to join her on Sunday. While the Church might not be considered

“non-denominational,” he thought that the Church was a “brand new denomination that

[he] had never heard of.” Anne said that she was “searching for a church, because…I knew churches [had] classes to teach the gospel, so I thought maybe they will answer my questions [about the Bible] …And that was the time that I met the missionaries.” For both

Woo and Anne, the “Mormons” were no different from the Catholics, Methodists,

Baptists, Anglicans, Seventh Day Adventists, Assembly of God or the Pentecostals. It was just another church for them to consider. It is thus ironic that Mormonism, vilified by the Christian community, and disparaged as a minority outlier in the United States, became lumped in with other mainstream denominations, and took on the identity markers of “Western-American” and “Christian” after being transplanted to Singapore in the 1960s. The only difference between the Church and others was that its structured

185 missionary lessons and extensive auxiliary programs provided the steps for them to convert to Christianity, and become a full-participating member of a church.

This was despite the strains of anti-Mormonism that remained in Singaporean society throughout the 1970s and 1980s: IRO members continued to refuse to acknowledge the Church as a Christian group in Singapore, and the visa ban on the missionaries was enforced until 1988. No doubt there were investigators who stopped meeting with the missionaries after reading anti-Mormon literature or hearing rumors about the Church. Yet, public antagonism toward the Church did not stop these interviewees from learning more about Mormonism. Perhaps they were too young to be aware of the controversy surrounding the Church, or the bonds that they had with their family and friends who introduced them to the Church were strong enough to retain their interest. Indeed, a few interviewees who joined the Church before the priesthood ban of black men was rescinded in 1978 said that they were too young to comprehend the implications of the ban at the time of their baptism.488 Others simply did not think much about the issue because there were no black members in Singapore for them to witness the repercussions of the ban. Jason, who joined the Church in 1974, said that “since it didn’t really affect me, I didn’t think much about it,” while Adam, a teenager at the time of his baptism in 1973, said that it “didn’t bother me because there weren’t any blacks here making a lot of noise about it.”489 Hence, even if they learned about the priesthood

488 For instance, see Hannah, interview, and Leonard Woo, interview. 489 Jason, interview; Adam, interview. 186 ban from anti-Mormon sources, it did not deter them from learning more about the

Church.

But in “experimenting” with the various options available to them, why did they ultimately choose to accept baptism and become a Mormon? As useful as the extrinsic aids and activities by the missionaries and members were in helping them get to know about the Church, they would still need to confront, struggle, and ultimately decide if they believed in the teachings and the doctrines of Mormonism. Some would be like

Claire, who had little problem accepting what she was taught, while others required more time and effort before they believed.

On the day of her first meeting with the missionaries, Claire kept listing out excuses to cancel her appointment with them—she was too busy, or too tired after work.

But she had made a commitment with the missionaries, and so, despite the inertia and reluctance, made herself go to the appointment. In the end, she was glad she made it because, as she recounted, “when I saw them, I [felt] so happy. The Spirit was so sweet, so strong. I just felt good and so happy.” These feelings of goodness and happiness made her more accepting of whatever the missionaries taught. For instance, Latter-day Saints believe that humans lived with God, or Heavenly Father, before this earth life as spirits, and came down to earth to be tested by God and to gain a mortal body. Since all humans will sin and die, Jesus died as an atonement for our sins and imperfections. Through Jesus

Christ, all humans can overcome death, receive a resurrected body, and be reunited with

God in the next life. This entire process from before birth to after death is called “The

Plan of Salvation.” When the missionaries taught Claire about the Plan of Salvation, she 187 said, “I was reflecting [on] it…[and] you know as a parent, you send your child far away

[to another] country to study…You [will] want your child to come home one day... So I thought God is the same. I’m sure he wants me to go back to him one day. So I had that kind of peace, that knowledge to know that what the missionaries taught me about the

Plan of Salvation is not wrong, it makes sense to me.”

Besides feeling that the teachings of the missionaries “made sense,” Claire was also compelled by a sense of hope for what they taught about the family. Mormons believe that immediate and extended family bonds can last beyond the grave when

“sealed” in their temples, and is why many of the Church’s programs, speeches, and curriculum revolve around families. Given her family circumstances, the belief that her family could be healed and remain together after death was a source of comfort to her.

Claire said that “the most important thing they taught me is about eternal families. I thought, ‘Yah490, I want to be with my parents forever. I want to be with my brothers and sisters after I die.’ So it was very important for me.” Learning about the potential for her family to be an eternal unit, and the requirements necessary to attain such a goal, eased the way for her to accept the other commandments, such as paying a tithe to the Church, and the Word of Wisdom. The final clincher to her decision to join the Church came when she read the Book of Mormon. Claire faithfully read the Book of Mormon every morning on the bus journey to work, and even though she didn’t understand all she read, she “enjoyed reading page after page. I just found it inspiring, and I just wanted to know

490 This word means “yes.” 188 what happened… I read [it] cover to cover, and I felt so good about the Book of

Mormon.”

Claire’s acceptance of Mormon teachings typified the feelings of other

Singaporean converts who were also drawn to the religion due to its peculiar doctrine about the family. Audrey said that even before the Osmond family visited in 1980, she already noticed that “it’s very rare whereby you have people in the entertainment industry be so close-knitted…and still stay together [as a] wholesome family…so I said, ‘I want to know what makes them tick, what makes them stick together.’” In an unusual move for a non-member, she initiated the first contact with the missionaries by calling them up for an appointment. Noah didn’t want to talk to the missionaries when they first approached him until they mentioned that families could be eternal. It was a concept that he had never heard mentioned in his Taoist home, or from his conversations about religion with his Christian and Muslim friends, and it “was something that [he] adhered to” and made him curious to find out more.491 The example of expatriate Mormon families also impacted Tina Khoo, who remembered going to church as a young girl, and being struck by the fact that “families sat together, and the children [were] so well-behaved…There’s this unity when [the] family sat together.” Khoo went inactive for a few years, but even during those years, she always remembered that “families are forever,” and this idea of creating her own forever family motivated her return to the Church.

The doctrine of an eternal family and of a Heavenly Father was especially attractive for Singaporeans who came from broken families. In a society like Singapore

491 Noah [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, September 22, 2015. 189 that recognizes men as the main breadwinner of the family and head of the family, the absence of a responsible patriarchal figure in the home was devastating to families. As such, the idea that we are literal spirit children of a Heavenly Father whom we lived with before our mortal existence filled an emotional need in these Singaporeans seeking a loving and morally upright father-figure. Hannah’s father, for instance, lost his business and fell into debt. Unable to support his family of eleven, he often quarreled with his wife and threatened to leave the family in front of his children. Learning about a Heavenly

Father was thus a revelation to Hannah, who described learning the gospel as seeing “the light.” She recalled that “when the gospel came and talked about God… [said that] I am a child of God, [that I have] a purpose here…Suddenly this pain, this suffering, this fear

[transformed into the thought], ‘I don’t have to live in this condition, I can have something better. There’s something better out there.’” Christina Chan was touched by the fact that “we have a Father in Heaven who knows us and loves us, [and] that really gave me a lot of comfort and hope…. it’s not just God, he’s my Heavenly Father.” Julie did not feel the need for a “surrogate” (celestial) father, but the Church helped her envision another model of fatherhood and marriage than the one she witnessed in her family growing up. Her father had inherited a successful business from his parents, but squandered his inheritance on alcohol and women. Although he wasn’t abusive, Julie remembered her father teaching her to steal at a young age, and being “disappointed” by his lifelong irresponsible behavior. Hence, she was struck hard when she learned that

“families can be together forever.” “I envisioned myself having that kind of family,” she

190 said, “A husband who is much better than my father, who can be much better than him.

It’s that…hope, so I really embraced that.”

The other Mormon doctrine that attracted Singaporeans to the Church was the

Plan of Salvation. Elizabeth was a young adult when she saw one of the exhibitions put up by the missionaries in a mall titled “Man’s Search for Happiness,” which was a presentation about the Plan of Salvation. Her parents were staunch Taoists, but she felt that Taoism didn’t satisfactorily answer her questions about the purpose of life: where did we come from before mortality, why are we here on earth, and is there life after death.

Hence, when she came across the exhibition, she “was very excited,” and said it opened her mind to new truths about life. One of the key components of the Plan of Salvation is that non-Christian deceased ancestors and family members will not immediately be condemned to hell, but will have the opportunity to learn about Jesus and accept him in the next life. For many Singaporean Mormons who had lost a loved one early in their life, this concept was both comforting and pivotal to their conversion. Janet said that when she was a teenager, she became concerned about her Taoist grandmother who had raised her, and the state of her soul after death. When she asked her pastor about this, he told her that because her grandmother wasn’t a Christian, she would go to hell. Janet was rankled by his reply, and asked if people born in communist countries would also go to hell, to which the pastor said “yes.” Dissatisfied with his answer, she began exploring other churches, and it was through her sister that she came to know the Church. When the missionaries taught her the Plan of Salvation, not only did it provide a more sensible answer concerning life after death, but she said that she was “deeply touched by the

191

Spirit” and felt that “this was the Church that the Lord wanted me to be in.”492 Karen, who lost her father when she was six years old, felt that the Plan of Salvation “made sense” and gave her “a lot of hope” in being reunited with her father. Teo Choon Seng also said that of all the things he learned during the lessons, he liked how “it’s not simply if you believe in Jesus you go to heaven, if you don’t, you do to hell…There’s more meaning to that… My ancestors…have a chance to listen to the gospel. They will be given a chance in the Spirit World493… [This] was the thing that I also felt very comfortable with.”494

The commandments and behavioral laws espoused by Mormon leaders—sexual chastity, modesty in dress, and temperance to name a few—while viewed as restrictive and outdated in more Western liberal societies, proved to be Mormonism’s selling points among Singaporean Mormons. From their perspective, even though the Church was a product of Western society, it rejected the stereotypical Western liberal immoral behavior that valued the individual over the community. Instead, it advocated high moral standards, while still introducing new concepts about God, the purpose of life, and the family unheard of in their Asian society. This balance of Western-Mormon religious beliefs with disciplinary codes of conduct was precisely what drew Singaporeans to learn more. Claire liked the Church’s stance on modesty in dress. Thomas investigated the

Church because he went to Brigham Young University-Hawaii (BYU-Hawaii) as a non- member in the 1970s, expecting to see “hippie” students wearing bell-bottoms and men

492 Janet [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, March 4, 2016. 493 The Spirit World is where all our spirits go to after death. 494 Teo Choon Seng, interview by author, Singapore, August 12, 2015. 192 with long-hair. Instead, “they were all very well-behaved, very nice…no drinking, no drugs, very well-behaved. I said, ‘There must be something good about this religion, right? Otherwise, why would people behave so nicely?’”495

It is also interesting to note that of all the commandments and codes of conduct, the one most often cited by the interviewees in relation to their conversion was that of the

Word of Wisdom. It certainly caught the attention of the Singaporean government, whose approval of the Church’s health code paved the way for the missionary displays in the shopping malls.496 The Word of Wisdom was a revelation given to Joseph Smith in 1833 that counseled members to eat more herbs, grain and fruit of the earth, to eat meat

“sparingly,” and forbade the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and “strong drinks.” The last instruction is probably the most well-known tenet of the Word of Wisdom because current-day Church leaders have interpreted the term “strong drinks” to mean coffee and tea, and more conservative Mormons have even broadened the term to include any caffeinated drinks, such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi. As the only religion with such a strict and specific health code, the Church set itself apart from other churches and made a deep impression on Singaporeans. Hannah remembered the first time the missionaries visited her home in 1968, her family took out the tea set to offer them a drink, but the missionaries explained that they didn’t drink tea. Her family then offered them Coca-

Cola because “Americans love Coco-Cola,” only to find out that they didn’t drink that as well! It did not deter Hannah from wanting to learn more, but their behavior left her

495 Thomas, interview. 496 Lionel F. Walters, interview. 193 family sufficiently confused about these Americans and their religion. Sometimes, the

Word of Wisdom was a direct contributing factor to their conversion, such as in the case of Ethan who shared his belief that his brother’s smoking habit and over-consumption of coffee exacerbated his schizophrenia. Hence, when he heard about the Word of Wisdom, he was “definitely impressed by it…Because of that, I got interested to learn more about the gospel.”497 Others adopted a more practical approach, like Stephen Lai who put it simply, “If it can help me have better health, why not?”498

But what is most spiritually significant to Singaporean Mormons were the emotions of warmth or peace felt during the discussions with the missionaries or during their private study of the religion. Just as Claire described her feelings of feeling “good” and “happy” when she met with the missionaries, others reported having similar feelings.

Although these affections cannot be explained by rational logic, Singaporean Mormons experienced these feelings in their reality, and interpreted them as spiritual confirmations that they should join this religion. Take Laura’s conversion for instance. Laura grew up in a non-practicing Catholic home, and when she was about sixteen years old, took up lessons to convert to Catholicism. Around the same time, her friend persuaded her to take the missionary discussions with her. Laura agreed as a favor to her friend, but after one meeting, wanted to stop listening. That is, until the missionaries started talking about the

Plan of Salvation. Suddenly, Laura felt something stir in her, and blurted out, “This is the right way. This is the correct plan.” The missionary Elders looked at each other, then

497 Ethan [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, March 20, 2016. 498 Stephen Lai, interview by author, Singapore, August 18, 2016. 194 asked, “Did you learn this from the Catholic church?” Laura replied that she didn’t. The missionaries then asked where she heard about this plan, to which she said, “I don’t know but I like this plan. I think this is the right plan.” Even with only minimal knowledge and interest in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith, she “loved that plan. There’s something that clicked inside.”499

At times, these experiences were more dramatic and miraculous in nature, like that experienced by Thomas, who attended BYU-Hawaii in 1977 as a non-member. Per the mandatory General Education requirements, he enrolled in a course about the Book of

Mormon, but struggled through the readings. Thomas came home from work one night, exhausted but still needing to prepare for a major test in that class. At wits end, he prayed to God to help him understand the reading, and when he commenced his reading, a miraculous incident happened. Thomas described that experience saying:

As I was reading the Book of Mormon…about a war between the Nephites and the Lamanites, while I was reading, and because I like the cowboys and Indians show, I could relate to what I was reading very well. And suddenly, I could see something like a vision…like I was sitting in a theater, and I saw this movie of the Nephites and Lamanites fighting, and I could understand so well…It was so exciting.

This vision, coupled with the examples of the students at BYU, convinced him to learn more about the Church, and he was baptized about a month after he arrived in Hawaii.

Yet, Laura and Thomas are but two of the numerous examples shared by Singaporean

Mormons that demonstrates the vital role that affect played in their conversion. Many echoed Andrew who said that when he was reluctant to meet with the missionaries, but

499 Laura [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, January 13, 2016. 195 once he heard the story of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, he knew “straightaway for some reason [that it was true].” Others prayed and asked God to let them know if what they learned was true, and said they felt “good” after the prayer.

Having that emotional connection was crucial to helping investigators take the leap into baptism, especially when they faced opposition from their family or was exposed to anti-Mormon material. Anne said that before she got baptized, she made a deal with her brother that she would attend his church if he attended hers. When she went to his church, his friends handed her a stack of anti-Mormon literature to read. It did not affect her because she already felt something stir in her when she read the Book of

Mormon, and she enjoyed the “peaceful, nice feeling when I had the discussions with the missionaries” as well. Still, she hesitated to get baptized, even as she continued to take the discussions. Then, one day she suddenly had an “urgent feeling that if I didn’t get baptized, something is going to happened…a warning sensation…I really had this feeling. I cannot deny it.” When she told her brother about it, he said, “If you have this strong feeling…I think you better go ahead,” and gave his blessings for her baptism, which she arranged soon after. Experiencing that “strong feeling” was thus a crucial element that helped her remain resolute despite reading anti-Mormon literature, and pushed her take the final leap into Church membership.

However, it is unfair to say that conversion was motivated solely by inexplicable or imaginary emotion. Contrary to criticisms that Mormon beliefs were “out of harmony with the mind of the modern man,” Singaporeans also used reasoning and logic to make sense of what they were learning. Just as Claire used an analogy of a child going away to

196 college to understand the Plan of Salvation, and reasoned that a “bad church” would not teach women to dress modestly, other Singaporeans pondered and analyzed what they learned before passing a verdict about the Church. For example, Stephen Lai grew up in a

Taoist household, but had a “natural inclination towards Christianity” since his childhood because “[Christians] only worshipped one god, rather than all the different kinds of

[Taoist] gods, and in the end, it gets [confusing] who to sacrifice [to] and who to make donations to…” Not only did Lai feel more comfortable with the concept of worshipping a monotheist Christian god, it made more rational sense as well. Moreover, Lai mentioned that when he started taking the missionary discussions as a teenager,

“something resonated in my soul about the First Vision” (the emotional connection), but he also “thought that if God is all-powerful, the First Vision can always happen,” thus reasoning that the fantastical claims of seeing the omnipotent God was within the realm of possibility. Teo Choon Seng said that he had a strong desire to read the Book of

Mormon, even though he couldn’t understand all of it, and was deeply struck by a passage about faith (Alma 32). That passage stirred him to take the plunge into baptism, but he rationalized that he was “trying it out” and that if he didn’t like it, he can always

“quit” later. Once again, we see the interplay between affect and reason, and how the combination propelled Singaporean investigators to take the next step in their conversion.

The ability to both feel affect and apply reason to Mormon teachings made all the difference for Singaporeans because, as mentioned earlier, it seemed that their parents carried out religious traditions without understanding the meaning behind the rituals.

These rituals had dwindled into “just a practice [of] doing things which have [been]

197 done.”500 Hence, a religion that offered both emotional resonance and logical explanation for its teachings, sacraments and liturgy was attractive to them.

Of course, not everyone had as easy a time as Claire in accepting all they learned, and struggled for a period before feeling that sense of rightness. Elizabeth was very excited to learn about the Plan of Salvation and told her friends about it, only to have them warn her that such teachings were false. Unsure of whom to trust, she decided to stop meeting the missionaries. The Sisters respected her decision, but told her to keep reading the Book of Mormon to find out for herself if the book was true. She heeded their advice, and soon after, “gained a testimony”501 about the book. This prompted her to resume meeting with the Sisters. Leonard Woo’s friends were alarmed too by his desire to join “this cult-ish church,” and gave him a stack of anti-Mormon literature to read.

Woo was confused by the disparity of what he read and what he saw at Church, and decided that if Joseph Smith could receive an answer from God, so could he. He therefore went to a forested area one evening near his workplace and prayed. Although he did not receive a vision, he felt “good enough” to proceed with his baptism. In a way, having to confront opposition toward Mormonism forced Elizabeth and Woo to seek out the truth and decide if they could accept such beliefs.

Sometimes it wasn’t so much their feelings about the Church but rather a certain principle or teaching that investigators quibbled with. Queenie Chew said that she had no

500 Gary, interview. 501 When a Mormon says he/she has “gained a testimony” about a certain principle/ person/ object, it means that the person has received a manifestation or confirmation, be it emotional or physical, that it is true. Such manifestations come in all forms, usually as a feeling of peace or warmth, and is believed to originate from the Holy Spirit. 198 problem accepting everything the missionaries taught her, until they came to the law of tithing502. She and her husband had never heard this teaching preached in the other churches they attended. Moreover, they just bought a house and car, and had no money left over for tithing. The Elders, full of naïve courage, suggested that they sell their car, a suggestion that made the Chews “very cross,” and they refused to meet with the missionaries. However, a few months later, Chew volunteered to give her pregnant colleague a ride home from work during peak hour traffic. As she drove down an incline, she discovered that her brakes had stopped working. Pumping the brakes as hard as she could, she whispered an urgent prayer for deliverance and safety. At that very moment, a space suddenly opened by the side of the road for her to guide her car into. When the car stopped, Chew vowed to God that from that day forward, she would always pay her tithing. This experience convinced Chew that the missionaries were teaching the truth, and she and her husband resumed their lessons soon after. Still, miraculous incidents like that of Chew’s were more an exception than the rule, and investigators often went ahead with their baptism without fully understanding or being convinced of every aspect of

Mormonism. Instead, they felt “good enough,” and reasoned that they still had years ahead to learn and grow.

Then there were the handful who took years before they were truly converted to the faith, such as Amy who only got baptized because that was the next step after completing the missionary discussions. Lacking a firm conviction as to her belief in

502 In the LDS Church, members are expected to pay a tithing, defined as one-tenth of their income. Tithing is used to build and maintain the numerous chapels and temples of the Church, fund the missionary program, and subsidize the Church’s educational institutions. 199

Mormonism (what Latter-day Saints call a “testimony”), she stopped going to church soon after her baptism, and only returned a few years later, after “an act of mercy from

Heavenly Father [who] made my life miserable… [My sister and I] both had so many problems with our love lives and whatever, [and] so one day, [we] decided to come back on our own.” Noah said that after drifting in and out of activity for the first year and a half after his baptism, he decided to discover once and for all if the Church was true.

After saying a prayer, he received a call from his home teacher503 offering him a ride to church. Taking the call as a sign that God had answered his prayer, he determined to be a full-participating member, and “that changed everything.” Both Amy and Noah struggled with unbelief, and could have permanently left the Church as others did. What kept them tethered to the Church was their choice to interpret various events in their lives as signs of divine intervention, proof of God’s will for them to remain in or return to this church.

Once they had that conviction that this was indeed the religion for them, they became committed members and never looked back.

Regardless of how long they took to gain a solid “testimony,” whether it came immediately or after a few years, every investigator had to make an ultimate choice to stay or leave. Those who believed embraced the final step in the conversion process, that of full-body immersive baptism. But even the process of obtaining permission for minors was anything but straightforward.

503 A home teacher is a male member assigned to minister to a few families in his ward/ branch, to alleviate the burden of the bishop/ branch president. The equivalent of home teaching for the women is the “visiting teaching” program. Both the home teacher and visiting teacher are volunteer callings. 200

Upon completing her lessons with the missionaries, and convinced that she was joining the correct church, the next step was for Claire to get baptized, an act which required parental consent because she was below 21 years old, the legal age of majority in Singapore. Claire knew that her mother would be angry, but as she didn’t have a choice, she approached her mother to sign the form. As expected, her mom was furious and scolded Claire by saying, “Out of the ten children, why do you have to be the only

Christian? We are Taoist. Why do you have to be a Christian?” She then told Claire that if she wanted her parents’ consent, she would have to ask her father. Claire grew even more worried; her father used to be a drug addict and beat her mother in fit of rages when drunk. His time in jail had mellowed him, but childhood memories of her abusive father haunted her. Yet, she didn’t have a choice, and approached him with her request. To her surprise, he took the form, sat in silence for a minute, then asked, “When I die, will you hold joss sticks at my funeral?” Claire responded, “Of course. This is your tradition. I will respect your tradition. My church teaches me that families are together forever.

Families are important... Don’t worry, I will respect your religion.” With tears streaming down his face, her father signed her form.

On the day of her baptism, Claire stepped into the waters of the baptismal font built in the chapel, nervous but excited to begin a new phase of life. None of her family members were there, but as she looked around the room and saw the looks of encouragement and acceptance from her friends in church, Claire felt like she had gained a “Church family.” In describing how she felt the moment she came out of the water, she

201 said, “I felt very joyful. I felt very clean…It’s not like something that is very drastic, very drama, but more like a peaceful, calm feeling.”

It took a few more years before her mother came around to Claire’s decision to get baptized, though not for a lack of trying on Claire’s part. Her mother refused to listen, however, and always shut down Claire’s attempts to share her religion. Claire was therefore surprised when her mother asked her to take her second eldest brother (the brother struggling with substance abuse) to church with her. Not only did Claire’s brother go, but one of her sisters followed along. Although none of Claire’s family joined the

Church, she felt grateful to witness a softening in their animosity toward Christianity, and harbors the hope that one day, even if only in the next life, her family would accept the gospel and become an eternal family unit.

The initial antagonistic reaction of Claire’s family to her conversion was not unusual. Many converts faced the same opposition from their families, who felt that their children had betrayed their religious heritage. Elizabeth said that her father was so angered by the fact that she wanted to go to church, he demanded that she return the house key to him, i.e. she wasn’t allowed to leave the home at will, and he made home life difficult for her. When asked to explain his reaction, Elizabeth said, “Because they are Taoist, and he felt that [I was] the youngest in the family, and [I went] against the family’s beliefs.” When Carol’s mom discovered that her daughters wanted her permission to be baptized, she threatened to disown them and break their legs if they got baptized.

202

That sense of loss was magnified when a son converted because in Asian cultures, sons were responsible for performing the traditional sacrificial rituals for the deceased.

Converting to Christianity meant giving up these responsibilities, and damning the souls of their parents and ancestors in the afterlife.504 For Mormons, the Church has no official policy regarding these traditional practices, and members were simply counseled to use wise judgement in deciding which rituals to keep or discard. Thus, Church members disagreed among themselves over the continuance of certain practices (such as the holding of joss sticks). However, their non-member families did not understand this nuanced difference between Mormons and other Christians, and had the perception that their Mormon son had to abstain from carrying out all traditional rituals. Hence, parents were devastated when their sons converted to Mormonism, and regarded it as a mark of being unfilial. This explains why Thomas, who converted while studying at BYU-

Hawaii, did not tell his mother about his baptism until he returned home in 1979 to serve a mission in Singapore. Shocked by the news of his conversion and mission, his mother and aunt visited him and tearfully asked why he, as the only son, would became “a celibate monk” and refuse to carry on the family line. They left only after Thomas assured them that his mission would end in two years, and that he would still be able to have children after that. Jason reported that his parents disliked him joining “a Western religion” for fear that he would “turn away from the Taoist or Chinese way of life, and become alienated from the family. And because I was the eldest, they could not afford to

504 Christian pastors in Singapore have been outspoken and adamant about eliminating all superstitious traditions and rituals, including the holding of joss sticks. For example, see Daniel Tong, A Biblical Approach to Chinese Traditions and Beliefs, 2nd ed. (Singapore: Genesis Books, 2012). 203 have me not carry on the traditions of the family.” In these instances, having brothers sometimes ameliorated the tensions in the family. Leonard Woo joked that his parents didn’t object to him joining the Church because they had six sons so “what’s wrong with losing one?” Still, it is striking that his parents equated his conversion to “losing” their son.

Singaporean Mormons who grew up in Christian homes or had family members who were Christian faced a different form of opposition: wrestling with the Church’s reputation as a “cult.” Laura’s Catholic siblings regarded her as the “black sheep of the family” after her baptism, while her relatives ostracized her for joining “the devil’s church.” Lee Pheck Leng said that her sister’s Methodist pastor made a special visit to her home to persuade her and her brothers that the Church was a dangerous cult.

Fortunately for Lee, her older brother had no interest in religion, and gave Lee the freedom to decide her own religious beliefs. Tan Chew Yian and Esther said their mothers also heard rumors about the Church from Christian friends or relatives, and warned them to stay away.

There were a few parents who did not object to their children’s baptism, and a major contributing factor to their acquiescence was meeting the missionaries. Hannah said that since her father was the one who invited the missionaries into their home, when she and her sister wanted to get baptized, he had no problem signing the consent form.

Audrey’s Christian mother was furious when Audrey wanted to get baptized, but softened considerably after meeting the Elders. When Kalai Selvi Nadarajan’s atheist father heard that his children wanted to be baptized, he decided to meet with the missionaries to find

204 out more about the Church. Nadarajan said that “he was impressed with the elders. They were clean-cut, you know, [and] that impressed him.” Her father never joined the Church but permitted his children to be baptized.505 Yet, for the majority of investigators, their decision to convert was met with resistance rather than acceptance.

Finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict wasn’t easy. Those who were already of legal majority age had the easiest time getting baptized since they didn’t need parental consent, although the missionaries still advised them to inform their family as a sign of respect.506 Some, like Elizabeth and Karen, had little choice but to wait until their twenty- first birthday to get baptized. Two interviewees confessed that they signed their own consent form! One of them figured that if he was old enough to serve in the mandatory

National Service507 as a nineteen-year-old, he was “old enough to decide what to do for myself.” The most common strategy adopted by Singaporeans, however, was that of fasting and praying. Fasting in the Mormon faith means going without food and drink for two meals, and the money saved from fasting is donated as “fast offerings” to run the welfare program of the Church. Members fast as a sign of contrition when pleading to

God for a request, and in this case of Singaporean investigators, to ask for divine intervention into their parents’ lives. Mark was in his late-teens when he decided to get baptized, but had no idea how to approach his staunch Taoist parents for permission. He fasted for a day, and that evening, after saying a prayer, approached his parents with the

505 Kalai Selvi Nadarajan, interview by author, Singapore, January 31, 2016. 506 Jacqueline [psued.], interview by author, Singapore, July 29, 2015. 507 National Service is a compulsory two-year military service for all male citizens and permanent residents of Singapore. Men are drafted into the service after their nineteenth birthday. 205 consent form. His father grew upset and refused to sign it, when his mother suddenly said, “Let him.” Both he and his father were stunned by her words. His mother then explained that Mark was going to get baptized when he turned twenty-one, so why not let him do it now. They had two other sons anyway, so losing Mark to Christianity would not affect the family’s traditional religious practices. Perhaps unable to think up other reasons to stop Mark, his father signed the form. As inexplicable as Mark’s story was, many Singaporean Mormons shared that they had similar experiences, and affirmed that fasting worked to soften the hearts of their parents.

Having obtained the necessary consent, investigators looked forward to their baptism as a new beginning in their lives. A few even decided to add their self-appointed

English name to their baptismal certificate, symbolic of their new Christian identity. As much as they wished their family could have been there, many opted to keep the details from their family, for fear of stirring up any more ire. However, they invited friends to witness this momentous occasion, even those who accused the Church of being a cult. As they stepped into the waters of baptism, be it at the beach or in the baptismal font at church, they felt similar emotions as Francis Tan who said that he “wasn’t sure what the future was about, and feared what would happen.” But when they came out of the water, they were awash with a sense of cleanliness, joy, and felt “very fresh.”508 When Audrey walked home the night after her baptism, Barry Manilow’s I Made It Through the Rain kept playing through her mind. As she reflected on her journey from learning about the

Church through Donny Osmond to taking the missionary discussions, to the difficult

508 Carol, interview. 206 process of obtaining consent from her Christian mother, she thought with a sense of pride and relief, “I made it through the rain.”

Indeed, as this chapter has demonstrated, the journey of conversion was never a smooth one. The perception of the LDS Church as Western, Christian, novel, and

“modern” was both its allure and downfall. The same characteristics and doctrine of the

Church that drew young Singaporeans to investigate Mormonism were also the very points of contention among their families and friends. Yet, the opposition acted as a sifting agent, separating the true converts from casual believers. The true converts were undeterred, and worked to overcome all impediments to their baptism. Having cast in their lot with the Church, new members embraced the various programs, activities, assignments, and opportunities made available to them through their membership. The next chapter will delve into their experiences working with expatriates in church callings and activities, serving LDS missions, and studying at Brigham Young University.

207

CHAPTER 5: ASSIMILATION

When Fern Cox stepped into the chapel for a Sunday church meeting in Singapore the first time in May 1970, she could not help but notice the stark divide in the congregation along racial lines. The expatriate Caucasians sat as a mammoth enclave, while the locals hurdled together in their seats. “[The locals] were all sitting there and they were scared to death of us…And they were very quiet,” she recalled, “And I thought, ‘Well, this can’t go on. [I’ve] got to stay here for two years!’” Mustering up her courage, she began to walk up and down and the aisles, and introduce herself to the locals. To put them at ease, she told them, “Please tell me your name. It’s going to be hard for me to learn, and it’ll be hard for you to learn mine, but…I’ll tell you mine if you tell me yours every time.” She did this every Sunday, and within a few months, had made friends with the locals. Little wonder that one Singaporean told Cox that she “prayed [the

Coxes] back” as mission presidents in 1975.509

Coming into a “Western-American” church gave Singaporeans access to new religious and cultural experiences, but the process of assimilation and integration took far longer and required deliberate effort from locals and expatriates to reach across the aisle to work together. Many converts felt like Claire and Holly, who said that they were

“quite scared to talk to the Americans” when they first came to meetings, or adopted a

509 Soren and Fern Cox, interview by author, Provo, Utah, May 15, 2013. 208 more passive attitude like Mark who ignored unnecessary interactions with the older and wealthier expatriate members. As for expatriates, living as strangers in a foreign “Third

World” land was not a comfortable ride, even with their big cars and exclusive neighborhoods. The sights, smells, and sounds of the local people and culture that they could shut out in their “coffin bungalows” seeped into their space of religious worship as more locals converted. It was a boom for the Church when the number of baptisms rose over the years, but created discomfort for some expatriates who went inactive.510

However, there were others like Cox who embraced these multicultural opportunities, and extended their hand of friendship to Singaporeans. In turn, converts were enthusiastic in learning about gospel knowledge, church administration, and Western culture from expatriates.

Of course, the Church never became the magic eraser of racial segregation and discomfort. The contrast in lifestyle, ideas, culture, and economic circumstances between the locals and expatriates made it difficult for the two disparate groups to find common ground in every social setting. Lionel F. Walters lamented that when he went to private dinner function at a local church leader’s home one evening in 1983, “the expatriates separate[d] themselves from the locals in these gatherings… The two sides have little to talk about and seem to find it hard to make conversations with each other. Surely there is

510 Leonard Woo, interview. Woo revealed that part of the reason why expatriates and locals were separated into different congregations in 1995, was because certain expatriates did not feel comfortable confiding in local church leaders about their problems. Various mission presidents also noted in their journal that on rare occasions, a couple missionary would come go to South Asia with unrealistic expectations of their mission, and had to be reassigned to another mission when they realized the difficulty of their mission call. Thus, even missionaries who came prepared for the hardships of their mission were caught off-guard by the reality of living in Asia. 209 work to be done in and through the gospel to bring all peoples together into one family?”511

Nonetheless, there were significant cultural exchanges that took place through

Church meetings and activities, and even on missions (despite the paucity of Caucasian missionaries in Singapore). Expatriates and locals who set aside their differences, and put in effort to work together were enriched by their interactions with each other. A group of converts also furthered their education through Brigham Young University, and lived in other parts of the United States, before returning to Singapore. These interracial interactions in Singapore and abroad is the subject of this chapter.

In recent years, scholars have taken an interest in analyzing how religion defined, policed, and challenged racial and ethnic boundaries. Religious “myths” or narratives, for instance, created social boundaries that separated “civilized” believers of certain faiths and racial groups from the “uncivilized” non-believers.512 Other historians have shown how female missionaries challenged American racism and racial stratifications, and undermined American religious expansion and cultural imperialistic efforts during the turn of the twentieth century.513 A few scholars have engaged in works that demonstrate how “Western cultural elements and preconceptions were inextricably attached to conversion in the minds of missionaries.”514 For instance, Joel Martin argued that New

511 Lionel F. Walters, Lionel F. Walters Mission Journal, February 20, 1983, William F. and Marianne Walters Mission Papers, 1982-1985, CHL. 512 Craig Prentiss, ed., Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity (New York: NYU Press, 2003). 513 Barbara Reeves-Ellington, Kathryn Sklar, and Connie A. Shemo, eds., Competing Kingdoms: Women, Mission, Nation, and the American Protestant Empire, 1812-1960 (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2010). 514 Prentiss, Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity, 9. 210

England Protestant missionaries used clothing and fashion as boundary markers to distinguish themselves from the heathen, non-Christian Native Americans early nineteenth century.515 I too examine how Mormonism and American cultural elements intertwined and formed an unspoken racial line between expatriates and Singaporeans.

Examining the cultural exchanges between expatriate Mormons and Singaporean converts also exposes the uneven direction in which the two disparate groups exchanged knowledge. Jehu J. Hanciles has pointed out the persistent pattern that missionary initiatives of the Church usually flowed from the missionary to the convert, but rarely in the opposite direction, partly because “the Mormon model privileges American capacity… This pattern provides further indication that the Church’s structure and outlook are marked by one-directional movement and influence.”516 For instance, nineteenth-century Euro-American Mormons expected Native American converts to change “nearly every element of indigenous life” in the conversion process, but rarely did

Euro-American Mormons adopt Native American cultural practices.517 This chapter demonstrates that this pattern of “one-directional movement and influence” of knowledge from expatriate Mormons to Singaporean converts continued into the 1970s and ‘80s, albeit without the imperialistic tendencies that their nineteenth-century peers had toward

Native Americans. To their credit, expatriate Mormons tried their best to acculturate to their foreign environment, even if they did not always succeed.

515 Joel Martin, “Almost White: The Ambivalent Promise of Christian Missions among the Cherokees,” in Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity, ed. Craig Prentiss (New York: NYU Press, 2003): 43-60. 516 Jehu J. Hanciles, “Mormonism and Global Christianity,” in Journal of Mormon Studies 41 (April 2015): 57. 517 Craig Prentiss, “‘Loathsome unto Thy People’: The Latter-day Saints and Racial Categorization,” in Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity, ed. Craig Prentiss (New York: NYU Press, 2003), 131. 211

Singaporean converts were better in adapting elements of their new religious faith and Western culture to their local circumstances. Anthropologists and sociologists have noted that individuals in cosmopolitan urban centers like Singapore tend to have

“complex cultural repertories rather than single, unitary cultural identities” that “blend

Eastern and Western values, languages, business concerns, styles, cuisines, and so on.”518

Jean DeBernardi noted that mainline Chinese Christians in Singapore were particularly deft in localizing Christianity, viewed as a Western religion in Singapore, with the

Chinese culture.519 Singaporean Mormons proved equally adept at fusing their local traditions, cuisine, and values with the knowledge they picked up from their new religion and expatriate Mormons. This chapter will show which aspects of Mormon-American culture local converts syncretized with Asian culture, and which parts they rejected as irrelevant.

VIEWING EACH “OTHER”

In recent years, scholars have labored to characterize American attitudes toward people in post-Cold War Third World nations. There is a consensus that Orientalist ideas about an East-West divide pervaded the thinking of Americans, although Melani

McAlister and Christina Klein have made excellent arguments that American Orientalism was layered and complex, and not always predicated on Said’s model of difference and

518 Jean DeBernardi, “The Localization of Christianity among Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia,” in Chinese Populations in Contemporary Southeast Asian Societies: Identities, Interdependence and International Influence, eds. M. Jocelyn Armstrong, R. Warwick Armstrong, and Kent Mulliner (Surry, Great Britain: Curzon, 2001), 124-3. 519 Ibid., 123-150. 212 hierarchy.520 Klein’s exploration of the American idea about Asia, which she terms “Cold

War Orientalism,” has been particularly useful in analyzing this case study of the Church in Singapore. Klein contends that middlebrow intellectuals and Washington policymakers in the 1950s and early-1960s worked to replace the national rhetoric “based on separation

(containment) with a global imaginary based on connection” through popular entertainment, literature, and adoption programs. Their efforts fueled a sentimental

American imagination of integrated bonds between Asians and Americans, and made

Americans believe that they could reconcile the East-West divide through peaceful, non- imperialistic methods.521 My work applies her theory of “integrated imagination,” and demonstrates its impact on American expatriates and missionaries who were on the ground and living in Asia, and how it biased the way they interpreted local culture.

However, I also examine whether the local people had the same type of imaginary perspective when interacting with Americans, and if they too believed that such cultural differences could be bridged.

Latter-day Saints in the United States viewed Singapore through the stereotypical

Orientalist Asian lens, as seen from a 1975 article in the Church’s Friend magazine for children. To be fair, the anonymous writer was merely reporting what he/ she observed, and acknowledged that Singapore was “an important and shipping financial center with terminals for a number of airlines.” However, in describing the rest of Singapore, the

520 Melani McAlister, Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, and U.S. Interests in the Middle East, 1945-2000 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001); Christina Klein, Cold War Orientalism: Asia in the Middlebrow Imagination, 1945-1961 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003); Judy Tzu-Chun Wu, Radicals on the Road: Internationalism, Orientalism, and Feminism during the Vietnam War Era (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2013). 521 Klein, 13-16. 213 writer reverted to using descriptions that emphasized the exotic nature of the people and country. For instance, the writer described the kampongs as “jungle-like villages of bamboo and palm houses built on stilts,” and noted that families fortunate to live in more urban areas had to squeeze themselves and their extended families into a “one- to three- bedroom apartment or flat” due to a lack of land on the island, an image that surely sent alarmed Mormons living in land-rich nations. Meanwhile, the people “still dress in their native costumes”: Hindu men wear their dhoti, “Moslems are clothed in long robes,” while the Chinese wear “puffy pants, loose shirts and little caps.” Only “some,” the writer added at the end, “wear western dress.”522 These descriptions thus conjured up images of a Singapore that was underdeveloped, perhaps uncivilized, and diametrically different from the United States in its lifestyle.

The other popular misconception of Singapore was that it was in danger of being overrun by communists since it was (inaccurately) thought to be geographically close to

China. Compounding this notion was the fact that Vietnam was placed under the

Southeast Asia Mission from 1968 to 1970 at the height of the Vietnam war, and the mission president, G. Carlos Smith, made frequent trips to visit the LDS military personnel stationed there. Witnessing the ravages of the war waged by the “godless” communists hardened the already politically conservative Smith, and made him an even more vocal and staunch anticommunist.523 Soon after his return to the United States in

522 “Friends in Singapore,” Friend, September 1975, https://www.lds.org/friend/1975/09/friends-in- singapore?lang=eng (accessed May 9, 2017). 523 See poems “Saigon” and “Leaving Vietnam” in G. Carlos Smith, Red and Gold (1971). Copy of Red and Gold in author’s possession. These poems encapsulate his sorrow about the war when he presided over Vietnam. 214

1972, he reported to Church leaders that if the American military hadn’t intervened in

Vietnam, “I don’t question for one minute but what the communists would have overrun all of Southeast Asia.” Smith clarified that Singapore was an anti-communist nation, with a “progressive government” similar to the English parliament, but his caustic commentary of the war colored the way American Mormons thought about the greater

Southeast Asia region.524 This idea that Singapore was susceptible to communism persisted even into the early-1980s. By this time, the United States had pursued rapprochement with China in the 1970s, and established diplomatic ties in 1979. Yet, many rural Mormons persisted in viewing China as a communist enemy, and thought the

Joneses were engaged in missionary work there. J. Talmage Jones received so many letters from friends in Leeds, Utah, inquiring about their assignment to “China,” that he wrote in a letter home in 1980, “A few of you evidently think that we are in China or that

Singapore is a suburb of Hong Kong. Well, there are similarities, but the very efficient and proud Prime Minister…Lee Kuan Yew would be very disturbed if we didn’t tell you that Singapore is strongly opposed to Communism and has no desire to be part of Red

China nor Red Russia nor anything British Colonial.”525

These impressions of Singapore as an Oriental destination located near the battle against communism represented adventure for expatriates looking for new opportunities to stretch themselves. Richard Rands, for instance, applied for the position as the systems analyst for Hewlett-Packard’s newly established manufacturing division in Singapore in

524 G. Carlos Smith, interview by William G. Hartley, Salt Lake City, September 1972. Quotes found on pages 23 and 40 of transcription. 525 J. Talmage Jones, In Singapore and Other Asian Cities (Salt Lake City, Utah: Publishers Press, 1984), 15. 215

1973. He had worked his way up in the corporate computer center at Palo Alto, and reached the point where the company had no other position to promote him to, when he saw the job posting for Singapore. Intrigued by the challenge it posed, he applied for the position, and received it. His wife was equally “delighted” by this chance to travel outside of the United States for the first time, even though she did not know where

Singapore was.526

However, some expatriates had an easier time adjusting to the move than others.

The transition for Rands and his family was eased by Hewlett-Packard’s generous benefits package, which included a domestic helper and a grocery delivery service.527

Other expatriates were not so fortunate. Marianne Walters said that she was “really excited” when her husband received his job assignment in Singapore in 1977. That is, until they landed and checked into a rundown hotel with moldy walls and peeling wallpaper. Exhausted but still hopeful, she waited for her husband to run across the street to buy dinner, only for him to return with food that was “totally alien to us.” The next day, a Singaporean church member took them to find housing, and Marianne discovered that none of the apartments had a Western-style latrine, only squat toilets. It was the last straw, and when she returned to the hotel, she locked herself in the bathroom and told her husband, “I’m not coming out until you tell me I can go home.”528 Despite her initial unhappiness, they found suitable accommodations a few days later, and she gradually fell

526 Richard Rands, “On Being Assigned to Work for Hewlett-Packard Co. in Singapore,” copy in author’s possession. 527 Richard Rands, interview by author, Skype interview, June 19, 2015. 528 Marianne Walters, interview by author, Singapore, November 21, 2015. 216 in love with the country. Expatriates who arrived in the 1980s also did not have to experience the same hardships as the earlier wave of foreigners since Singapore was already quite far along the process of development. Later mission presidents repeatedly observation that Singapore felt like their “home” after their travels around the mission.

Finding the Church was also a lifesaver for some expatriates. Fern Cox and

Marianne Walters both stated in separate interviews that the Church helped their adjustment to Singapore because the Church served as a social space for them to interact with other people who held similar religious values.529 Throwing themselves into their church responsibilities also kept them busy, and took their mind off being homesick. But more than that, it afforded them opportunities to interact with the local people that non-

Mormon expatriates did not have, and having Singaporeans explain and deconstruct the local perspective made their assimilation to Singapore easier. These interactions also forced expatriates to confront their preconceived notions about race. LaVon Smith recalled that when she and her husband first landed at the airport in 1969, she looked at the crowd of mostly Chinese members who came to receive them, and “wondered if I’d ever be able to tell them apart. They all looked alike to me.” A year into her husband’s tenure as mission president, she shared her feelings of apprehension with a local member,

Ho Ah Chuan, and he replied, “You know, Sister Smith, all the Americans look alike to us until we get to know them and to love them.” It was “a great lesson” for her, and she

529 Fern Cox, interview; Marianne Walters, interview. 217 concluded her account by saying, “How true this is. We got to know our people and to love them dearly, and they don’t look any different to us anymore.”530

Expatriates and converts who put forth the effort to engage with each other developed very strong bonds of mutual love and respect for each other. In helping locals adapt to the way the Church functioned, expatriate members saw themselves as an authoritative familial figure (a parent or older sibling) within a Church family guiding younger local members on their new religious journey. This metaphor has roots in

Mormon discourse about Heavenly Father and universal brother/sisterhood, and was reinforced by the age difference between the older expatriates and younger local converts.531 President G. Carlos Smith said that he and his wife quickly discovered that new converts were drowning under the deluge of new information thrown at them, and had to design an introductory twelve-week Sunday School curriculum because “our people were infants; only a month old in the Church…we had to get more elementary with them.”532 Smith’s usage of the words “infants” and “elementary” hints of a paternalistic attitude that borders on racism, but in all fairness, these converts lacked spiritual understanding and maturity, and looked to expatriates put into church leadership positions as their models. Moreover, Smith witnessed that when converts “come into the

Church, [they’re] more or less ostracized from [their] family, from [their] community,

530 LaVon P. Smith, “My Story,” September 1986, p.39. Copy of manuscript in author’s possession. 531 There are many instances of Church leaders preaching that all humans are literal children of God. For instance, see the statement issued by the First Presidency on February 15, 1978 regarding “God’s Love for All Mankind,” just before the priesthood ban for black men was revoked. It said, “Based upon ancient and modern revelation, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gladly teaches and declares the Christian doctrine that all men and women are brothers and sisters, not only by blood relationship from common mortal progenitors but also as literal spirit children of an Eternal Father.” 532 Ibid., p.28. 218 from [their] old habits and customs and so on. [They] make an abrupt and about change.”

533 Church leaders thus hoped that local converts who faced rejection from their biological family would find support and strength from their surrogate Church family.

Other expatriates also used this same metaphor, although they were more tactful and used softer language. Marianne Walters said that she and her husband “tried not to make ourselves a level above anyone else… We were a family, just like all other families…And we loved being with the local people and the expats.” Moreover, expatriates frequently hosted social activities for the young single adults in their spacious homes, further cementing their image as mentors and parental figures.

However, it wasn’t only the expatriates who viewed themselves in such roles; locals adopted the same metaphor to describe their relationship with Mormon expatriates.

What is striking is that they always cast themselves in the less-dominant role of “adopted children” to these expatriates. Fern Cox related that once, a close Singaporean member- friend approached her with the question “What would you call me if I was your daughter?” Cox replied, “Well, I’ve always loved the name ‘Helen’… I’ll probably call you Helen.” To her surprise, that member agreed and began using that English name. Cox later proudly said, “I named her, and I claimed her [as my daughter].”534 Holly also recalled with fondness a “Sister Bacon” who lived in Singapore for twelve years with her husband, and who was instrumental to building up her self-esteem. She had been one of the converts who initially resisted talking to expatriates, afraid that they would not

533 Ibid., p.26. 534 Fern Cox, interview. 219 understand her broken English. However, their patience and kindness won her over, and she came to view Sister Bacon “like my mother…She was always there to comfort me.”535 In both cases, Singaporean members wanted to form family-like connections with expatriate members whom they saw as surrogate church parents. In a society as

Singapore that stresses filial piety as one of its core values, taking on a more subservient position in the relationship was their way of showing their respect and love for expatriate members. Thus, both expatriate and local members found the metaphor of the “Church family” to be appropriate in describing their relationship with each other.

CHURCH CALLINGS

For many converts, joining the Church was, as mission president Carlos G. Smith observed, “a new concept…in a new environment” that could be “overwhelming.”536 Not only were they still growing in terms of spiritual understanding, but the Church also functioned in a manner different from other churches. As mentioned in chapter three, after joining the Church, a new convert was typically given a volunteer church assignment called “a calling” to help him/ her assimilate into the new environment. The duration of each calling varied from a few months to a few years, and ranged from the bishop/ branch president to the Primary teacher. As such, all the liturgy, and auxiliary and

Sunday meetings, were ran by unpaid lay people. Even the sermons, or “talks,” given during sacrament meetings were delivered on a rotational basis by the members, instead of one pastor sharing the sermon every week. Church membership therefore required

535 See also Dorothy Chen, interview by author, Singapore, March 4, 2016. 536 George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, Salt Lake City, September 8-28, transcript 33. 220 continuous learning and active participation, unlike other churches in which “the minister does all the preaching.”537

Since expatriates formed the core group of experienced Church members, they were usually assigned leadership positions in the branch, positions that they might not have been called to in the United States due to their young age. For example, Greg

Gubler was called to be the president of the Singapore branch from January to September

1969 when he was only a young married father on a Fulbright scholarship to

Singapore.538 Similarly, Richard Rands was in his early-thirties when he became a counselor in the district presidency, and tasked with implementing many new programs for the local Church.539 Still, the fact that expatriates took on the higher leadership callings further emphasized the familial metaphor to Singaporeans of viewing expatriates as “parents/ older siblings” whom converts looked up to, even if there was only an age difference of a few years.

However, no matter how much expatriates idealized their relationship with locals, it was inevitable that faint traces of racism crept into their imagination. This was found in the way they talked about the work ethic of local converts in carrying out

Church callings. For instance, Smith said that “some of [the locals] are used to being waited on hand and foot by servants or having mother or someone else do everything.

Now all of a sudden they’re in a Church… [where] every member has a job. We all have

537 George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, 25-6 538 Pang Beng Ling, A History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Journey to Stakehood (Singapore: C.O.S. Printers Pte Ltd., 1997), 28 and 91. 539 Richard Rands, interview. 221 responsibilities…. You have to make some changes in your life.”540 Smith’s condescending comments that locals “used to being waited on hand and foot by servants or…mother” is puzzling since, ironically, the expatriates (including mission presidents) were the segment of the population who enjoyed such a luxury. Most Singaporeans were too poor to be waited on by a servant or even by their parents.

Other expatriates made observations the opposite of Smith’s: Singaporeans, especially the Chinese, copied the same business model of the workplace onto the

Church, and they either misunderstood the temporary nature of all callings, or envied those given positions of authority. Marianne Walters recalled that some members had the attitude that “I’m the president, I will do and I will say and I will dictate,” and were uncomfortable consulting with two counselors (assistants) in their callings. Her husband agreed, and said that in the “dog-eat-dog world” of Singapore, such a system of voluntary service was “not innate to Singapore.”541 J. Talmage Jones noted that the Chinese in

Southeast Asia were “usually resented and generally disliked” because they “have the most money” and “expect to be first in line.” Then with his usual satirical humor, Jones added, “There are only a few Jews in Southeast Asia; the Chinese make them feel uncomfortable and inadequate.”542 Humorous racism aside, both Jones and the Walters felt that the Chinese in Singapore found it harder than other races/ nationalities to accept the way the Church rotated callings because the Chinese always want to be at the top.

540 George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, 25-6. 541 Lionel F. and Marianne Walters, interview by author, Singapore, November 21, 2015 542 J. Talmage Jones, In Singapore and Other Asian Countries (Salt Lake City, Utah: Publishers Press, 1984), 15. 222

Still, even with such negative views of Asians, expatriate members were impressed by the diligence and enthusiasm in which Singaporean converts took to their callings and soaked up the knowledge they acquired. Richard Rands remembered the young Singaporeans being “hungry” to learn about church history and the Book of

Mormon, and “eager to learn” during the Church’s seminary and institute classes. He also pointed out that non-member parents continued to pressure their member children to stop going to church, and thus the sixty percent retention rate in the early 1970s was a testament of the perseverance of the pioneering converts.543 No doubt there were a few converts who interpreted their “release” from a calling as a demotion, but Lionel Walters also clarified that by and large, most Singaporean Chinese quickly learned to accept that

“one day, you could be a leader of a church unit, [and] the next minute you could be the usher. And nobody got upset with that.”544 Even G. Carlos Smith had nothing but praise for Singaporean Mormons whom he saw making changes to their lives, though he could not escape his racist notions about non-whites when describing the members. “Some of the best Sunday School teachers we have in this Church are in Singapore,” he said,

“They’re capable, they can do things, they are very able, but they have these terrific adjustments to make just like our other people, our Hawaiians, our Tongans545 and others…I’m delighted with the strength that these people exhibit, and how they’ve thrown off the shackles.”546

543 Richard Rands, interview with author, via Skype, June 19, 2015. 544 Lionel F. Walters, interview. 545 For more information about the Church and its racial views of the people in the Polynesian Islands, see Hokulani K. Aikau, A Chosen People, A Promised Land: Mormonism and Race in Hawai’I (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 2012). 546 George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, 27-8. 223

For converts, it was as Smith said, “overwhelming” to speak in public or take up callings. However, it wasn’t that they felt lazy or reluctant to take on these roles, but rather fear caused them to hesitate in moving forward. Anne said that she “felt good” the first time she came to Church, except “when I realized that everybody has to go up and talk, that scared me.” Public speaking scared her so much, she contemplated stopping the discussions. However, she had already gained a “testimony” of the Book of Mormon, and thus could not deny what she learned in Church. Taking on callings was also daunting for those who were already struggling to understand Church vocabulary. Emma recalled her confusion when she was invited to a “fireside,” a less formal church meeting that featured a speaker or presentation.547 “Fireside? You go to [a] fireside?” she thought, “Where in

Singapore [is there a] fire-side [when Singapore is] so hot?”548

In time, however, Singaporeans grew used to the new church vocabulary, and callings became vital in helping them make friends and assimilate into the Church. When

Noah came back to church after a year and a half of inactivity, he asked God to help him fit into the Church and make friends. Shortly after, he was called to be the representative for his branch’s young single adult group, and was in charge of planning activities and reaching out to other members in his age group. Noah felt horribly shy and uncomfortable in the beginning, but little by little, his calling helped him “break the ice,” and he soon made a core group of church friends.

547 The term “fireside” has origins in Mormon pioneer lore when the pioneer Saints would gather round the fire after a day of traveling to relax and socialize. It also has origins in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1933-44 “fireside chats.” 548 Kalai Selvi Nadarajan also said that she struggled to understand the terms “fireside,” “priesthood,” “home/ visiting” teaching when she first joined. 224

Whatever calling they held, Singaporean Mormons recognized that they were at the disadvantage compared to the expatriates, and turned to them for help in fulfilling their responsibilities. Many agreed with Jason who regarded LDS expatriates as “a good resource for us, especially for us Asians without much traditions of Christianity.” Jaime

Lim said that even the expatriate children had more knowledge about the gospel and

Church songs than she did as a new convert. What impressed Singaporeans, however, was the patience and willingness of the expatriates to help them learn the ropes.

Jacqueline recalled feeling “inadequate” as a new convert because “Church-wise, we didn’t know as much as they knew.” Nonetheless, she observed that “as long as you were willing to learn, they (the expatriates) were very loving, they were very willing to share, they were very willing to teach you and guide you.”

But perhaps the most significant takeaway from their callings was the upending of

Singaporeans’ notions about race. Interacting with white people outside of a business setting was an unusual occurrence, and so working as equals with expatriates to fulfill callings took getting used to. According to Lionel Walters, Singaporeans were surprised to “be combined with other people whom you normally wouldn’t be combined with,” but often, the outcome was a revelation for locals as they “[learned] from each other…and you [thought], ‘This works really well. I’ve got an Indian, I’ve got a Chinese, I’ve got somebody else…Eurasian, American, they are all working together on the same concerns…[of] family and progression and education.”549 The Church’s voluntary system of service thus helped locals overcome feelings of intimidation and inadequacy when

549 Lionel F. Walters, interview. 225 working with expatriates, and left a profound impact on Singaporean Mormons such as

Andrew. One of Andrew’s earliest callings was to be the clerk to the District presidency, which was led by “one of the mighty Saints of God,” a local Singaporean named Eddie

Chew550. Chew had rotated through several expatriate men to serve as his counselors, including Ralph Showalter, who held a MBA from Stanford, and Mervin Lewis, who was stationed in Singapore as Master pilot. His counselors were all “very strong and confident and articulate,” and compared to them, Chew’s qualifications seemed paltry. Yet, “once

President Chew spoke, that’s it. Discussion over. Clearly these brethren…recognized the priesthood line of authority. When the district president spoke, that’s it.”551 Witnessing the inner-workings of the interracial presidency laid the foundation for Andrew to understand how priesthood holders, regardless of their race, educational level, or economic status, should perform in their callings. It was a lesson Andrew carried with him as he moved to the States and then to China, and worked with people across racial lines in various callings. Noah also said that because of his interactions with Church leaders, “I didn’t feel intimidated when I meet ang mohs, especially at my work.” In fact, working with expatriates sometimes exposed Singaporeans to white people who would not, to use Mormon lingo, “put their shoulder to the wheel” and “magnify” their callings.

550 Several interviewees spoke highly of President Eddie Chew. One of my favorite stories is that recounted by Mark. Mark was only a teenage recent convert when he was ordained a priest, and placed in charge of coordinating the sacrament. One Sunday, he assigned President Chew, to help pass the sacrament, a duty that Mark didn’t know was usually reserved for teenage priests or new members. Chew did not say anything, and when the time came to pass the sacrament, Chew simply came down from the pulpit, and started bringing the sacrament tray to the congregation. The humility demonstrated by Chew left a very deep impression on Mark, and when Mark became the bishop in his ward, he told the young men the same story to teach them. Sadly, Eddie Chew passed away in 1982. He is survived by his wife, Queenie, and their three daughters. 551 Andrew, interview. 226

For example, Melissa was called to be the Primary President when she attended BYU-

Hawaii, and struggled to work with her haole assistant. “I do not know whether

Asians…take their work more seriously,” she said, “Because…my haole first counselor…sometimes didn’t show up [for meetings].” It can thus be seen that callings and assignments overturned the notion that expatriates were spiritually or morally superior, and diminished feelings of intimidation and racial inferiority for Singaporean

Mormons.

CHURCH ACTIVITIES

Church membership wasn’t all about work and responsibilities, however; Church leaders organized a wide array of activities to help converts have fun and develop a sense of belonging in a more relaxed environment. There was a deep sense of nostalgia among the early Singaporean saints whenever they talked about these activities. They likely agreed with Michael Ang who said that compared to the current generation of

Singaporean Mormons, his generation seemed to possess a higher level of “intensity” and

“energy” when it came to church activities. “Our energy level…our visibility was probably ten times more,” he said, “During our day, we were very visible [at church].” In fact, there were so many church activities that some non-member parents grew concern at the number of hours their children spent at church, and advised them to scale back on their participation.552

552 Jean Loh, interview by author, Singapore, August 16, 2016; Joshua[pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, July 17, 2015. 227

Expatriates fell back on their prior experiences, and organized activities that they enjoyed back home in their home countries for the Saints in Singapore. Activities became opportunities for them to infuse a taste of familiarity into their foreign environment, and teach Singaporeans more about American culture and church history. Some activities were easier to duplicate than others, such as teaching locals to ballroom dance the waltz, square dance, and two-step.553 Members then applied what they learned at the annual

“Gold and Green Ball,” a traditional formal dance of the Mormon community since

1922.554 Learning these Western-style dances was “so hard for them,” Richard Rands recalled, “They just couldn’t get the rhythm, the beat.” Yet, “they tried and they tried…

That was just one of the things that they loved.”555 Indeed, Singaporeans spoke fondly about the dances and balls. Jean Loh said that out of the numerous activities held at church, “the best part were [the] dances. Back then, the dances were so vibrant…we would make special effort on the day of the dance to…go to the salon to do our hair, and wear makeup, wear our best outfits.” Sports, another popular church activity, was easy to organize since the church building had an outdoor basketball court in the back that could be converted into a volleyball and badminton court. Kogen Yuen said that Saturdays at the church were always “very busy” because if there wasn’t another activity scheduled

553 Richard Rands, interview. 554 For more information about Mormons and their dance culture, see Phyllis C. Jacobson, “Dance,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1992), 354- 5. The “Gold and Green Ball” was named after the official colors of the Mutual Improvement Association (MIA), the Church’s program for its youth. The MIA adopted the colors green and gold as their official colors in 1922, the same year the organization held its first “Gold and Green Ball.” In Singapore, the Church organized the Gold and Green Ball for many years, before changing its name to the “Orchid Ball” in the 1990s (after the national flower of Singapore). The Church in Singapore stopped holding this annual event in the 2000s. 555 Richard Rands, interview. 228 for the day, the members would hold basketball and netball tournaments. Yet, despite the busyness, she enjoyed these activities because they were an avenue to make new friends.

Other activities took more creativity to adapt into Singapore’s humid climate, relatively flat terrain, and lack of natural landscape. Thus, when Church leaders organized a camping trip, they had to make special arrangements to camp at one of

Singapore’s undeveloped, off-shore islands (Pulau Ubin). Mountain climbing became jungle trekking, and campers hiked through dense foliage on off-beaten paths, and waded through streams to mimic the “wilderness survival” experience.556 Church leaders also tried to help Singaporeans learn more about Church history through Pioneer Day, an activity in which members in the United States dressed up in nineteenth-century clothing, and pulled wooden handcarts across marked out trails to reenact the Mormon pioneer trek across the Western plains.557 Church leaders were undeterred that they could not replicate the same experience in Singapore, and used their ingenuity to organize the local version of Pioneer Day. They still had the members dress up in traditional American clothing, but instead of pulling handcarts, they taught members to dance traditional folk dances, invited speakers to talk about pioneer life, and cooked traditional American food like sloppy joes. Singaporean Mormons were enthusiastic participants who immersed themselves in the various activities.558 In their minds, Pioneer Day was a fun unique

556 Terence Lim, interview by author, Singapore, June 11, 2016. 557 These pioneer treks continue even in the twenty-first century, and seems to have even been adopted by Mormon youth around the world who live in more land-abundant countries. For examples, see Amanda Taylor and Rhett Wilkinson, “How to Survive Your Trek Experience,” LDS Living, no date, http://www.ldsliving.com/How-to-Survive-Your-Trek-Experience/s/72517 (accessed May 11, 2017). 558 Karen [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, August 8, 2012. 229 event that helped them gain greater understanding and perspective about the lives of the early American Saints, knowledge that they could not obtain from anywhere else.

Sometimes, however, American activities did not translate well into the local culture. Emily recalled that some people thought the Church’s Halloween party was like an “American Hungry Ghost Festival,” and did not want to enter the church premises.

According to traditional Chinese Taoist beliefs, the gates of hell are opened for ghosts and spirits, including that of deceased ancestors, to enter the living realm during the seventh month of the lunar calendar. These spirits haunt the living until their descendants perform a host of rituals and offerings to appease their hunger, hence the name, “Hungry

Ghost Festival.” Due to the similarities between the Hungry Ghost Festival and

Halloween, many investigators felt uncomfortable at the Church’s Halloween parties, and a few even developed “a wrong idea of what we actually believed in.”559 In another instance, President J. Talmage Jones and his wife hosted a Christmas open house at the mission home for all members and their friends to visit. However, most Singaporeans had never been to an open house before, and did not understand the concept that guests “come and go.” As such, Jones quipped that “in this country, they come but they stay. Only the refreshments go.” Furthermore, his wife hung her favorite Christmas wreath for decoration, but in the Chinese culture, wreaths are sent to funerals as a sign of condolence for the bereaved. “Most of the guests stopped their pleasantries upon seeing

559 Emily [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, July 10, 2012. 230 the wreath and quickly pulled out their black armbands, wondering who was dead,” Jones jested.560

There were also instances when expatriate leaders demonstrated racist cultural insensitivity. Vera Jean Jones, wife of J. Talmage Jones, organized the Singaporean missionaries to perform “A Woman’s Place,” a musical based on events that happened in

Church history at Nauvoo, Illinois. Vera Jean threw herself into her role as director, teaching her small band of missionaries to sing, and even arranged for costumes and wigs to be shipped over from the United States. But Vera Jean still felt that the performers did not look enough like the fictional characters (all white people), and so on the night of the performance, ordered what her husband called “the biggest makeup job since Al Jolson and the minstrel shows. But it was in reverse, all brown faces made white.”561 Of course,

Vera Jean harbored no malicious intent when she ordered the “white-face” makeup job; her goal was to simply help the audience enjoy a more authentic experience.

Unfortunately, the method of achieving this effect was, on hindsight, racist and tactless.

What is striking, however, is that Singaporean Mormons did not necessarily recognize the racism of their expatriate leaders. According to President Jones, the play was a rousing success among the audience members. “Vera Jean was toasted and praised,” he wrote, “And for the moment in Singapore white is beautiful.”562 Emma remembered watching the musical when she was a young adult, and her memory focused not on the makeup job, but on how it taught missionaries to perform, and drew visitors to

560 Jones, 131. 561 Jones, 84. 562 Jones, 84. 231 learn more about the Church. Perhaps Singaporean Mormons were young then, and had not yet developed a mature political consciousness, or they shared the same perspective as expatriates who viewed it as a harmless way of enhancing the viewing experience.

Many would have agreed with Tina Khoo who said that she didn’t question the racial dynamics of the Church because “I was young...[and] wasn’t really that exposed a person…[so] I was absorbing and enjoying this exposure [in Church]. I wasn’t complaining, and neither did I have the mindset…or that intellect to question because I was a young girl. I think that intellectual questioning, that is such an American tradition, came [later].” Whatever the reason, Singaporeans did not feel that the expatriates were condescending or racist to them, and instead, they felt that they gained experience and confidence from participating in these performances and roadshows.563

Moreover, the expatriate Mormon community did not always see eye to eye, and disagreed over what activities were appropriate. The Walters started the practice of having a special church service on Christmas day in 1982 to help local members celebrate the day since most came from traditional Taoist and Buddhist homes. Marianne Walters was “shocked to learn” that some American members “[considered] it ‘almost sacrilegious to have anything on at the Church on Christmas Day. It is totally a family day.’” Then, she added in her journal, “Well, in my opinion those thoughts give rise to what Mormons are often accused of—not being Christians.”564 At times, even expatriates found it difficult to communicate with other Caucasians. Fern Cox remembered that she

563 Michael Ang, interview by author, Singapore, July 8, 2016. 564 Marianne B. Walters mission journal, December 21, 1972, Salt Lake City, CHL. 232 could not decipher what one Australian member said because of her accent. When Cox asked that woman to speak more slowly, that woman replied, “Well, Sister Cox, that works both ways.” Cox was surprised to learn that that Australian sister could not understand her either because “I never dreamt that it would be so hard for me.”565

It should also be highlighted that the expatriates did not monopolize the organizing of activities as the local membership matured over the years. The nature of activities started to reflect a fusion of American and Asian culture as more locals helped in the planning process. For instance, the Relief Society held a fashion show in 1985 to commemorate the 143rd anniversary of the founding of the Relief Society. The idea of a

“fashion show” was a distinctly European and American concept, and Singaporean women like Jane said that they “didn’t know what a fashion show was” when they first heard the announcement about it. But the fashion show wasn’t the average showcase of

Western clothing: Church leaders encouraged participants to dress up in various local ethnic costumes as a representation of the worldwide sisterhood enjoyed by members of the Relief Society, and to celebrate the multiculturalism of Singapore.566 In this way,

Church leaders took a Western activity and made it local.

Nonetheless, however “American” or “multicultural” the activity, Singaporean

Mormons were deeply impressed by the effort and extra touches put forth by the expatriates to make the events successful. According to Kogen Yuen, Singaporeans

“don’t put the heart [sic] in trying to make things good,” whereas if the expatriates

565 Fern Cox, interview. 566 Pang, 16. 233 organized a worship, “they would put [a] tablecloth, they put flowers. They really made it good and nice.” And rather than settle for plain water as locals would, the expatriates made “banana-squash” fruit punch that “tasted very nice.” Their examples taught her the importance of “refining” an activity, and putting in the extra effort to make things “good and nice.” In a similar vein, Esther said that she learned from the expatriates to “[not] do a half-past six job.” Once, she was enlisted to learn a Hungarian dance from an expatriate sister for a Talent Show, and not only did that sister teach the group to dance, she shipped over authentic Hungarian costumes for them to wear. Through this experience, Esther learned to “do things with passion…[If] you want to do a dance, do a proper dance, or don’t do [it].” Amy also said that even today, she feels an expatriate should take charge of activities for children because they “have a lot of ideas, creativity to teach the children, and…they [have] the resources.”

If there was one other thing that all Singaporean Mormons enjoyed about the activities, it was the food prepared by the expatriates. Before joining the Church, the only

Western cuisine that most Singaporeans had been exposed to was British food, like fish and chips, and pork chops, and even then, they only ate Western food on rare occasions.

After they joined the Church, however, Singaporean Mormons learned to sup with the expatriates and eat American food. At the top of the list of best remembered food was sloppy joes (most likely due to Pioneer Day), followed by cookies and brownies. Other food that Singaporean Mormons mentioned included spaghetti, casseroles, raw vegetable salad, lasagna, jello, and tuna fish sandwiches. “We didn’t mix with expats…before we joined the church,” Yuen recalled, “So [when] we had things like sloppy joe,

234 brownies…all these were new to us.” Dennis Chai recalled that the first time he ate spaghetti was at a church activity, and he “hated it…I pushed all the tomato aside, I just ate the meat.” Yet, he grew to appreciate spaghetti after eating it a few times. And expatriates were generous in sharing their recipes with members who wanted to learn how to cook these dishes. Many Singaporean Mormon women, such as Grace, said that they “learned how to cook from [the expatriates] all the Western dishes” during Relief

Society homemaking classes.567

But in teaching Singaporean Mormons to eat American food, expatriate Mormons also changed local eating culture and habits. Both LaVon Smith and Kalai Selvi

Nadarajan made the same observation that Singaporeans had to learn how to eat using forks, knives, and spoons, whereas previously, the Chinese would mainly use chopsticks, and the Indians would use their hands.568 Nadarajan also related that she had never heard of the term “potluck” until she came to Church. Despite the foreign nature of eating

American food and using Western cutlery, over time, Singaporean Mormons learned to appreciate such food, and incorporated these recipes into their meals. Hannah, for example, said that her children grew up eating a combination of Chinese and Western food because of what she learned from the Church. If not for the Church, she would have stuck to cooking Chinese food only. Nadarajan observed that Singaporean Mormons retained the concept of “potluck dinners” for Church activities today, although locals adapted the practice and cooked both Asian and Western dishes. Hence, it can be seen

567 Grace [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, March 20, 2016. 568 LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, 1969 October-1972 July, February 10, 1970; Kalai Selvi Nadarajan, interview by author, Singapore, January 31, 2016. 235 that Singaporean Mormons regarded this exposure to foreign foods as a multicultural experience that widened their horizons, similar to how they viewed church activities.

There was nowhere else in Singapore at that time that allowed them to eat and learn how to cook such a wide variety of American food.

The same cannot be said for the expatriates eating Singaporean food, however, as not everyone adjusted to the local cuisine. The curries and spicy dishes were particularly challenging for older expatriates, but posed no problem for young missionaries and expatriate children. Fern Cox said that she just could not understand how her children enjoyed eating Indian curry when she always ended up coughing and crying from the spiciness.569 Elder Roger Baer, who was the sole young American who served in the mission from 1977 to 1979, had little problems eating Asian food. Five months into his mission, he recorded in his journal that Sister Cox showed a picture of the mission force to her friends in Provo Utah, and no one could identify the American. “I guess I must have been eating too much Chinese food,” he wryly observed.570 In contrast, after living in Singapore for six months, J. Talmage Jones wrote that “the food in Singapore is still not gourmet to us, unless we are invited to a fancy restaurant which serves American food.”571 The only thing the Joneses relished eating was the tropical fruits in Singapore.

“The Oriental from S.E. Asia scoff at the idea that Eve tempted Adam with an apple,” they joked, “The fruit that will persuade any man is mangosteen (a sweet tropical fruit with an outer purple shell) and there is little doubt in their minds that Adam could not

569 Fern Cox, interview. 570 Roger Baer, Mission diary, August 6, 1977. Copy of diary in author’s possession. 571 Jones, 26. 236 resist the taste.” Thus, the expatriates had more of a mixed reaction toward the local cuisine, with the younger generation taking to the food better than those who were older.

Perhaps the younger expatriates, like their Singaporean peers, had an easier time embracing change and the multiculturalism of Singapore, while those who were older were more set in their lifestyle.

NON-CHURCH CULTURAL ACTIVITIES

As more expatriates and Singaporeans formed friendships at church through callings and social activities, they also socialized in more private functions and events.

Being away from home did not stop the expatriates from celebrating Christmas,

Halloween, Thanksgiving, and other festivities. Often, they invited Singaporean members to join them in their celebrations. Of all the festivities that Singaporean Mormons picked up from the expatriates, the most popular was unquestionably Christmas. As mentioned in Chapter four, Singaporean Mormons said they felt a warm feeling whenever they went to a church during Christmas time, or heard Christmas carolers, but they knew little about the holiday itself. In fact, it was a shock to the expatriate members to discover that “many people work on Christmas. It’s just another day to non-Christians.”572 The missionaries from the United States were also hit the hardest by homesickness during this period, and struggled to reconcile themselves to the fact that they were not going to have a “White

Christmas.”573

572 G. Carlos Smith, “A Letter to Sue from Carlos,” December 27, 1970, in LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, 1969 October-1972 July, Salt Lake City, CHL. 573 LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, 1969 October-1972 July, December 24, 1969; George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, 34. 237

But for Singaporean Mormons, the Church was the vehicle for them to learn about

Christmas traditions, and they relished participating in Christmas activities, such as caroling. LaVon Smith and her husband were hosting a Christmas Eve dinner for their forty-six missionaries at the mission home in 1969, when the doorbell rang. They opened the door and found about forty members from the branch singing Christmas carols to them.574 Christmas Day was also a popular day for investigators to get baptized, perhaps in symbolism of their new devotion to Jesus.575 Local members learned from the expatriates and started to host Christmas dinners as well, though the food was not a typical American Christmas dinner. G. Carlos Smith recorded that he and his wife were served hot Indian curry at the home of one Indian family, and “orange drinks and goodies,” including a two-thousand-year-old egg, by a Chinese family during their visits to members on Christmas day.576 Some members attempted their hand in cooking a

Christmas turkey, though these attempts were rare because of the exorbitant cost of buying the bird in 1970s and ‘80s Singapore. J. Talmage Jones once joked that his wife had to use her “first Social Security cheque” to buy a turkey in Singapore, and even then, it “required more than the entire amount.”577 Whatever the form their Christmas dinner or celebrations took, Singaporean members soaked up everything they could learn about the

574 LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, 1969 October-1972 July, December 24, 1969. 575 Roger Baer, Mission diary, December 28, 1977; “Celebrating New Life,” Church News, December 29, 1985, 6. 576 G. Carlos Smith, “A Letter to Sue from Carlos,” December 27, 1970, in LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, 1969 October-1972 July. 577 Jones, 130. 238 holiday from the Church, and today, many of them continue their own Christmas traditions with their children.578

Thanksgiving was another American holiday that local members adopted, although it wasn’t as popular as Christmas. In Singapore, Thanksgiving was not a recognized public holiday, and the mainstream Christian churches in Singapore did not spread the message of Thanksgiving with the locals either. Hence, Singaporeans felt little historical or emotional connection to this holiday. Nonetheless, there were Singaporean

Mormons who adopted the practice of hosting Thanksgiving dinner in their families because it was a reminder “of the importance of being grateful.”579 Several Singaporean

Mormons also spoke of learning about the significance of Easter from the Church, though they never went into detail about how they celebrated it. Pongkodi Rajikannu mentioned that she celebrated Halloween, and learned how to decorate her home for the festival from expatriate members. But Rajikannu was more the exception as most Singaporean

Mormons never embraced Halloween. Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter were far more significant for them, and, coupled with their traditional Asian festivities that they still observed (Chinese New Year and Mid-Autumn Festival to name a few), gave them plenty of occasions for celebration.

It took more effort for the expatriates to immerse themselves in the local festivities, not because the festive celebrations were unpleasant, but because expatriates were unaccustomed to the food and rituals which they viewed as Oriental and strange. To

578 Victor and Dorothy Chen, interview; Joshua [psueud.], interview. 579 Tan Chew Yian, interview. See also Pongkodi Rajikannu, interview by author, Singapore, October 20, 2015. 239 their credit, they accepted the invitations of the local members to join in the celebrations, and sampled every new experience at least once, even if they did not like it all. For instance, Pongkodi Rajikannu recalled discussing her arranged marriage in 1972 with G.

Carlos Smith, who was puzzled as to to why she would submit to such an arrangement.580

When she explained that abiding by her father’s wishes brought honor to her family, he replied, “Our church just came to Singapore…but we don’t know anything about the races and religion here. But I will tell you this. You just follow what Moses said…and the first law is to obey our parents, honor your father and mother, so you just do that.”

Although he was still uncomfortable with the practice of arranged marriages, he and his wife attended the wedding, and Smith even gave a brief speech.581 The Smiths also attended the sit-down formal Chinese wedding dinner of a Johnny Ngan, and were the only two Caucasians in attendance. It was customary during a traditional Chinese wedding dinner for the bride and groom to visit each dinner table, and to have their relatives and close friends raise a traditional “Yum Seng” toast to them. The toast is loud and drawn out, and the opposite of a classic, more demure Western wedding toast. When the Ngans stopped at the Smith’s table, LaVon recorded that “they didn’t quite know what to do.” LaVon immediately raised her glass and asked, “Johnny, don’t we get a

Cham Sing (Yum Seng)?” Once the wedding party heard that, “that was all that was needed. They about raised the roof. From then on we were in.”582 It was easy for

580 Barbara Leitch Lepoer, “Family, Marriage, and Divorce,” ed. Singapore: A Country Study (Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1989), http://countrystudies.us/singapore/ (accessed May 18, 2017). 581 Pongkodi Rajikannu, interview by author, Singapore, October 20, 2015; LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, 1969 October-1972 July, February 12, 1972. 582 LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, 1969 October-1972 July, February 7, 1972. 240 expatriates to adopt the more minor and practical aspects of Asian culture as well, such as the practice of taking off shoes at the doorway.583

More often, the expatriates just did not know how to react what they witnessed, most notably when it came to Asian funeral procedures. Upon passing a Chinese funeral service the night before, Elder Baer wrote in his journal that “The Chinese surely have a strange way of having funeral services…Rather different beliefs.”584 A new convert invited President Jones to conduct a Christian funeral service for his father, after his siblings and relatives had performed the traditional Buddhist rites for the deceased. Jones said that watching the Buddhist rituals felt like “a stranger coming to a Jones family gather—if you are not related you are amazed.”585

Still, it is clear that Singaporean Mormons took to Western culture and holidays better than the expatriate members did to local festivities. By the time the Smiths celebrated their third Chinese New Year in Singapore in 1972, LaVon wrote that “it’s getting to be old stuff.”586 Perhaps the difference lies in the intent of the expatriate

Mormons to spread American religion, business, and culture in Singapore, rather than as visitors to immerse themselves in a true multicultural experience. Moreover, they were only in Singapore for a few years before they moved on to their next assignment, which diminished their investment in learning about the local culture. Thus, they entered

Singapore with an already prejudiced view of the balance of power and culture hierarchy,

583 Jacqueline [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, July 29, 2015. 584 Roger Baer, Mission diary, October 22, 1977. 585 Jones, 16-18. 586 LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, 1969 October-1972 July, February 15, 1972. 241 which affected the direction in which knowledge was exchanged between them and the locals.

MISSIONS

“Singapore? Where is that?” was probably a common thought that raced through the minds of Caucasians who received their mission call to the Southeast Asia/ Singapore

Mission. Once they located the tiny island on the map, their next likely thought was, “Am

I going to survive?” Indeed, G. Carlos Smith observed that many of his young missionaries “[heard] a lot of false stories before they [came] out here,” and were

“frightened to death that the communists [were] going to get hold of them” or that they were going to be eaten by cannibals. “We have to reassure them that Asia is civilized…they have their governments and their laws,” he said, “We tell them, ‘Look, you’re in a civilized country; there’s no one going to eat you; you’re not going to be boiled tomorrow morning in the pot.’”587

Although Church leaders reassured the missionaries that they were not going to be cannibalized, they motivated young Elders to work hard by locating their role within the larger Cold War context, and encouraged missionaries to view themselves as contributing to the greater First World effort of fighting against communism. The Southeast Asia

Mission handbook, written by President Smith, taught the Elders that “the Communist powers are actively seeking to destroy the governments [in Southeast Asia] which respect law, order and individual rights…Your presence as a mission is a significant force in the future of these countries. The message you bear is the only thing that can and will bring

587 George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, p.35 and 49. 242 peace to the world.”588 And if the Elders weren’t inspired enough, the mission handbook also Orientalized Southeast Asia as “the mysterious East” which once produced “many great religious philosophies and schools of thought,” but which now had “degenerated to animism and superstitious traditions.”589 “You are the only means by which the people of these nations can hear the gospel,” the handbook continued, “You hold their eternal salvation in your hands. Be single-minded in your call.”590 By imbuing their role as missionaries with a greater political and social significance, Church leaders hoped that the young Elders would better appreciate their calling, and take their role as emissaries of

God more seriously.

It is difficult to ascertain if the first group of Elders imagined themselves as crusaders against communism as the President Smith hoped they did, but there is evidence that they did Orientalize and infantilize Asians. In the February 1971 issue of

Echo Asia, the mission’s monthly newsletter, the editor printed several cartoons illustrating the woes of mission life. One of them (Figure 4) featured a pair of Elders in

Western suits and ties, crouched down to speak to a boy dressed in traditional Chinese clothing, and his hand clenched a large kite with an angry face imprinted on it. One of the

Elders held a basketball in his hand, and the caption read “Hey kid, wanna learn how to play Basketball?” The kite and the basketball were symbols of the two clashing worlds of traditional Chinese beliefs, and the Western world/ Mormonism respectively. In offering to teach the young child to play basketball, the Elders wanted him to release the childish

588 Southeast Asia Mission, Missionary Handbook (Singapore: Acme Printers Ltd, 1970?), 5. 589 Ibid., 5-6. 590 Ibid., 10. 243 kite, or his Asian traditions, and step into the modern Western world via Mormonism.

Perhaps the imprinted angry face on the kite represented the opposition to the missionaries and their message.

Figure 4: Cartoon in February 1971 Echo Asia

On that same page, another cartoon showed two Elders standing inside a store manned by a smiling Chinese man dressed in traditional Chinese clothes (Figure 5.3). The caption for that image read, “…Er...ah…do you carry peanut butter?” The contrast in dress between the missionaries and the store manager, and the hesitant tone of the missionary in inquiring about the peanut butter, conveyed the idea that the Elder felt uncomfortable in his surroundings. Perhaps the cartoons were meant to provide some humor for the

Elders to laugh at themselves. However, the two images provide clues that the Elders viewed their mission environment as foreign and Oriental, and that they had a responsibility to introduce Asians to Western religion and culture.

244

Figure 5: Second cartoon from Echo Asia

Still, it is hard to blame the Elders for their callous attitude toward Asians, given that they were only in their late-teens and early-twenties. Their missionary training in

Utah failed to equip them with the proper tools or knowledge to understand and properly contextualize the local culture, and so their acculturation to the environment took place while out in the field, with only their mission president and companions as their guides.

Chapter four on conversion also established that young Singaporeans were attracted to the Western world, and since Singapore had a minority Caucasian population, speaking to a white person was a novelty. This mindset contributed to the sense of patriotic pride felt by the Elders whenever people spoke to them by virtue of their race and nationality. Elder

Baer, for instance, noted that “it is funny how other people from Singapore look up to

Americans.” He and his Singaporean companion were at a dinner with a local sales 245 manager who worked for Singapore Hilton, and “merely for the fact that I am American he took to me. These people always think that Americans are born leaders. America is a great place to be from.”591

Moreover, mission presidents also stressed to their missionaries to be respectful of local customs and traditions. President Smith cautioned his missionaries that they were

“guests of the country…we must always remember that and be grateful for all that we have and are not to throw our weight around.” Even when they encountered devout persons of another religious faith, such as Buddhist monks, the missionaries had to

“respect the monks.”592 In cases where the ignorance of the missionaries landed them in trouble, mission presidents allowed them to suffer the consequences of their actions, such as when two Elders were arrested and jailed for a few months in Thailand for taking pictures of them sitting atop a statue of Buddha. Miller F. Shurtleff was serving as the mission president then, and instead of bailing them out, he had the Elders serve out their jail sentence.593 But such examples were rare; for the most part, the Elders made genuine effort to meet and understand people. Even if they were culturally illiterate and interpreted their surroundings through an Orientalist lens, they still made friends and met success.594 As Smith observed, it usually “doesn’t take [the Elders] long to learn to love the people. When it’s time to go home, they don’t want to go.”595 Overall, the attitude of the expatriate missionaries toward the local people and culture can be characterized as a

591 Roger Baer, Mission diary, September 29, 1977. 592 George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, 33-4. 593 Southeast Asia Mission, Southeast Asia Mission manuscript history and historical reports, 1969-1978, CHL, Salt Lake City. 594 George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, 34-5. 595 George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, 34. 246 tangled ball of racism, an indomitable spirit about their mission, and a genuine love and concern for the people they taught.

Singaporean Mormons who served missions naturally had a different perspective from their expatriate peers (Figure 5.4). Of the fifty-five interviewees, twenty-one of them (nine males, twelve females) served fulltime missions as young single adults. Some were motivated by the examples set by their friends, and the encouragement of their

Church leaders, even if they were not particularly enthusiastic about serving. Others were like Joshua who said that “the main reason would be I felt the Church is true, and I had been blessed abundantly, and I wanted to share this message with others.” And yet others experienced something similar to Stephen Lai who said that “something within me told me that it’s the right thing to do.” Amanda said that she was motivated by all the above listed reasons: her friends, Church leaders, a desire to spread the gospel, and a feeling that she should go. Certainly, expatriate missionaries had the same motivations as

Singaporeans in deciding whether to serve a mission, but the difference between them and locals was the way they viewed the people they were assigned to. Since the communists had been largely eradicated in Singapore by the 1970s, the Cold War never factored in to the decision of the Singaporeans to serve. Neither did they view their fellow countryman as “Oriental” subjects in need of Western civilization and religion.

Instead, being a missionary was about stepping up to the plate, and spreading the universal message about God and his gospel with Singaporeans at a time when the government only allowed in one American missionary.

247

Figure 6: Picture of the Singapore Mission, 1978. The four women were the first female missionaries in Singapore. The only American missionary was Roger Baer, standing fourth from the left. Photograph courtesy of Roger Baer.

Local missionaries acknowledged that foreign Elders, especially those who came from Western countries, had an easier time approaching people because of their race.

Joshua explained that “there is a certain level of novelty…when you see an American, ang moh and so forth. You want to talk to him or her, find out more.” Christina Chan agreed, and said that “Singaporeans are always more interested in someone who is different.” Nonetheless, even if expatriates found it easier to attract the interest of

Singaporeans, there were advantages for Singaporean Mormons called back to their own country. For example, Tan Chew Yian noted that her expatriate companions “could not differentiate between the Malays and the Chinese,” and as a result, approached many 248

Muslim-Malays.596 Teo Choon Seng said that “being a Singaporean…I could empathize with [locals] more” whenever he had lessons with investigators. Dennis Chai likened being rejected everyday by Singaporeans to “a prophet…without honor in his own country.” Still, Church members often invited him and his companions to their homes for meals because they knew him personally, and wanted to support him.

Expatriate missionaries also experienced homesickness and yearned for the comforting feeling of home, problems that local missionaries did not face. In as much as

Elder Baer had no problem adjusting to the local food, he missed being in the company of

Americans. “Last night we went over to Brother Napoleon’s apartment for dinner,” he wrote in his journal, “I really enjoy being with Americans for a change. It makes me appreciate my own country more after working with those people.”597 President Smith also said that the Elders were shocked by the tropical climate of Southeast Asia, and it took them awhile to get “oriented to the fact that they’re not going to have seasons. It’s not ever going to get cold.”598 In contrast, Singaporean Mormons could return home periodically, and were used to the climate. However, they faced their own unique set of problems that expatriate missionaries did not, such as overcoming cultural misconceptions about missionaries. Just as Andrew’s mother and aunt thought that he was going away to become a monk for the rest of his life (see chapter four), Christina

Chan’s mother thought she was going to be a nun. Around the time that Elizabeth applied

596 As elaborated in Chapter one, most Malays in Singapore were Muslims. Due to the sensitivity of converting from Islam to another religion, the Singaporean government strongly discouraged Christians from proselytizing to Malays. 597 Roger Baer, Mission diary, April 7, 1977. 598 George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, 34. 249 to serve a mission in 1979, the newspapers published an unfavorable article about the

Moonies in Singapore, and created a furor over the sect. When Elizabeth’s mother heard that her daughter wanted to serve a mission, she thought Elizabeth was running away to join a cult, just like the Moonies, and threatened to report her daughter to the police. A few Singaporean Mormons also recalled that it was difficult to give up their job to serve a volunteer mission, not because they missed the money, but because their parents relied on their income to support the family.599

Furthermore, local missionaries did not have the same experience and knowledge as expatriates, and faced a steep learning curve on the mission. Before Holly went on her mission, a sister missionary had warned her to “not expect the mission [to be] a bed of roses.” However, Holly had barely joined the Church a year ago, and only had a rudimentary understanding of the gospel, and the rigor of missionary work. Unable to comprehend the warning given to her, she went into the mission field full of enthusiasm and faith, only to be overwhelmed by the realization of how little she knew. It was a difficult transition into the mission, and she cried many times during the first few months.

Yet, Holly’s experience wasn’t unique to her, since many Singaporeans faced the same problem. “Our faith was there [and] we were obedient,” Chan said, “But I think doctrinally…It’s not like now [where] we have learned all these things, we can teach our children, we can encourage them. At that time, we didn’t have that kind of background.”

Although foreign and local missionaries had to overcome different barriers on the mission, there were two problems that cut across all races. The first was rejection. Even

599 Wong Sai Lim, interview by author, Singapore, August 1, 2015. 250 the novelty of talking to an ang moh did not mean that Singaporeans wanted to meet the missionaries. Elder Baer recorded that he and his companion were “kicked out of one house, and ran into two other negative families” in one evening alone. “At least I know

I’m on my mission now,” he joked, “I was getting worried when all of the things that I was teaching were being accepted so easily.”600

The second problem was that of companions. All missionaries, male and female, had to always be with a companion for safety reasons, and this was a worldwide rule that is still enforced today. Companions were rotated once every few months, and the mission president assigned the companionships. Hence, missionaries were “stuck” with their companion until one of them transferred to another companionship. Not surprisingly, this rule was one of the most challenging aspects for missionaries. One Sister said that she was normally a calm and patient person who hardly blew a temper with her family and friends, but during her mission, the actions of her companions provoked her “evil side

[to] come out.” Adam was also shocked to discover that being good friends before the mission did not mean that his companionship would be successful.

Given that foreigners and locals had such differing views about the local culture and people, it was natural that race factored into the conflicts between some companionships. It did not help that many Singaporean Elders also came on their missions when they were older and more mature because they had to serve out their compulsory two-year military service, or graduate from college before their parents

600 Roger Baer, Mission diary, April 27, 1977; Kalai Selvi Nadarajan, interview; Teo Choon Seng, interview. 251 would let them serve.601 Local missionaries were therefore surprised and annoyed by the lack of maturity of their foreign companions. Two interviewees complained that their

American companions would not clean up after themselves. Another said that he got along very well with one American companion, but his next American companion was very “playful,” and did not come on the mission with the right intention.

Still, companionship problems stemmed from many other factors, and missionaries usually attributed the root of their problems to a difference in personality, rather than race.602 Roger Baer, for instance, struggled with one of his companions because that companion had one month left, and was feeling “trunky” (Mormon slang for a missionary eager to return home, and had already packed his “trunk”), while another had a problem obeying the mission rules. However, Baer got along well with his other local companions. Conversely, Stephen Lai said that he had no problem getting along with his one American companion because “he was quite open and easy to get along with.” It was, instead, harder for him to work with a few of his local companions.603 Most of the sisters also did not have the opportunity to serve with a foreigner, and yet they too experienced companionship problems. Hence, race was but one factor that contributed to companionship discord. Even then, missionaries tried to resolve their cultural differences, such as the time when Joshua’s American companion suggested that they eat ice cream for dinner. Joshua rejected the idea because it was “not proper,” which upset his companion who accused Joshua of being “tense and rigid.” Joshua acknowledged that

601 Teo Choon Seng, interview. 602 Linda Marican, interview by author, Singapore, July 20, 2014. 603 Stephen Lai, interview by author, Singapore, August 18, 2016. 252 eating ice-cream for dinner is not “American” per se, but he said it reflected his American companion’s more relaxed attitude compared to his own more uptight Asian nature.

Looking back on this incident, Joshua said that he learned that “it’s alright to relax [the rules] sometimes,” and that life isn’t “just rules and discipline.”604

It is also unfair to accuse only Caucasian missionaries of possessing a “holier than thou” attitude since Singaporeans had their own racial issues. The problem didn’t stem from inter-racial companionships, but from Singaporeans who had the rare opportunity to serve outside of Singapore. Joshua was one of the local missionaries sent to Sri Lanka for the last four months of his mission in 1995. Singapore was a developed country by this time, and so living in Sri Lanka was a complete “cultural shock” for him. He found everything about the country difficult to adjust to: the food, the language, the “rusty and corroded” public transportation, and even his Pakistani companion. His thoughts about

Sri Lanka probably mirrored those of the Caucasian missionaries who came to Singapore, and experienced their own cultural shock, and feelings of national and racial superiority.

It took some time but Joshua eventually changed his attitude. He was riding one of the rickety trains one day, scoffing at the local Sri Lankans who sat on the dirty train floor, when the thought came to him that he could either keep complaining, or he could learn to live like the people. It was a turning point for him, and right there and then, he sat down on the floor with the people. “It was then…that I had a change of heart,” he said, “I started to love the people the way I should. And they loved me back just very naturally…

That became my best, favorite area [to serve].”

604 Joshua [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, July 17 2015. 253

However difficult the mission was, none of the Singaporean missionaries regretted their decision to serve. Despite the heartache and tears, their mission was a growing experience. If anything, they learned more about themselves, and their criteria for a future spouse. As Mark put it, “The greatest impact [of my mission] …was living

[with] my companions. You can blame your companions for every single thing in your life, or you can just live with it and be happy…Then…when you get married, you know what you like, what you dislike.”605 Emma said that her companions “helped me…improve in my human relationships…Some are good companions, some are…very difficult to get along with, even when you try. So [you] learn to be more tolerant, [to] really love your companions, even though it’s not easy.” The mission also taught Holly how to create a loving home environment for her future family as she grew up in a dysfunctional home. She and her companion lived with an expatriate missionary couple for a while, and the couple treated them “like their children.” Their small mission “family unit” prayed and ate together, and talked through their problems with each other. It left a deep impression on Holly, and “taught me how to set up my own family, how to love home.”

The mission was also a spiritual refining fire that became an “anchor” for their faith, and strengthened their commitment to the Church.606 For example, Dennis Chai said that it was during his mission that he gained his “testimony” that the Church was true. He had applied to serve a mission only because his friends and church leaders had

605 Amanda also said that being with her companions helped her “[learn] how to be with your future husband when you get married.” 606 Elizabeth, interview; Terence Lim, interview. 254 encouraged him to do so, and was deeply shaken when he encountered anti-Mormon material for the first time during his mission. That drove him to search within himself if he truly believed in Mormonism, and after careful study and prayer, he gained that conviction for himself. Holly shared that her mission drew her closer to God because she saw His protecting hand over her life. She and her companion once came home to find a man in their bedroom on the second floor. For some inexplicable reason, instead of panicking, a sense of calm descended upon her as she escorted the man out of the home, which she attributed to God. Even when he put up a little resistance, she calmly pulled him along and insisted that he leave. Once she turned the latch on the door to lock him out, however, she immediately vomited from the emotional after-shock. This, and various other incidents on the mission, strengthened her faith in God. “I learned to pray more on the mission,” she said, “I got to love the scriptures more… And [I know] how the Lord protects you, how the Lord takes care [of you], how the Lord will prompt you.”

Aside from being a faith-promoting experience, missions also helped Singaporean

Mormons develop more secular life skills, such as teaching Emma “to be more self- confident, [to] organize my time [to] study and all that.” It was through serving a mission that Linda Marican realized that she wanted to major in social work in college. And for

Joshua, who served in Sri Lanka for four months, and Indonesia for two, living outside of

Singapore was an eye-opening experience that taught him to “see things very differently” through “the lives of very different people.” Singaporean missionaries also developed an emotional resilience that helped them weather through future life storms. “What I learned

[from my mission] is that ‘This too shall pass,’” Christina Chan said, “At that time,

255 certain things seemd challenging and difficult, but now when I look back…the challenges that you [face], it’s alright, they will pass.”

However, the most satisfying reward of the mission was seeing the fruits of their labors, not just in their investigators, but in themselves as well. As discouraging as it was to be constantly rejected, Teo Choon Seng said that he never forgot the feeling of happiness that came from teaching and baptizing his investigators. Even today, he still gets that “positive feelings” whenever he reads his mission journal. Holly shared that it was a “sweet feeling” when she learned that two of her converts had remained active, and even sent their children on LDS missions. But the person who changed the most was

Holly herself. Growing up, Holly always struggled with low self-esteem. Then, she went on a mission and “completely changed. I [learned] that I’m a child of God, I’m not junk. I knew that God had a plan for me. From there, once your perspective changes, your whole idea [about yourself] changes. The way you believe, the way you act…It really changed me.” Holly’s mission turned her life around, and she became more outgoing and confident, which in turn helped her in her future employment and family relationships.

Little wonder she declared that her mission was “the best mission.” Indeed, the mission changed the lives of other Singaporean Mormons as well, and taught them lessons that shaped the rest of their lives. They too would have likely echoed Holly in claiming that theirs was “the best mission.”

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY AND LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES

Aside from their interactions with the expatriates in Singapore, Singaporean

Mormons also had the opportunity to live in the United States through a Church-

256 sponsorship program called the “Grant in Aid” that allowed members from lower-income families in developing countries to attend college at the Church-affiliated Brigham

Young University-Hawaii (BYU-Hawaii). As a developing nation in the 1970s and

1980s, Singaporeans qualified for this program. The Church paid for their tuition and board, and gave them a stipend to live on. In return, students worked part-time (twenty hours per semester, forty hours during the summer break) on various campus jobs, that ranged from the school custodians, and grounds keeping crew to teaching assistants, and office administrative assistants. Students were also expected to return to their home country upon graduation. For many Singaporeans, the sponsorship program was their golden ticket to obtain a university degree because, as Jason explained, “at that time

[there] was only one university here, so it was very hard to get into the university.” The alternative was for him to attend college in England, but “the [English] pound was so strong [that] I couldn’t afford to go to England.” Terence Lim said that he realized too late that his polytechnic diploma, the equivalent of a vocational certificate, would not be competitive enough in the workforce for him to get a well-paying job to support his family. Since his results weren’t good enough to qualify for Singapore’s university, the only “foreign university…within my pocket, dollar reach was BYU-Hawaii.”

Of the sample group of interviewees, twenty-four people attended Brigham

Young University-Hawaii, three of them transferred from the Hawaii campus to the main campus in Provo, Utah, and five interviewees were directly accepted into the Provo campus. One interviewee did not study at BYU, but lived in Provo when her husband was a student, and one other person worked in Hawaii for a year to be with her sister who was

257 studying at BYU-Hawaii. Nine of the interviewees also lived elsewhere in the United

States (California, Connecticut, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Texas) for graduate school or work, before they returned to Singapore to put down roots.

When Singaporeans got accepted into BYU, their non-member families supported their decision to leave Singapore because, as Karen recalled, “in those days, it’s a big thing” to study overseas. But the initial excitement turned into apprehension when they touched down in the United States. Everything felt foreign. Christina Chan likened the move from Singapore to Hawaii as going from a “vibrant city” to “some village,” and said that she did not like Hawaii in the beginning. Similarly, Kelvin said that when he toured the campus, he “wasn’t impressed” by it, nor did he like the food, and he wanted to take the next flight home. Going to Provo wasn’t any better, as Stephen Lai said that

“everything was quite new, quite big, as well as [adjusting to] the weather, and I had to learn how to cook and do everything on my own. So to some extent, it was an adjustment.”

But once Singaporeans acclimated themselves to their new environment, they had a “fun” and “fantastic” experience there.607 Singaporeans were astonished that they could pick their classes, and arrange their own class schedule, and this gave them the flexibility to schedule their required hours of work around their classes.608 Most professors also assigned grades based on an accumulation of points throughout the semester, a contrast to the classes in Singapore in which grades hinged on one final examination.609 It was a

607 Dennis Chai, interview. 608 Victor Chen, interview. 609 Karen, interview. 258 refreshing change to Singaporeans, like Dennis Chai who said, “At BYU, they emphasized on learning, and the process of learning. Can you imagine, I failed an accounting [examination] and yet I passed?... Unheard of in the local system. But because they emphasize…your participation in class and all that…even though you failed the exam, they passed you because of those reasons, which was very encouraging.” Those who went to BYU-Hawaii also had fond memories about their interactions with their professors, more than those who went to BYU-Provo, but this was likely because, as

Chan explained, the campus only had 2000 students, so “lecturers knew you personally…[and] they were really nice to us students.” Moreover, Singaporeans were bowled over by the variety of classes offered by the school. Both Kelvin and Dennis Chai were astonished that students could take classes in surfing, horseback riding, modern dance, and theater, classes that were “just for fun,” and still receive university credit. In allowing students to explore these leisure activities, both Kelvin and Chai agreed that the educational system at BYU was “more all-rounded” than that in Singapore.

Yet, even with all the fun, they still managed to do well in school. Many of them commented that they felt surprised to receive “As” in their classes, and it helped them to

“[not] feel stupid like in Singapore.”610 Before Audrey went to BYU, she did not have the confidence that she would be able to be competitive for scholarships. “I still had that mindset about ang moh being better off than us,” she recalled, “Then [when] I went there,

I realized, ‘Hey, no leh611, I can actually study!’…I realized I had that capability to…do

610 Linda Marican, interview. 611 This Singlish term has no meaning, and merely emphasizes the “no” in front of it. 259 well, even at school…. I realized at that moment, I’m not stupid!” Students who attended

BYU-Provo were held to a higher academic standard than their peers in Hawaii, and were not always successful in obtaining scholarships (though some did), but they also found class discussions “a lot more engaging than in Hawaii.”612

At the same time, Singaporean Mormons felt a sense of satisfaction from being able to study and work at the same time, even though it was not easy to balance the two.

Terence Lim “topped a lot of [his] classes” at BYU-Hawaii, but he found it difficult to

“work four hours a day, hold eighteen credit hours613…and it got harder after marriage and the first baby came along. It got harder. But still, I graduated cum laude.” In fact, working part-time helped Singaporeans be more appreciative of their education, like

Karen, who worked as an administrative worker for the department that oversaw the financial records of the students. Through her job, she learned how much it cost the

Church to sponsor the many international students at BYU. Yet, the Church always wiped away any outstanding payments owed to the school every year, as long as the students worked their stipulated hours and remained in good standing with the Church.

Her experience only drove home to her that “the Church really helped to educate us [and] gave us the opportunity to grow.” Lim said that he learned many life lessons as a poor, married, and working student, and grew “more resilient” and honest.614 Most significantly, he learned to be more empathetic and respectful of those of a lower social

612 Amy, interview. 613 Each major class averaged three to four credit hours, while the minor classes ranged from half to two credits. 614 Lim shared that a few of his schoolmates cheated on their examinations because they desperately wanted to earn a scholarship. Lim vowed to himself that he will remain honest, and “pay my tithing, and then…we hope that the blessing will open the window [of heaven] faster.” 260 status. Hence, even today, when he sees the cleaners in his office, “I will always talk to the cleaners. Why? My wife was a cleaner [at BYU] …We remember what it was like to be poor.”

Those who went to BYU-Hawaii enjoyed an exceptionally multicultural experience that Victor Chen described as “enriching.”615 This was unsurprising since students came from about sixty-six different countries, and roommates were usually assigned by the school at random.616 Thus, Singaporean Mormons roomed with classmates from the continental United States, the Polynesian Islands, and Asians from other countries. It was eye-opening to have foreign roommates and classmates, and be immersed in the Hawaiian culture, such as the time that Amanda’s congregation organized a real-life luau, from the hunting of the boar in the forest to the underground cooking of the animal. It was also at BYU-Hawaii that Janet met her Fijian best friend when they roomed together, and dated men of various ethnicities and nationalities

(Hawaiian, American-born Chinese, Fijian, and haole). In mixing with people from all over the world, she said, “I came to know many different cultures that I was not exposed to before I went there.”

Of course, it wasn’t always fun and comfortable when confronted with another culture and lifestyle. Karen said that she had a “culture shock” when her roommates had no compunction walking out naked after a shower, and they teased her by stealing her clothes when she showered to force her to walk out naked as well. “I tended to be more

615 Victor Chen, interview. 616 Dennis Chai, interview. 261 reserved. I’m not wild like them,” she explained. She also found them to be untidy (“their beds [were] full of clothes, and their makeup’s all over the place”), while Singaporeans were more “neat and tidy,” and Asians were more studious because “we’re there to seriously study… [and have] a second chance to make good in our life.” Yet, these incidents helped her “to be more open,” and she described her relationship with her roommates as “close” and “so much fun.”

What took even more adjusting was the Polynesian culture of communal living and family sharing, which Polynesians took to lengths that flabbergasted the unprepared

Singaporeans. Mark said that the Polynesians “expected you to live like them as a family

[where] you share everything with them, and they will share everything they have.” This was not a common practice in Singapore, and thus, Mark was shocked when he returned home from class one day to find that his Polynesian roommate had eaten his rice. When he confronted his roommate about it, the latter merely offered Mark breadfruit in return.

Emma said that it was “upsetting” in the beginning to find “[her] food gone” when she went to cook a meal in her dorm kitchen because her Polynesian dormmates had eaten it.

However, “they were also generous, [and told her] ‘You want to eat? Eat my food also.’”

She also found Polynesians to be very different because they “liked to speak loud and they liked to sing. They were very happy people…Not like us Asians, very quiet…. [So] we learned from each other’s culture.” Jaime Lim agreed with Emma’s assessment, and said that it took her time to get used to the fact that her Polynesian friends entered her room and took her things without permission because it was “not stealing to them” but

“sharing.” Still, she said they were “big-size with big hearts.”

262

Those who went to BYU-Provo did not experience as much multiculturalism as those in BYU-Hawaii because the student body population was predominantly white.

This was obvious to Singaporean Mormons who were able to go to both campuses, such as Margaret Lau who recalled that when she was at BYU-Hawaii, she “didn’t feel much adjustment because over there, it’s such a mix [of races]. Whereas when I went to BYU-

Provo for a summer…I could feel [the difference] because you see a lot of people who were white.” Nonetheless, even though they stood out more in terms of their race,

Singaporeans were still about to adjust to living in Utah because, as Judy explained, “the people were very nice.” Kalai Selvi Nadarajan also said that she “didn’t have a problem assimilating there” because being from “a multiracial society in Singapore” helped her be open to other cultures.

It comes as no surprise that attending a Church school boosted the gospel knowledge and understanding of Singaporean Mormons. Students were required to take religion classes as part of their General Education requirements, and the school invited speakers (Mormon and non-Mormon) to give weekly “devotional” talks and frequent

“firesides.”617 Singaporean Mormons all agreed that the religion classes and speakers helped their “testimony” flourish, like Amy who said, “I [studied] earnestly, read a lot of church books. So I would say that my testimony and my foundation grew leaps and bounds in BYU.” There were other spiritual benefits to living in the States, such as having access to Mormon temples, which Singapore did not have. Many Singaporeans

617 Jason said that when he was a student, BYU-Provo invited two non-member Nobel Prize winners from England to give a presentation at BYU, and so were a few Protestant and Catholic speakers. “Lots of learning experiences that we can garner if you are keen into looking for them,” he said. 263 recalled that being able to visit the temple frequently was one of the biggest “blessings” of studying at BYU.618 Gary also shared that living in Provo, Utah, the central hub of

Mormonism, helped him better “learn…how the Church functioned [and] the leadership.”

His wife, Judy, agreed, and said that when they lived with the Coxes in Provo in 1973 to

‘75, she frequently followed Fern Cox to visit people since Cox was the Relief Society president of her congregation. Judy had only been a member for a few years, and seeing how Cox administered her calling broadened Judy’s understanding about the Relief

Society. “It was always ‘food for this person, food for that person,’” Judy mused, “[But] I learned what is compassionate service. Before that, I didn’t know [of] such things.”

However, as Singaporean Mormons matured in their gospel knowledge, they also realized that not all non-Singaporean members interpreted Church teachings the same way that they did, or were as faithful in keeping the commandments. This was a major shock for this first generation of converts who had high expectations about expatriate members. Dennis Chai said that he appreciated the expatriate members in Singapore more after going to BYU-Hawaii because they “definitely helped paved [the way] for

[us]…And they were so good that when we went overseas, we realized that the members were not…they didn’t know as much as what they were supposed to know when they served, or the things that they needed to do or as committed.” Terence Lim remembered that he “got the shock of his life” because he had “anticipated that being brought up in the church, they would be on a higher spiritual plane than I could get to…But I saw things that shocked me badly,” such as people who lied to their bishops about surfing on

618 Judy, interview; Linda Marican; Victor Chen, interview; Jane, interview. 264

Sunday. Jane recalled confronting a person in her congregation who stole her pajamas with a distinctive Singaporean pattern, and yet, the thief denied it. It made her “angry” that something like this happened on the “church’s grounds.” Another interviewee shared that she was “very, very disappointed and discouraged” with some of the interactions she had with the professors and students, and found them to be “hypocritical.”619

Singaporean Mormons also reported experiencing racism by church members, with some being discriminated more severely than others. One interviewee who attended

BYU-Hawaii said that “generally, there’s no friction,” but she had the impression that the

Caucasians and Polynesians viewed the Chinese as “calculative people,” while Linda

Marican said that it wasn’t that she didn’t get along with her schoolmates, only that “I felt that they didn’t understand me.” Elizabeth made clear that the majority of students she encountered at BYU-Provo were “very accepting and were really your friends,” except for the “one or two percent” of students whom she felt were “very subtle” racists. Jason experienced more overt racism at the same campus. He remembered that a few of his co- workers “made fun of [me]…they used hand gestures to talk to you or made fun of your small eyes and things like that,” but for the most part, he did not feel discriminated against.620 Then, there were instances when Singaporeans experienced outright racism, such as Andrew who recalled that his first bishop at BYU-Hawaii treated him with contempt, and Andrew believed that it was due to his race. He kept his thoughts to

619 Jane [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, March 4, 2016; Julie [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, May 3, 2016. 620 Linda Marican, interview by author, Singapore, July 20, 2014; Elizabeth [pseud.], interview; Jason [pseud.], interview. 265 himself until he returned to Singapore, and spoke to other members who attended the same congregation at BYU-Hawaii, and they confirmed Andrew’s suspicion that the bishop was indeed racist toward Asians. And of course, Caucasian Mormon racism wasn’t confined to the BYU campuses. Christina Chan remembered that when she lived in Las Vegas, her family was the only Chinese family in her congregation, and “there was some racism, even though we were members of the Church, but we were not looked on very kindly.” Tan Chew Yian also said that as one of the only two Chinese members in her congregation in Connecticut (the other being her husband), she felt “a bit left out and excluded,” and found it difficult to “blend in” at times, although she still made good friends with the members.621

Seeing the negative behavior of the members in the United States was a learning moment for Singaporean Mormons, and changed their perception of Caucasian Mormons who came from “pioneer stock”: not all of them were devout members or accepting of people of other races, despite the gospel teaching that all people were of equal worth in the sight of God. Going to BYU made Singaporeans realize that, as Mark put it, even if the “majority of the people held the same values, [this] did not necessarily mean that everyone [honored] the same standards. And you just have to accept each individual has their freedom of choice.”622 Therefore, the behavior of expatriate members outside of

Singapore changed Singaporeans’ notion that Caucasians were spiritually and morally superior. Just as working with expatriates in callings leveled off a racial hierarchy that

621 Christina Chan, interview; Tan Chew Yian, interview. 622 Mark [pseud.], interview. 266 placed whites above locals in terms of gospel knowledge and behavior, so too did living and interacting with American members in the United States. Singaporeans realized that they were more faithful and devout in keeping the commandments than some American members.

Still, the interviewees also stressed despite the negative experiences, they also witnessed “many people who were on a higher commitment and spiritual plane than

[they] could hope to be.”623 Adam recalled that when he was a student at BYU-Hawaii, he and his wife once ran out of money before the month was out because of an emergency, and he went to his boss to ask for an advance payment of his salary. A few hours later, his boss told him to return to his apartment, where he found his boss’s daughter waiting in her car filled with food for his family. “They were just very good to us,” he said, and he learned a valuable lesson about “being kind and good.” Tan also had a “wonderful” time in Connecticut, where her husband was studying at Yale for graduate school, and found the members to be “not only smart academically, but they were so spiritual. They were so balanced.” Through their examples, she learned that “we can be secular but at the same time, spiritual too. All these members used their spirituality to help in their temporal achievements. It’s just amazing.” Her husband agreed, and said that it was his first exposure to members who had “strong liberal, progressive views” and yet were “well-grounded in the gospel.”

Overall, Singaporean Mormons took away from their experience at BYU and living in the United States “good memories” and “some of the best years of [their]

623 Terence Lim, interview. 267 life.”624 “I won’t say it was easy,” Adam said, “But looking back, I wouldn’t have traded it for anything.” Being able to survive and thrive in a foreign country gave them a confidence boost to the self-esteem, as it did for Audrey, who shared that “I always thought that I was so stupid, I cannot make it [to BYU], and even though I made it, they just pang chan (Singlish for “giving a second chance”) me because I’m a member or return missionary.” Yet, she did well enough to earn a scholarship, start a family, and contribute to her church congregation. “I managed to be at BYU, I was a student, I held a church calling, I’m a wife, I’m a mother…and I’m not sure what others roles I took on,” she recalled, “But I was able to take on all these roles, and still be active in church, and it was at that moment…God helped me get that confidence to know that if I can make it through BYU, I can make it through life.”

Still, as much as they enjoyed their time in the States, they returned to Singapore to raise their families and put down roots. Part of their reasons for doing so was because of the expectation from Church leaders that they would go back to Singapore upon graduation. Gary said that he “never entertained the idea of staying” because “we went there with a purpose. When we were there, the Church was…mindful that [they] will help you to become better in understanding the Church so that you can go back and serve.”

And, as Christina Chan reasoned, “we are not needed there (in the United States) …They have plenty of members.” Others were driven more by other circumstances, like Amanda who worked for the Sequoia National Park in California after graduation. She wanted to remain in the United States, but developed muscle spasms in her arms. When her injury

624 Christina Chan, interview; Emma, interview. 268 began hindering her work, she had no choice but to return to Singapore for treatment, and she mused, “when I came back, I [was] okay straightaway.” Kelvin, Jason, and Stephen

Lai returned because of “family responsibilities” and their duty as sons to take care of their parents. And at the end of the day, whatever their reasons for returning to Singapore, they shared the same feelings as Andrew, who said, “Why would I want to be second- class there (in the United States)? ...You will always be second-class because racism is there.” In contrast, Singapore, “it’s home.”

CHURCH VERSUS CULTURE

There is a consensus among Singaporean Mormons that interacting with expatriates at social functions, on missions, and in the United States, shaped their thinking and behavior, and set them apart from other Singaporeans. Terence Lim’s colleagues often remarked to him that “You are not like an average Singaporean. You speak Singlish like us; you go to the army like us, but you are not the same like us.”

Although the Church was not the only source of Western culture in Singapore, the

Church accelerated for local members the process of “Westernization” (defined by the

Oxford English Dictionary as “to come under the influence of the cultural, economic, or political systems of Europe and North America”).625 Michael Ang who said that “living in a country like Singapore, it’s inevitable that it will open up to the world. In terms of better living and better technology, the Western world is leading… But I would say the

Church sped this up for me… I’ve become a ‘Western person’ sooner because of the

625 "westernize, v.". OED Online. June 2017. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/view/Entry/227916?redirectedFrom=westernize (accessed June 19, 2017). 269

Church.” Even members like Jason, who were already well-versed in American and

British literature and thought before their conversion, said that the Church “accentuated

[their] Western lifestyle.”

By and large, local members agreed that this Westernization was a positive change because the exposure to a different lifestyle gave them more options to choose how they wanted to live their lives. As Teo Choon Seng explained, “I just absorbed whatever was good, even if it came from a Western [source]. If it’s not good, then of course I would reject them.” Jacqueline said that she didn’t discriminate between Chinese or Western culture, and “liked to take the best out of both.” One member commented that

Church teachings sometimes improved more negative aspects of the local culture.

Compared to the “Jesus Christ culture…there’s a lot more selfishness in the Asian culture,” he said, and gave the example of how Asians tended to be reluctant to help strangers, whereas “the Savior will stop and he would perform…dedicated assistance.”

Michael Ang also said that he picked up the values of “honesty, friendship, loyalty” from the Church, virtues that non-members also practiced, but his church membership

“allowed these values to grow better.”

Singaporean Mormons also felt that the Church filtered what they regarded as the more negative aspects of Western culture, which Leonard Woo said included “hippie- ism, [the] drug culture, anti-government [sentiments] and so forth.” Therefore, even though the Church transmitted Western culture, “it’s…the better part of Westernization.”

Elizabeth admitted that the Church has Westernized her, but she too said that the Church helped her maintain “a high standard of moral values” that prohibits pre-marital sex and

270 cohabitation, and adultery, things she regarded as more negative aspects of Western culture.

Of the many examples that Singaporeans cited to demonstrate how the Church

Westernized them, the most common one was that of the expatriate Mormons teaching them to be more expressive of their feelings. Regardless of how ill-informed the expatriates were of local culture, their open affection for the locals, coupled with their generosity, endeared them to the Singaporean members. “We came from families that were not very expressive with feelings,” Christina Chan explained, “But the Americans were very expressive. They will hug you, and they were…like our fathers and mothers.

And so that…made [me] feel comfortable when I went to church.” Both Jean Loh and

Claire agreed that the expatriates were also generous with their resources, and “always

[extended] invitations [and] kept their homes open.”626 When Claire got married, she and her husband did not have the means to hold a traditional wedding dinner at a hotel. An expatriate member opened his house for them to use as the venue for their wedding dinner, while another expatriate member who worked for automobile company BMW, loaned her a car for their wedding party. Gary remembered that when he and his wife went to BYU in 1973 for graduate school, the Coxes allowed them to stay in one of the bedrooms in their house, even though the Coxes had five children, and “treated us like one of their children.” Even though it has been more than forty years, Gary and his wife still remember their generosity and kindness. In fact, the expatriates were so expressive and warm that Noah said it took him some time to get used to their openness.

626 Jean Loh, interview by author, Singapore, August 16, 2016. 271

The examples of the expatriates changed the family dynamics of Singaporean

Mormons, and made them more expressive of their love to their families. Jaime Lim said it was due to the Church that she and her husband “can say openly to our children ‘I love you.’ ‘Mom and dad love you.’ You hug, you know. That is not the Asian culture.” Even men, like Victor Chen, said that they were more comfortable with expressing their love through words now than before they joined the Church. “[In] Asian culture we don’t really express very much, or show our appreciation,” he explained, “But when we came to church, [the leaders] always said [that] you should show appreciation to your wife, express your love and all this.” Although “it didn’t come very easily,” he made a cognizant effort to create a home environment that allowed his family to feel comfortable saying “I love you” to each other.

Singaporean Mormons also learned from the expatriates to be more encouraging and confident in expressing their views. One of the things that Karen admired the most about the expatriates was “their positive outlook in life. They are so positive. They are so encouraging. They see things differently.” Terence Lim said that when Singaporeans attend a show, “what do we do? We just clap, clap, clap, then we stop…But if you are

American, they cheer, cheer, cheer, ‘bravo, bravo, bravo,’ ‘encore, encore, encore.’ So

[that’s] the difference, [they are] more encouraging.” Interviewees also reported that even the simple gestures, such as giving others a “firm handshake” or a “high five,” were new to them, but these gestures made them feel welcome at church.627 It was also through the examples of his classmates at BYU-Hawaii and at church meetings that Mark said he

627 Michael Ang, interview; Terence Lim, interview. 272

“learned…to open up, and voice out what I felt, to say what I…needed to say.” Esther observed that “Asians are always so withdrawn,” and it was because of the Americans that “a lot of Asians, the Singaporeans, we learned from them [to speak up].”

The one issue that Singaporean Mormons strongly disagreed with Western culture was the issue of children leaving the home upon reaching the age of majority. To be clear, the Church did not have an official position on this issue, but some local members felt that expatriate Church leaders encouraged children to leave the home when they became an adult, as children from the United States were prone to do. In this, Anne took the Church’s counsel of independence and self-reliance, and interpreted it in a different way. Instead of emphasizing the independence of her children, she said that she wanted to be independent from external caretakers, and self-reliant on her own family. “I would like to stay with my children,” she said, “The Church teachings…promote self-reliance, but it doesn’t mean that you have to leave your parents, and leave them alone, right? ...You don’t expect people to take care of your parents, [so] you as children, you have to take care of your parents.” Other members were like Jacqueline, who said that “it’s the

Chinese culture” for the children to stay at home, “whereas the ang moh is [when you are] eighteen years old, you go.” Even though she did not like this counsel, she learned from the Church to “let go” of her children and allow them to become independent, but she also counseled them to return after a few years. Thus, she melded both her Chinese and Western/Church culture together in an equilibrium that still gave her children independence without them permanently leaving the family.

273

It can thus be seen that Singaporean Mormons were Westernized through the

Church. However, they also emphasized that Church teachings reinforced the positive

Asian values they were raised with. According to Gary, the Church did not “detract or dilute” from his Chinese traditions, while Lee Pheck Leng said that “I still hold on to

Asian values” but “the Church has all these Western values that may improve on whatever I have that is existing, so [they] complement [each other].” Most interviewees also mentioned that they continued to celebrate the traditional Asian holidays, such as

Chinese New Year, the Dumpling Festival, and the Mid-Autumn Festival.

However, the most oft cited example by the interviewees of Church teachings and

Chinese culture aligning together was that of the Church’s and Biblical mandate to

“honor thy father and thy mother628,” which harmonized with the core Asian value of filial piety. Perhaps this was to be expected, as Tan Chew Yian explained, “[the] Church, our beliefs, the Plan of Salvation is all about families…So…the gospel helps to strengthen some of our Chinese practices and traditions.” Stephen Lai said that the gospel

“added value” to his Asian heritage, and did not “subtract or dilute Asian values…like filial piety. We always honor our parents.” In fact, Vivian said that it was through the

Church that she “learned how to appreciate my parents more, and also appreciate my ancestors more.”629

It helped that the Church had no fixed policy on how members should demonstrate their “honor” for their parents, which gave local members the ability to

628 Exodus 20: 12 (KJV). 629 Vivian [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, August 25, 2016. 274 interpret and adapt the commandment to their local circumstances. This flexibility allowed members to carry on certain Asian traditions that other Church viewed as “un-

Christian,” and reduced the conflict with their non-Christian family members. For instance, as mentioned in chapter four, the Church did not take an official stance on holding joss sticks, and thus, some Singaporean Mormons refused to hold joss sticks, while others agreed to do so as a mark of respect to the traditions and culture of their parents. After all, as Dennis Chai reasoned, holding joss sticks is merely an external ritual, and “the most important thing is your heart…your heart is where you believe the gospel, you have God, you have Christ.” Lee Pheck Leng said that she still held joss sticks at her grandmother’s funeral because “I love my grandmother. I just wanted to…give my respect to her.” She also ate the food offered on the altars of the traditional

Chinese gods because “it’s food to me…I say it’s not going to affect me spiritually.”630

And even though Margaret Lau did not believe in geomancy as her mother did, she complied with her mother’s wishes, and moved homes on the “auspicious” date calculated by a geomancer. “I don’t think it’s giving up anything,” Lau said, “We just [do it] out of respect for her, and [to] let her have a peace of mind.”

But filial piety did not only pertain to the living; it extended to the dead, and explains the Chinese practice of ancestor worshipping. Singaporean Mormons said that they did not worship their ancestors, but the Church’s emphasis on family history helped them cultivate a similar respect for their ancestors. The Church counseled its members to

630 Vivien also said that she would “still eat” the food put out by her Taoist parents for the gods because “in my heart, I [still] believe there’s only one god and one Jesus Christ….It doesn’t affect me at all, not even the least.” 275 trace their genealogy and because ancestors can be “sealed” to members just as a traditional nuclear family is sealed together. This doctrine thus lined up with traditional reverence for ancestors, and motivated Singaporean Mormons to seek out their family history. Jason remembered listening to his parents tell him stories about their lives in

China, but the Church added value to their words because “[the Church] taught us about family history, and emphasized knowing our ancestors.” Anne’s father was a Taoist medium who resisted his daughter’s attempts to tell him about her Church. However, when she started to ask him about their family genealogy, he was amazed to find out that she did so at the behest of her church. “Where is this church from? Why do they [seek out the genealogy]?” he asked. Although he was surprised, Anne recalled him being “very happy to know that I’m actually interested to find out [about] our ancestors,” and told her all he remembered about his hometown in China.

There were times when expatriate church leaders failed to comprehend the centrality of filial piety in the lives of the Chinese, and were unsympathetic to the struggle that members had between keeping the commandments and being filial. This came to head over the issue of “filial money.” In the Chinese culture, retired parents expected their working children to give them a percentage of their monthly income, called “filial money,” as a repayment for raising them. From the perspective of local members, this money was a way for them to demonstrate their filial piety. “It’s just to show your parents that you honor them,” Christina Chan said, “Of course, you cannot equate love with money, but…even though you can’t pay back whatever they have spent on you…[it] shows that you appreciate them, you know that they have sacrificed for

276 you.” Jacob Soh agreed, and said that “it’s tradition. Every kid has got to earn your income and then help your parents…even if they don’t need it… [you do it to] show appreciation, gratitude to them.”

The tradition of giving filial money astonished expatriates, especially those from the United States who grew up valuing individual independence. A county newspaper reporter interviewed the Coxes when they returned to Utah, and the three things the reporter noted about Singapore was the necessity of building high-rise apartments; children “do not have play space on ground level”; and “in the Orient, parents retire at 55 and their children pay a percentage of their wages to them every payday.”631 Church leaders openly expressed their disapproval of this practice, which they viewed as an encouragement for the older generation to be lazy and unnecessarily dependent on their children. In an interview he gave to a Church historian after his return from Singapore, G.

Carlos Smith said, “Can you image that? That’s a tradition; that’s what’s expected. If you have children, these children are supposed to keep you, take care of you so at forty, forty- five, you can retire and just sit around, play mahjong and drink or smoke cigarettes.” As such, when new converts approached him, and told him that they could not afford to pay their tithing because they had to support their family and their parents, he advised them to

“[cut] down on what they pay mother,” not realizing that doing so went against the local sensibilities of filial piety.632 Because Smith and many other expatriates did not fully understand the local culture, they misinterpreted this practice of paying filial money.

631 “Cox family returns with Singapore tales,” Emery County Progress, August 31, 1978, 5. 632 George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, 28. 277

Whereas locals felt that this practice demonstrated their respect and love for their parents, and was a way of keeping the Biblical commandment to “honor thy father and mother,” expatriates viewed it as detrimental.

Instead, Singaporean Mormons found it more difficult to be filial whenever family events fell on Sunday, which was the day designated by Mormon leaders as the

Sabbath. Because Latter-day Saints regard the Sabbath to be a day of worship and rest from work, members were to refrain from all leisure activities, including birthday parties and weddings. But Singaporean Mormons were caught in a dilemma when their non- member families organized family events on the Sabbath. They tried to change the date of the event, but if they were unsuccessful, they would still attend “because it’s a family gathering.”633 Local members also felt that their culture was far more respectful of the elderly than the Church’s teaching to honor their parents. For instance, Singaporean

Mormons disagreed with American parents who allowed their children to call them by their first name. Tan Chew Yian remembered that when she lived in the United States, her toddler daughter started to call her by her first name after observing other children from church nursery calling their parents in the same manner. At first Tan thought it was

“cute,” but when her daughter kept doing it, Tan immediately told her “it’s not right.”

Karen also enforced the rule that her children had to call their older siblings and relatives according to their appropriate family ranking, as is customary in Chinese culture. Thus, her youngest daughter had to call her older brothers “大哥” (oldest big brother) and “二

哥” (second big brother), and conversely, they called her “妹妹” (younger sister). When

633 Christina Chan, interview. See also the interviews of Victor and Dorothy Chen. 278 they went out, and met an older man or woman unrelated to them, they would address that person as “Uncle” or “Auntie.” Under very few circumstances could her children call their elders by their first name. This practice was something that Karen felt the Church

“did not really have much to say on…All they do is [say] respect your elders, honor your parents.”

There was also a local church leader who remarked that leaders at Church headquarters needed to be more sensitive to local circumstances, citing the time when he had to return to church for a meeting during Chinese New Year. He said that such meetings would never take place during Thanksgiving, for instance, and so there were

“subtle areas of cultural church imperialism.” But he acknowledged that in general,

Church teachings “aligned” with his Chinese culture.634 When Elizabeth was asked if she felt that Church leaders at headquarters understood their Asian members, she replied “In some ways no, in some ways yes. In some ways I feel that they might not quite really understand the way we do things. But in [other] ways, they are inspired, right? So they cannot go too far wrong…I mean…when you talk about God’s values…it [is] applicable to everybody.” Thus, for Elizabeth, even though Church leaders did not understand the details of her culture, she still felt that she could trust the general gospel truths taught by them because of their universal applicability.

Overall, Singaporean Mormons felt that the Church did indeed Westernize them, but not in ways that were detrimental. Rather, being able to interact with Caucasians allowed them to pick and choose what they deemed were positive aspects of both their

634 Jason, interview. 279 native and Western cultures. From the expatriates, they learned to be more open in their expressions of love and opinions, and to be more encouraging of others. From their own culture, they retained the virtues of filial piety and sexual morality, virtues that they felt the Church promoted as well. In their minds, they were getting “the best out of both.”

It should be highlighted that although the Church broke down barriers between locals and expatriates, the subtle racial tension among the Singaporean Chinese and

Singaporean Indians remained. As mentioned in chapter one, the C.M.I.O. race model imposed by the Singaporean government made every race equal in theory, but other state policies reified an underlying bias that favored the majority Chinese over the Malays and

Indians. The general population of Chinese therefore gained a certain sense of superiority over the other races, and as one interviewee observed, “they want to be the Masters here.”

Did such attitudes about the Indians carry on in the Church in Singapore? It is difficult to make an accurate assessment since there are very few Indian Singaporeans in the Church, and only two of the interviewees were Indian. Their responses, however, hints that Singaporean Mormon Chinese treated the Indians the same way as the general population. One interviewee said that she “felt alone” because as one of the few Indian members, “it would be nice to know how we can adjust as Indians in the Church [but] right now, I have to figure [this] out [by] myself.” Still, she said that “as a Singaporean, almost anywhere I go, I’m also a minority, so it’s not…the Church.” The other Indian interviewee was harsher in her assessment of her treatment by Chinese members. For example, Chinese members sometimes lapsed into Mandarin Chinese or the dialects in

280 their group conversations, and she had to remind them to include her. Yet, there was a

Chinese member who had no qualms telling her that “you cannot talk in your language

(Tamil) because you are in Church. You must talk in English.” And in one instance, the daughter of a local Chinese bishop ran up to her and told her that “Indians are black and dirty people.” “I think that was the worst thing that had happened,” the interviewee said,

“[The children] are not being brought up, they are not being taught.” It can thus be seen that Indian Mormons in Singapore felt alone, or worse, discriminated against, among the majority Chinese membership. Though these instances were rare, they existed. It wasn’t that Chinese members did not welcome Indians to their church family, but their treatment of Indians hints that the Church changed their notions about race when it came to their interactions with fair-skinned expatriates, but not for their fellow Asians of darker skin.

While the Church leveled the racial hierarchy between whites and Asians, it did not do the same for the unspoken racial hierarchy among Singaporeans.

Nonetheless, both Singaporean Mormon Chinese and Indians were impacted by their intercultural exchanges between the foreign and local Mormons. In the minds of the local converts, expatriates were white, Christian, and brought with them Western cultural elements. Singaporean Mormons inevitably crossed the racial line that divided

Singaporeans and expatriates when they converted to Mormonism and adopted some

Western cultural practices. The Church became a space that taught Singaporean

Mormons Christian values and doctrine, while concurrently helping them learn more about Western culture, and overall, Singaporean Mormons felt enriched by these interactions.

281

Living in Singapore taught expatriates more about Asian culture and people.

Those who made the effort to reach out to the local members returned to the States with fond memories, and luggage packed with memorabilia from Asia.635 But since they came to Singapore as a more privileged class of people and were there for only a few years, the direction in which knowledge was shared tended to be a one-way street that flowed outward from them to the locals, and not as much in the reverse. As such, expatriates were not always accurate in their assessment of the local culture, and were inadvertently clumsy, even racist, in the way they spread American culture abroad. Still, Singaporean

Mormons felt that they benefitted from working with and learning from the expatriates.

Whenever the Coxes, Walters, and other expatriates returned to visit Singapore in the

1990s and 2000s, the Singaporeans threw “welcome back” parties for them. And whenever Singaporeans traveled to the United States, they always made it a point to visit their expatriate friends.636 One Singaporean couple even held their wedding reception at the home of the Joneses in Utah, demonstrating the close relationship between the two parties. The familial metaphor that undergirded the expatriate perspective was reciprocated by Singaporean Mormons who viewed them as surrogate “parents” in their new Church family.

635 I interviewed Nannette “Nan” Smith, the daughter of G. Carlos and Lavon Smith, in 2014, and she showed me a large wooden trunk that her parents made for her in Singapore. Nan used the trunk to store all the photographs and souvenirs from Asia. 636 For instance, see Claire, interview; Jacqueline, interview. 282

CHAPTER 6: RECONCILIATION

Church membership Westernized Singaporeans through callings, activities, missions, and educational opportunities, and these intercultural interactions shaped the dynamics of their families, and reinforced certain traditional Asian values. This chapter continues an analysis of the impact of Mormonism on Singaporeans, but shifts the spotlight on how the Church shaped their understanding of gender roles, and family formation. Most of the interviewees married other Mormon converts, and started having children in the 1980s and ‘90s. This chapter examines how Mormonism shaped their ideas about patriarchal authority, gender roles, parenthood, and, for a small segment of the interviewees, singlehood.

In discussing the relationship between religion and gender for Singaporean

Mormons, I engage with scholarship that reevaluates the power and agency of women within patriarchal religious institutions. The surge of religious conservatism in American politics has spurred a new wave of scholarly interest in religion in twentieth-century U.S. history and women’s history. However, as historian Kathleen Sprows Cummings observed, historians have not yet confronted the difficult question of “where to place women who were part of patriarchal traditions” because most are “reluctant to see that

283 women could also have power within a patriarchal structure” (such as churches).637 The exception seems to be those who study the history of African American women.638 Other scholars have also made significant forays into understanding how religious women exercise power under patriarchal religious structures, including those who examine

Mormon history, but these works are still few and far between.639 This chapter contributes to this burgeoning conversation, even as I shift the perspective away from the dominant Eurocentric viewpoint. Instead, I analyze the complex and sometimes contradictory ways Singaporean women (and men) applied Church doctrine to advocate for greater autonomy within their marriages and in religious settings. I also suggest this case study proposes another way to discuss the relationship between women, patriarchal authority, and religion.

PATRIARCHAL MALE AUTHORITY

Through the culture and the examples of the elders in their families, the first generation of Singaporean Mormons grew up accepting differentiated gender roles, and hierarchical marriage relationships as the de facto status quo. Men were the breadwinners

637 Kathleen Sprows Cummings, New Women of the Old Faith: Gender and American Catholicism in the Progressive Era (North Carolina, USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2009), 3. 638 For instance, see Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, Righteous Discontent: The Women’s Movement in the Black Baptist Church, 1880-1920 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1993); Nell Irvin Painter, Sojourner Truth: A Life, A Symbol (W.W. Norton & Co, 1997). 639 Debra Renee Kaufman, Rachel’s Daughters: Newly Orthodox Jewish Women (New Bruinswick and London: Rutgers University Press, 1991); Lynn Davidman, Tradition in a Rootless World: Women Turn to Orthodox Judaism (University of California Press, 1991); Mary J. Henold, Catholic and Feminist: The Surprising History of the American Catholic Feminist Movement (North Carolina, USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2012); Kristy Nabhan-Warren, “Little Slices of Heaven and Mary’s Candy Kisses: Mexican American Women Redefining Feminism and Catholicism,” in The Religious History of American Women, ed. Catherine A. Brekus (North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), 294-317; Kate Holbrook and Matthew Bowman, eds., Women and Mormonism: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 2016). 284 and heads of the households, while women were the inferior sex, and relegated to overseeing domestic housekeeping duties. Most interviewees indicated that their mothers were housewives, and if they had to take on jobs to supplement their husband’s income, their jobs were more “domestic” in nature, such as clothes washing, and tailoring. It was also a common sight for their fathers to be “always the one making decisions” while their mothers “listened.”640 Moreover, if a woman failed to give birth to a son, “the mother-in- law [would] say it’s her (the daughter-in-law’s) fault,” even if “it was [actually] the son’s fault.”641 One interviewee remembered that her mother was “bullied,” and considered of inferior status to her husband’s second wife because her mother could only conceive daughters, while the second wife had four sons.642

Sons were also valued more than daughters and granted more opportunities to attend school since they had to “make the living and [take care of] the rest of the family.”643 In contrast, parents expected daughters to do the household chores. Amanda took over the housekeeping duties after her father passed away, and her mother had to work full time, even though Amanda had an older brother. “Last time, they always thought that girls must work at home,” Amanda said, “My mom didn’t ask my brothers to do [chores]. She only asked me.”644 Kelvin and Janet coincidentally shared the same story that both their grandmothers always gave the chicken drumstick, considered the

“better part of the meat,” to their grandsons, but not the granddaughters.645 It did not

640 Margaret Lau, interview. 641 Amy, interview. 642 Jaime Lim, interview. 643 Gary, interview. 644 Amanda, interview. 645 Kelvin, interview; Janet, interview. 285 matter if the daughter was born first among the children. Audrey was the oldest child in the family, and yet, when her father passed away when she was still young, her younger siblings were “not so keen in listening to me” because “I’m not the oldest boy in the family.”646 It is true that younger sons received less preferential treatment if they grew up in large, poor households, such as Mark and Terence Lim, both of whom had to contribute to the housework while their parents and older siblings worked.647

Nonetheless, the general culture of patriarchy prevailed in most Singaporean households, and thus, Singaporean Mormon women grew up believing that they were inferior to men.

Being a member of the Church transformed the way these women thought of themselves. The doctrine that they were daughters of a Heavenly Father boosted their self-esteem because, as Melissa explained, “when you realized you are a daughter of

God, everything was possible if you made up your mind to improve yourself… [God] will help you reach your full potential.”648 This knowledge became an “anchor” for

Kogen Yuen during the hardships in her life because “whatever storms that came, I could still stand up high.”649 It also helped Esther derive self-worth outside of a career. Before she joined the Church, she described herself as “very ambitious...life was about…being at the top of the [career] ladder…And if I [carried] on that path…I would be fighting with all the guys out there, and be upset because a certain CEO position was given to a man

646 Audrey, interview. 647 Mark, interview; Lim, interview. 648 Another interviewee, Christina Chan, said something similar. When asked if her faith affected the way she viewed herself as a woman, she said “Definitely, because I know that I am a daughter of Heavenly Father, and I know that I’m a child of God. I also know that I have this potential to be better, to be like God, and so that helped me [in the way] I looked at myself as a woman. 649 Melissa, interview; Yuen, interview. 286 just because I’m a woman.” However, after she joined the Church, she stopped feeling like she had to prove herself through her career because “I’m a child of God and I’m equal, and…if I keep the commandments, he will love me just as much as he loves the prophet.”650

Other women felt that holding church callings built their self-confidence, especially when they were assigned to serve in leadership positions. Christina Chan, whose callings over the years have included being her congregation’s Relief Society president, and Sunday School teacher, felt that “these callings to lead, to teach…helped us [as woman] to grow and to feel good about developing our talents, our abilities…to have opportunities to be leaders…whereas outside [of the Church] …not everyone has that kind of responsibility…And it…builds up your self-esteem.”651 Many interviewees also said that when they were single women, the expatriate families and the way expatriate Mormon men treated their wives served as positive models of how a marriage should function. Karen grew up in what she called a “male-dominated type of family” in which her brother took over as the head of the house after her father passed away, even though they had a sister who was older than him. Although her brothers doted on her, she didn’t feel “exactly equal to the male” either. But at Church, she was astonished to find the expatriate sisters educated, “poised,” and even though they were “outspoken,” their husbands “allowed [them] to speak.” Their examples helped her “learn the true meaning of equality, man and woman,” and she vowed that she would “be this kind of a woman

650 Ether, interview. 651 Chan, interview. 287 where I had a say in the family, not behind the man, but at the side of him, and the man

[would] respect my views… That was very important to me.”652

However, the Church didn’t only change the women, but also taught Singaporean

Mormon men to curb their patriarchal tendencies as well. The Church’s teachings on the role of men in the home up to 1990s can be summed up in a speech to men given by Ezra

Taft Benson, then president of the Church, in October 1987 to the men at a worldwide conference. Fathers had “two basic responsibilities,” he said. The first was to “provide for the material needs of your family,” and the second, to “provide spiritual leadership in your family.” As the leader of the home and a priesthood holder, however, Benson cautioned that their model for male leadership was Jesus, who did not use “a harsh or unkind hand,” or “force or coercion to accomplish His purposes.” In the same way, husbands were to “love your wife with all your heart, you cannot demean her, criticize her…or abuse her,” and “be loyal and faithful to her, to communicate with her, and to express your love for her.” And even though a husband was “the patriarch” and leader of the family, he should “recognize [his] wife’s intelligence and her ability to counsel with

[him] as a real partner regarding family plans, family activities, and family budgeting.”

Finally, Benson emphasized that the rearing of children wasn’t reserved for mothers, but fathers too had an “equally important role…in nurturing, training, and loving their children,” and he even gave ten suggestions for how fathers could play a more active role in their children’s lives.653

652 Karen, interview. 653 Ezra Taft Benson, “To the Fathers in Israel,” Conference Report (October 1987). 288

Therefore, Church leaders taught the men that they were the head of the household, just as traditional Asian culture dictated. The difference, however, was in the way men should treat their wives and children. Unlike traditional Asian households in which the husband made all the decisions, while the wife “listened,” Mormon men were to regard their wives as “real partners” in all matters, and love and respect her. These teachings impacted the lives and behavior of Singaporean Mormon men. Gary credited the Church and its curriculum for teaching “men what [they’re] supposed to be. To me, without the priesthood [classes], we will all be lost” because “they set the standard for how I should behave, what is my role as a [leader] of the family, how I should treat my spouse, my children…even my neighbors.”654 Terence Lim also said that witnessing “the lives of the apostles [and how] they didn’t treat their wives as if [the wives] were under their feet” became the model for him to emulate in his marriage.655 It was through Church teachings that Leonard Woo learned that the true measure of a man was based on “his character and his role (as a husband and father)” rather than the way “the world defined a man more [for his] strength.”656 Many had similar thoughts to Noah, who said that “In the world, when you talk about being a man, you…talk about being dominant, you are the head of the household,” but “the Church taught different. As a man, you…needed…to love and cherish the relationship you had with your wife and your children.”657 Michael

654 Michael Ang had similar thoughts about the impact that Church curriculum and leaders had on him, when he said, “I feel that the ladies of the Church are respected by men. There’s never in any organization, be it a company or workplace or NGO or school, where you find so much emphasis given to the male members, the Priesthood holders to make sure that they respect the women, our children, our daughters, our mothers. And every Sunday we are reminded that we must do this.” 655 Lim, interview. 656 Woo, interview. 657 Noah, interview. 289

Ang also said the Church taught him to prioritize his family over his career, and to “be an honest employee, but [to go] home [after work] and take care of your family.” If not for the Church, he might have been a “stereotypical” Chinese man who drank and womanized after work, and rationalized that he could do so “because you were doing this for the interest of your job, your career…[to] bring more money back home to feed the family.”658

More significantly, Singaporean Mormon men learned to value the opinion of their wives, and consult them in decisions. Even as heads of the household, they learned that they were “not the one [who] controls everything.”659 Several interviewees said that they used to think that manhood meant being “the stronger sex and [being] macho,” but because of the Church, they realized that it was more about treating their wives as “equal partner[s], [treating] them with respect.”660 Joshua learned that “wise husbands consulted their family members, listened to their feedback before making a decision…[and] husbands and wives [should] try their best to make a united decision.”661 Dennis Chai even joked that in his marriage, “I made all the large decision, [my wife] made all the small decision. [Since] there were no large decisions, she made all the decisions.” But he added, “We do discuss and we come to a consensus when we make a decision.”662 Jason also felt that the men in the Church were not as chauvinistic compared to “some of my

658 Ang, interview. 659 Teo Choon Seng, interview. 660 Kelvin, interview. 661 Joshua, interview. See also interviews for Victor Chen made similar remarks. 662 Chai, interview. 290 relatives” because “we were taught to respect [and] love our wives…[so] we tend to give way to our wives, defer to our wives…in the decision making and things like that.”663

The use of the words “equal partners” by several Singaporean Mormon men stands out because Benson did not use these words to describe the role of husbands and fathers, and made clear that men were the leaders of their families. In fact, the Church’s curriculum for men before 1990 hardly used these two words either. Although the manuals taught men that “there is nothing in the teachings of the gospel which declares that men are superior to women,” priesthood lessons alluded to, but were not explicit in directing men to treat women as their equal partners.664 The use of the phrase “equal partners” by Singaporean Mormon men was thus puzzling, and there are two possible explanations for this. First, the Church had a contradictory position on righteous patriarchal authority. In some instances (like those mentioned above), Church leaders reiterated that men presided over their families. Yet, as far back as 1943, Church apostle

John A. Widtsoe already taught that men and women were “equal in opportunity, privilege, and rights…In the Church of Christ, woman is not an adjunct to, but an equal

663 Jason, interview. 664 “Lesson 27: “Teaching You Sons to Honor Womanhood,” A Royal Priesthood, 1975-6: A Personal Study Guide for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Deseret Press, c. 1975), 92-5. I also consulted the following manuals for the men: Aaronic Priesthood/ Adults: Priesthood Advancement Seminar Series A (Salt Lake City: The Presiding Bishopric, c. 1969); Aaronic Priesthood Young Men Handbook (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1977); Gospel Doctrine Volume: Selections from the Sermons and Writings of Joseph F. Smith, a Course Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorum (Utah: First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, c.1971); He That Receiveth My Servant Receiveth Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1979-80 (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1978); Come unto Christ: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1984/1988 (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, c.1986); Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part A (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1980). 291 partner with man.”665 Benson himself spoke in a worldwide Church conference address in

1984 that “fathers are to preside…[Mothers] are to be helpmates and are to counsel with their husbands. There is no inequality between the sexes in God’s plan. It is a matter of division of responsibility.”666 Therefore, Church leaders taught Mormon men to be the patriarchal authority in their families, and yet to regard their wives as equal to them, a contradiction that Church leaders did not resolve (and still has not done so). Although the phrase “equal partners” was not used often by Church leaders, the concept behind it was already in place since the 1940s.

Second, Church leaders used the phrase “equal partners” more frequently in the

1990s. Howard W. Hunter, successor to Benson as the next Church president, said in a

1994 worldwide Church address for men that “the Lord intended that the wife be…a companion equal and necessary in full partnership” to the husband.667 The next year, the

Church released The Family: A Proclamation to the World (see chapter two) that reiterated that in ideal circumstances, “fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible for the life and protection for their families.” But it also stated that “fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.”

As the Family Proclamation became the standard by which members discussed gender roles in the Church, the phrase “equal partners” also grew in usage among the members.

665 John A. Widtsoe, “The ‘Mormon’ Woman,” The Relief Society Magazine: Organ of the Relief Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 30 (Salt Lake City: [General Board of the Relief Society], 1943), 372-3. 666 Ezra Taft Benson, “Counsel to the Saints,” Conference Report, April 1984. See also Spencer W. Kimball, “The Role of Righteous Women,” Ensign, November 1979, 102-4. 667 Howard W. Hunter, “Being a Righteous Husband and Father,” Conference Report (October 1994). See also Elaine S. Jack, “’Ponder the Path of Thy Feet’,” Conference Report (October 1993). 292

Therefore, even though Church leaders or lessons for men before 1990 rarely stated that husbands should treat their wives as “equal partners,” the memory of

Singaporean Mormon men abridged decades of Church teachings about gender roles into this short phrase. And just as the Church never resolved this contradiction between male patriarchal authority, and “equal” partnership between the spouses, neither did most

Singaporean Mormon men see a contradiction, or at least, they did not express it. Only

Terence Lim shared that he resolved this contradiction through an analogy in which he likened himself to the head of a household “body,” with his wife “not [as] the heart,” but

“the neck that turns the head.” Hence, despite his position as the “head,” his wife (the neck) “told [him] what to do [and] where to look,” and exercised authority over her husband.668 Perhaps other Singaporean Mormon men had similar thoughts when they thought about their role as husbands and fathers.

Singaporean Mormon women had an equally complex perspective on male patriarchal authority. It should be noted that they did not object to patriarchy per se. For instance, when asked about her feelings of male-only priesthood ordination within the

Church, Emily said, “I’m not even bothered by these things at all…I have gone on to some Mormon feminist websites, and looked at all those arguments and disputes. I found it such a waste of time.”669 Singaporean Mormon women also embraced the idea that their God was male, and “[didn’t] have a problem with [the fact] that [they] worship a

668 Lim, interview. 669 Emily, interview. 293 male God.”670 In fact, as explained earlier, one of the reasons women gravitated toward this Church was due to the doctrine that they were daughters of a Heavenly Father.

Having grown up in the patriarchal society of Singapore, the idea that God was male and a spiritual father was a source of comfort and hope for these women: God became a surrogate father-figure, and the divine Deity himself now served as a model whom their spouses could learn from to be responsible husbands and fathers.671

Moreover, Singaporean Mormon women were comfortable with the concept that men should be the main breadwinners of the family, including women who were working mothers who contributed to their family’s income.672 A few interviewees even expressed their sympathy for the responsibility placed on their husbands, like Emily who said, “I find that men these days have a lot of things placed on them. It’s getting harder to be a man because they are [now] expected to be able to care for babies, and they are expected to bring home the bread and butter, and also to be romantic, to be everything…I imagine being asked to do all that [and] I don’t think I can cope [as] well.”673 Singaporean

Mormon women also felt that they benefitted from Church teachings about gender roles, because of the Church’s regulations that governed the actions of their husbands, and instructed men to be faithful in their marriages. Hannah said that “being a Latter-day

Saint made [her] feel [more] worth as a woman,” in part because “men [in the Church] are taught to be faithful, to keep the law of chastity,” and not to objectify women.674

670 Janet, interview. 671 Hannah [pseud.]; Christina Chan, interview; Tan Chew Yian, interview. See chapter four for more details. 672 See for example, Jean Loh, interview. 673 Emily, interview. 674 Hannah, interview. 294

Having a member-husband also alleviated the social pressure of being homemakers because their husbands understood and appreciated their sacrifice in staying home, and did not look down on them as “second-class citizens.”675

However, their support for male patriarchal authority in their marriages was also conditional: they recognized their husband’s role as the head of the family, so long as he was righteous. Janet said that she had “no problem” receiving counsel from her husband

“if the man is righteous, and he gives righteous counsel, and he makes the decision…And the Church makes it very clear that if the man is not righteous, you don’t have to follow his counsel.”676 Another interviewee said that when members “understand the doctrine…we actually lead side by side. The husband presides, but he must preside in righteousness, and then the wife supports, but we can always voice our opinions.”677

Using her own successful marriage as an example, Dorothy Chen said that “[women] need to make sure our husbands love God” because it was her husband’s love for God that allowed her to gain the “confidence” that he will obey God and take care of her.678

Perhaps their conditional obedience to male authority explains their overwhelming support for the exclusion of women from the priesthood in the Church.

One interviewee said that “it [would] be nice if we could [hold the priesthood to] heal our own children, or help to heal our friends,” but she also reasoned that “women tend to be emotional and maybe judgmental,” and hence, could not hold the priesthood. A few male

675 Dorothy Chen, interview; Tan, interview. 676 Janet, interview. 677 Chan, interview. 678 Chen, interview. 295 interviewees also expressed their support for the concept of female-priesthood ordination.

Both Thomas and Andrew said that it would be “very good” if the Church changed its policy in the future. “Honestly speaking, it’s not easy…with [the] very limited number of men to do church leadership work,” Thomas said, “The more the merrier.”

Yet, the consensus among Singaporean Mormon women was that they didn’t want, or at least, they didn’t see the need to hold the priesthood. The most cited reason was that “with the priesthood actually comes [more] responsibility.”679 Since all callings at the local congregational level were volunteer, all priesthood callings were also carried out in the spirit of service for the members. There was no monetary or other material compensation for providing the muscle when members moved homes, giving priesthood blessings in the middle of the night, arriving early to church to prepare for the sacrament liturgy, or other such responsibilities.680 Hence, there were certain assignments that men were in charge of that one Singaporean Mormon women termed “more work.”681 The interviewees also shared that even though they did not exercise the priesthood, they still received the blessings from the priesthood, and thus did not feel deprived. For instance,

Esther said that “If I felt like I was less of a person because I didn’t have the priesthood, then I have reasons to fight for [it]. But because I felt that I’m not less [than the men], and I felt that I was just as blessed, and Heavenly Father loves me just as much, why do I need the priesthood?”682 Others said that since they too held callings and responsibilities

679 Chan, interview. 680 Joshua, interview. 681 Esther, interview. 682 Another interviewee, Jaime Lim, also said, “I have the understanding that women have a different role from the men, and even though we don’t hold the priesthood, I can enjoy the blessings of the priesthood too. It’s no problem for me. I rather [not] have that added responsibility upon me.” 296 in the Church, “we have the opportunity to shine, to show our potential [and] we play an important role.”683 Even without the priesthood, women exercised “lots of power with our prayers, with our fasting.”684 There were also a handful of women who simply shrugged their shoulders, and said, “This is the Lord’s church [so] the Lord decides. The Lord says only the guys can hold the priesthood, then the guy hold lah685.”686

But just as their support for male patriarchal authority in their marriages was conditional, so too was their obedience to their priesthood leaders. Singaporean Mormon women agreed that they supported their religious leaders because “ultimately, we believe that Jesus Christ is the one who leads the Church, and he leads through our leaders.”687

Since men were to exercise their priesthood according to the teachings of their leader

(Jesus Christ), “if anything went wrong, they (the priesthood leaders) would be the ones to answer to God, and if they dared [to] give the wrong counsel…they will be more condemned than those who followed them.”688 Singaporean Mormon women also stressed that they did not blindly obey their leaders. Interviewees reported that when they disagreed with their leaders, they “spoke up” and “voiced [my thoughts] if I didn’t think it’s right.”689 Elizabeth also joked that since many Singaporean Mormon women had some college education, she said, “Our sisters here are…too matriarchal already for the leaders to dominate us…We are too educated already. We know our rights too well.”690 It

683 Judy, interview. 684 Laura, interview. 685 The word “lah” here has no meaning, and simply changes the tone to one of exclamation. 686 Jacqueline, interview. See also Tan Chew Yian, interview; Kogen Yuen, interview; Anne, interview. 687 Christina Chan, interview. 688 Emily, interview. 689 Chan, interview; Lee Pheck Leng, interview. 690 Elizabeth, interview. 297 can therefore be seen that Singaporean Mormon women did not object to patriarchy, only the abuse of patriarchal authority in their marriages and in church. If they felt that their husbands or church leaders were exercising unrighteous dominion over them, they rejected the authority of that man.

And yet, even though Singaporean Mormon women supported patriarchal authority in their marriages and in church, these women also credited Mormonism for teaching them that they were equal to the men, even when in fact, the Church’s stance on gender equality was inconsistent. In 1971, the Relief Society manual taught that “women are equal” and that “there is nothing in the teachings of the gospel which declares that men are superior to women.”691 As the decade progressed, however, the manuals also changed its wording. By 1981, the curriculum textbook simply stated that “the roles of man and woman, though perfectly equal in importance, were never intended to be identical,” while the 1985 manual omitted the word “equal” altogether, and wrote that

“men and women complement each other.”692 But even as the Relief Society lessons turned progressively conservative, male church leaders continued to preach at the pulpit that if Latter-day Saint men wanted to remain in good standing, they had to treat their wives with “great love and respect,” and it was “unchristian-like” to “adopt the attitude that he [was] superior.”693 In 1979, Spencer W. Kimball, president of the Church before

691 “Priesthood Blessings,” 1971-72 Relief Society Courses of Study (USA: Relief Society of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1971), 40. 692 “Woman’s Role in Today’s World,” Relief Society Courses of Study, 1980-81 (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, c.1980), 34; “Male and Female Created He Them,” Relief Society Courses of Study 1985 (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1984), 112. 693 N. Eldon Tanner, “No Greater Honor: The Women’s Role,” Conference Report (October 1973). 298

Benson, reiterated at the conference for LDS women that “the place of the woman is to walk beside the man, not in front of him nor behind him. In the Church there is full equality between man and woman.” In another speech delivered to the men later that year at a priesthood conference, Kimball instructed that “our partnerships with…our wives, must be full partnerships.”694 The Church therefore claimed that women were equal to men, even though their words did not always match to what the women learned in Relief

Society lessons. Nonetheless, Church teachings still laid the foundation for the 1995

Family Proclamation’s usage to the words “equal partners,” and for Mormon women worldwide to interpret the Church as promoting gender equality even before the Family

Proclamation was published.

As such, Singaporean Mormon women shared that it was through the Church that they came to view themselves as equal to their husbands. Karen, for example, said that its teachings “change[d] my mindset…I never felt intimidated as a woman, but I never felt like I was exactly equal to the male until the gospel taught me…that…we are partners.”

The irony, of course, was that the LDS Church, undoubtedly a patriarchal institution, provided the doctrinal justification for Singaporean Mormon women to elevate their status within their marriages, and view themselves as equal to their husbands. Compared to the patriarchal households or culture in which they grew up, the Church was a moderate, liberating institution that protected them against the gender discrimination faced by their mothers and other local women. Moreover, in the 1980s and ‘90s, the

694 Spencer W. Kimball quoting John A. Widtsoe in “The Role of Righteous Women,” Women’s Conference (September 15, 1979); Kimball, “Our Sisters in the Church,” Conference Report (October 1979). 299

Singaporean government enacted a series of policies that protected the traditional gendered division of labor in the family, and reinforced male patriarchy in Singaporean households.695 Although the government educated Singaporean women and encouraged them to work, they were reluctant to change the social attitudes of Singaporeans, and in

1993, warned that societies that did not recognize the man as the head-of-the household were in danger of social decline.696

Thus, from their perspective of Singaporean Mormon women, the Church made them “equal” to their husbands because the men did not make decisions alone, but recognized their wives as having a legitimate voice of authority within the family. Judy was cognizant that Church teachings about gender roles aligned with the Asian culture, and said that both were similar, in that the man was the head of the family, and women were to stay home and take care of the children. However, “the Church was in one way better than Asian [culture] because they ask the Priesthood697 to really honor the woman.

It’s not like Asian country or Asian society: the man says yes, the woman cannot say no.”

Holly made a similar observation when she said that in the Chinese culture, “the woman must go and hide herself [or] cannot go outside.” However, “the Lord doesn’t look at it that way. Regardless of whether you’re a man or woman, he treats us fairly, equally.”

695 Jasmine S. Chan, “The status of women in a patriarchal state: the case of Singapore,” in Women in Asia: Tradition, modernity and globalization, eds. Louise Edwards & Mina Roces (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000), 47. For examples of such policies, see pages 47 to 51. 696 Ibid., 46 and 50. 697 As only men are appointed to priesthood offices in the LDS Church, Mormon men are frequently referred to as “the Priesthood.” 300

Because of her understanding of God and his regard for women, Holly said, “I never thought that I [was] behind my husband.”698

However, if Singaporean Mormon women supported both the Church’s stance on patriarchal male authority in marriage and Church, and yet, viewed themselves as equal to their husbands, how did they resolve this contradiction? It is difficult to form a conclusion since, like the men, they did not indicate that they saw a contradiction. Still, we get a glimpse of how they reconciled these inconsistencies through the example of

Karen. She shared that she “never desired the priesthood” or to take on the role as the head of the family because being “the breadwinner of the family, and to be a father and husband and breadwinner too, and to hold the priesthood, is no fun. I wouldn’t want any of those roles…I don’t have to work and worry about putting food on the table.” But she also said that she felt equal to her husband because she worked “hand-in-hand” with him as “partners,” and that she had “an input in the decisions…instead of [him] deciding everything.” We thus see that Karen utilized both Church teachings about patriarchal responsibility and gender equality, and emphasized one over the other as and when the situation played to her advantage. When it came to the responsibilities imposed on the patriarchal male leader, such as providing for the family, Karen was happy to relinquish these duties to her husband. However, in other aspects of her marriage, she used the church’s teachings about being equal “partners” with her husband as justification for her inclusion in the decision-making process, and getting her husband to consult with her.

698 See also Dorothy Chen, interview. 301

The ability to use whichever doctrine suited their situation also applied to the way they viewed Church patriarchal authority. While they supported the concept that males should hold priesthood office and carry out priesthood duties, they wanted to also have an

“equal” contributing voice when administering Church affairs. This explains the recurring complaint among Singaporean Mormon women that local male church leaders tended to dismiss the opinions of women called to leadership positions, and did not treat them as equals. Amy, who used to serve as the Relief Society president for her congregation, said that even though women had much to contribute, “their voices were not heard as much…Maybe it’s [the] authoritarian culture that spilled over into the church culture here… Being Asian…women are…never quite on par with men.”699 It is intriguing that the women blamed such attitudes of the men on Chinese cultural attitudes, instead of the Church’s patriarchal hierarchy or teachings. Moreover, they felt that the solution to this cultural sexism was for the men to better emulate the examples of

American Church leaders, such as the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles. In reality, Singaporeans had few opportunities to witness firsthand the interactions of

American male church leaders with their spouses. Yet, the glimpses that they caught during the semi-annual worldwide conferences and at BYU, visits by leaders with their wives to Singapore, the examples of expatriate Mormons in their congregations, and the curriculum that stressed righteous male behavior, convinced Singaporean Mormon women that their top religious leaders epitomized how Mormon men should behave.

Hence, they expressed their wish that local Church leaders would better “listen to what

699 See also Hannah, interview. 302

[women] have to say, and not subdue them,” and model themselves after American

Mormon leaders.700 Once again, the Church’s ambiguous position on gender equality allowed Singaporean Mormon women to avoid taking on the additional responsibilities and “more work” given to priesthood holders, and still ensure that their local religious leaders consulted with and listened to them on church matters. To them, gender equality was not about taking on the same responsibilities as the men. Their Asian culture and

Mormon religion had socialized them to accept the traditional gendered division of labor.

Instead, gender equality meant being treated as equal partners as men, and having an equal contributing voice that their husbands and male religious leaders listened to.

Therefore, the Church changed the way both Singaporean Mormon men and women conceived of the traditional Asian gender hierarchy. Even if it did not completely overturn the idea that men were heads of the households, it still allowed women to elevate their status in their marriages, and curbed the patriarchal tendencies of the men.

DIFFERENTIATED GENDER ROLES

The Church also impacted the way Singaporean Mormons viewed the role of the woman in the home. In Asian culture, since women were considered inferior to men, maternal duties of mothering and housekeeping were regarded as secondary to the male’s ability to support the family. The Church taught the opposite: motherhood and fulltime homemaking was of equal importance to the work done by men outside of the home, especially since the Church believed in the doctrine of eternal families. As the family unit was eternal, the mother was needed in the home to provide the emotional, mental, and

700 Audrey, interview. 303 spiritual support for her husband and children. Church leaders repeatedly emphasized that the role of mother was indispensable and complementary to the role of the father.701 And as elaborated upon in chapter two, they took on an increasingly strong stance on this issue as the Second Wave Feminist Movement intensified in the 1970s.

The Relief Society curriculum reflected the Church’s emphasis on motherhood, and incorporated “Homemaking” and “Mother Education” as part of its rotation of

Sunday lessons. These lessons dealt with more than the mother’s role in caring for the spiritual and emotional challenges of the family; Relief Society members also learned how to administer first aid, establish healthy eating and exercise habits, and treat sicknesses.702 And, as one Singaporean Mormon women noted, all these lessons were free of charge, financed by the Church’s budget, and taught as a service to the women.703

Relief Society lessons also reinforced LDS essentialist beliefs that women were natural nurturers in the home and in their neighborhoods. Between 1975 to 1986, the curriculum devoted eight to eleven lessons to teaching the sisters how to improve their “social relations” by carrying out “compassionate service” among themselves, and within their congregations and communities.

These lessons were written mainly for an American audiences, evident from the photographs used in the manuals. Almost all photographs showed Caucasian individuals

701 Ezra Taft Benson, “The Honored Place of Woman,” Conference Report, October 1981; “Woman’s Role in Today’s World,” Relief Society Courses of Study 1980-81 (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ca. 1980), 34-8. 702 The manuals I consulted included the 1975-76 Relief Society Courses of Study (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1975); Relief Society Courses of Study 1980-81 (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ca. 1980); Relief Society Courses of Study 1985 (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1984). 703 Emma, interview. 304 and families engaged in an activity set in a Western-style home. Pictures of food were usually that of American food as well. For instance, the lesson, “Creating Appetizing

Meals,” in the 1980 Relief Society manual showed a picture of a plate of pasta and sauce, a slice of pie, a cup of milk, an orange, a sandwich, and Western cutlery (fork, knife, and spoon). The caption read “What would increase the appeal of this meal?” thus imploring readers to examine this photograph of a Western meal and make changes to it.704 The manual also recommended that mothers use “an oriental meal with chopsticks” to “teach children about another culture.”705

However, the curriculum acknowledged the worldwide membership of the Relief

Society by including anecdotes of non-American women applying Relief Society lessons into their lives, though these examples were rare. For example, in the 1980 Relief Society manual, the lesson “Manage, Conserve, and Improve” urged women to clean up and take care of their physical environment around their homes. It cited how women in Japan, the

Netherlands, Belgium, and Mexico cared for their surroundings in their respective communities and cultures.706 General Relief Society leaders also inserted a series of

“Cultural Refinement” lessons into the curriculum to help its members learn about the culture, traditions, and folk songs from countries all over the world. They hoped that the sisters would better understand women from other cultures during these monthly lessons,

704 Relief Society Courses of Study 1980-81 (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1980), 83. 705 Ibid., 85. 706 Ibid., 94-5. 305 and deepen the sense of global sisterhood among Relief Society members.707 Still, the overall content and material favored learners who came from an American background.

This did not stop Singaporean Mormon women from adapting the lessons to their circumstances. Perhaps the weekly, hour-long Relief Society meetings were spent discussing the application of each lesson into the Singaporean context. Moreover, most homemaking skills taught in the manuals had a universal application—such as “Making

Mealtime Important” or “Teaching Homemaking Skills in the Family”—even if the anecdotal examples cited were set in an American context.708 Many Singaporean

Mormon women attributed their homemaking skills to the Relief Society lessons and activities. “Relief Society changed my life,” said Amy, “All that I know [on] how to be a woman, how to be a homemaker, how to be a mother [were] …the things I learned from

Relief Society.709 Singaporean Mormon women also responded positively to the lessons on “social relations” and “compassionate service.” They reported that in understanding their obligation as women to nurture others, they built a sense of sisterhood with other

Relief Society members “[whom] you can go to…if you need help.”710 “It’s the arms and legs of the bishop and of the Savior,” Lee Pheck Leng said of the organization, “There’s someone who can take care of the women…and the welfare of the sisters.” Christina

Chan recalled that when her husband died, she found comfort in the “love and friendship and support” showered on her from her Relief Society and other congregation members.

707 No author, “Forward,” 1975-76 Relief Society Courses of Study (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1975). These lessons continued for the next decade or so. By 1985, the concentration on exploring different countries and cultures had ceased. 708 Ibid., 84 and 136. 709 See also Melissa, interview, and Dorothy Chen, interview. 710 Rachel, interview. 306

Similarly, Tan Chew Yian’s non-member sister was “amazed” to witness the Relief

Society take care of Tan after she had her first child in the United States, and their mother could not fly over to help her through the confinement process.711

In the same way that the Relief Society prepared women for motherhood, priesthood classes taught a parallel curriculum for men that reinforced their essentialist role as the patriarch and provider of the home. Lessons ranged from teaching men how to lead their families in routine family prayer and scripture study, improve employment skills and manage the family finances, to keeping physically fit, and serve their communities.712 But unlike the Relief Society curriculum, priesthood manuals utilized pictures of men and families of various racial and ethnic backgrounds. The number of anecdotes set outside of the United States also seemed higher in the priesthood manuals than the Relief Society manuals.713 There is no explanation for this discrepancy, and one can only wonder why Church leaders took more effort to diversify the manuals for men.

Whatever the case, the Church’s efforts to broaden the audience of its manuals helped Singaporean Mormon men understand priesthood lessons. They agreed that priesthood classes helpful them understand how to be better husbands and fathers.

Terence Lim recalled that through these priesthood classes, he “[learned] how to be a father…It really benefitted me, because when I became a father…I never had the fear and

711 Lee Pheck Leng, interview; Christina Chan, interview; Tan Chew Yian, interview. 712 See table of contents in Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part A (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1980). 713 Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part A (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ca.1980); Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part B (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ca.1980). 307

I never had the doubt of how a father should be. I already knew as a young man how to bring up children.” Andrew acknowledged that non-Mormon men were also responsible husbands and fathers, but “the [Church] teachings…reinforced this natural proclivity to look after our family, our wives, and our children. It reinforced and strengthened these expectations.”

Singaporean Mormons also shared that church callings helped them develop skills specific to their gender roles. This was likely because callings were heavily gendered during these decades. For instance, Church nursery and Primary teachers were predominantly female, while males oversaw Sunday School and missionary efforts at the branch/ ward level. Ideas about gender roles thus influenced the choices Church leaders made in deciding who to call into different positions, although it is uncertain whether they then intended for callings to reinforce gender roles. In the case of Singaporean

Mormons, it did. As such, church assignments helped men develop skills beneficial to their careers. Mark once organized a missionary activity when he was a young adult, but owing to his lack of preparation, only three people turned up. Although deeply mortified, it taught him about the need for early planning and publicity when organizing events.

Similarly, Adam “wasn’t a very confident boy” when he first came to church, and “was a nervous wreck when [he] gave talks.” However, having delivered many talks over the years, he noticed that whenever he gave a presentation at work, he possessed more confidence than his colleagues due to the “practice” from church. In contrast to the men who stressed how callings made them better employees, the women felt that church callings were instrumental in building their confidence as mothers. Anne and Jane went

308 through similar experiences when they were called to be Primary teachers. Both women were uncomfortable in the company of children, and had accepted their assignment with much trepidation. To their surprise, their calling taught them “how to take care of children, and teach children.”714 Jane also felt humbled and loved whenever the children ran up and hugged her. “That kind of feeling was so great,” she said, and credited her service in Primary as giving her the foundation and knowledge to later raise her three children.

Church activities further reinforced traditional gender roles. For example, Relief

Society leaders in Singapore adopted the idea of Pioneer Day for their 1986 Relief

Society Sisterhood celebration. In their bid to help local women feel connected with their

Relief Society heritage from the pioneering days, Relief Society leaders instructed all participants to dress up as pioneer women. They also set up various stations around the church for women to engage in traditional tasks of domestic housekeeping, such as feathering a fake chicken, and using a washboard to scrub soiled clothing. At the

“milking cow” station, they threw a sheepskin over a wooden fence, and made a fake udder from a blown-up rubber hand glove filled with water (Figure 5.1). However crude the methods of reenacting Church history, the activity highlighted the domestic duties of

Mormon pioneer women, and the historical connection to Mormon women in Singapore.

714 Anne [psued.], interview by author, Singapore, August 8, 2012. 309

Figure 7: The "milking cow" station. Photograph taken from Pang Beng Ling's A History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Singapore: Journey to Stakehood (1997).

Church doctrine about the family, and its curriculum and activities for the members, dovetailed with traditional Asian culture about differentiated gender roles. This helps explain why Singaporean Mormon women had little problem with the Church’s teachings about separate gender roles and motherhood. A few women commented that

Church doctrine about gender roles “[went] well with Asian teachings,” and was “very

Chinese.”715 Holly commented that “it’s the same principle” as the Chinese saying “男外

女内 [sic]” (male outside, female outside)716, and that “God has just given us different

715 Judy, interview; Grace, interview. 716 Holly was likely referring to the traditional Chinese saying “男主外女主内,” which means that the primary duty of the man is to provide for the family, while the woman oversees domestic family affairs. 310 responsibilities. My responsibility is to have children and raise them. His responsibility as the priesthood [holder] is to be sure that we are on the right track…toward God.”

Furthermore, Holly felt that to be a woman was to possess the power of reproduction, a

“very special power. It’s amazing that you have a child in your body [and] deliver your child.” Even the single females who did not have a family supported Church teachings about separate gender roles of the spouses. Lee Pheck Leng likened this separation to “an office. Each one has different roles to play to work as a unit, so [there’s] nothing to quibble about.”717

This strong belief in separate gender roles influenced Singaporean Mormon women to remain fulltime homemakers, even when the Singaporean government exerted pressure on them to participate in the public workforce (see chapter one). Of the twenty- nine female interviewees who had children, twenty-four of them identified themselves as having stayed at home fulltime for a significant period when their children were young. It was extremely difficult to give up the empowerment and material comfort afforded by a career, and a few interviewees attempted to keep working after the birth of their first child. However, they quickly learned that straddling both worlds usually came at the cost of their children. Holly, for instance, was afraid of letting go of her career after her son was born. Having grown up in an abusive and poor home, she completed only six years of basic education before going out to work as a low-wage laborer in a garment factory.

Despite her lack of qualifications, she worked her way up to become an assistant manager of another company, where she essentially ran the office for her boss. However, while her

717 Lee, interview. 311 career took off, her son showed signs of a disruptive behavior disorder. Holly had help from her parents-in-law, but they taught values that Holly didn’t agree with, and she did not want her child to become reliant on a domestic worker. When her son’s behavioral problems made him a social outcast at school and at church, Holly knew that something had to give, and so, with much reluctance, she quit her job to give her full attention to her son.718 Another interviewee, Dorothy Chen, stayed home with her children for a few years, before going back to the workforce to supplement her husband’s income, only to encounter “more problems.” Her children kept calling her at work, and as a result, her boss complained that she was “inefficient” and brought her family problems to work.

Chen had a talk with her children, and after hearing their “needs and wants,” realized they needed her more in the home, and she quit her job again.719 Both Holly and Chen’s examples demonstrate that Singaporean Mormon women tried to balance a career with their family, but found that their children usually came out at the losing end. Since motherhood was more important to them, they decided to leave their job and become fulltime homemakers.

The examples of the expatriate families at Church was also a motivating factor in helping Singaporean Mormon women decide to stay at home. Tina Khoo remembered going to church as a young girl, and the one thing that struck her was the sight of expatriate Mormon families sitting together during sacrament meeting. “How is it that every family sits together, and the children are so well-behaved in church?” she asked

718 Holly, interview. 719 Chen, interview. 312 herself. She never forgot that picture, and it was that desire to have her own family in church that drove her to return from years of inactivity when she was a young single adult. In fact, she made sure that her boyfriend (now husband) converted to the Church before she married him. Later, when they started a family, it was that dream of family unity that gave her the strength to be obedient to Church counsel and stay home.720

For the most part, however, it was an act of faith by Singaporean Mormon women to obey the counsel of Church leaders and invest their full attention on their children. For example, Anne said that it was tough for her to hold firm to her decision when she saw her husband struggle to support the family. “I wish…I could help,” she said, “But…I knew if I taught my children properly, I’m actually helping him…I know my children, they can tell the difference…I think the Church really helped us [to] prioritize our life. I think we put the right things first.”721 Many women also echoed Amy’s words when she said, “If not for the Church, I would not have stayed at home. I always believed that I would do very well in my career…a lawyer or executive or something like that. Because of the Church, I’ve stayed home, and motherhood became more important.”722

Part of their decision to stay home also stemmed from their conviction that their young children needed their mothers. Pongkodi Rajikannu was exceptionally passionate about this subject because she had seen many working mothers struggle to discipline their children. “It makes a big difference when you are not at home…the children can feel it,” she explained, “You are actually training the children…you are drilling in them…that

720 Ith, interview. 721 Anne, interview. 722 Amy, interview. See also Beth, interview. 313 mom is not home.” When that happened, children “get used to thinking that mom is not there, and you can’t suddenly come in and tell them, ‘Hey I’m here. You must do this’…

Children won’t listen to you.”723 Other women felt that when both parents focused on work, they risked the welfare of their children. Margaret Lau, for instance, said, “I feel that the mother should be the one to take care of [young kids.] Nowadays you [use] maids, or [parents] send them to infant care. You don’t get that time with them…

[Children] absorb a lot while they are young, and so I feel that it’s important that [during] the early years, the mother should be there.”724

In taking the road less traveled, Singaporean Mormon women encountered their unique set of problems, different from their peers who were working. Many spoke about the social isolation and boredom derived from being cooped up with their children all day, and the inability to find common topics with non-member friends.725 Two women coincidentally shared similar stories about their individual identity being subsumed by the needs of the family, and their horror of realizing that “I don’t exist anymore. I just exist [for] my family.”726 Moreover, since they were not making a direct contribution to the national economy, Singaporean Mormon women felt that people looked upon them as

“second-class citizens.”727 As Elizabeth put it, “The world will tell you [that] you have no value, 你不是 ‘女强人’ (you are not a strong woman).”728

723 Rajikannu, interview. 724 Lau, interview. 725 Melissa, interview; Grace, interview. 726 Emily [psued.], interview by author, Singapore, July 10, 2012. 727 Beth, interview. 728 Elizabeth, interview. 314

Singaporean Mormon women who had a college education struggled to exercise their faith and remain at home. As degree holders, they were considered the intellectual elite in Singapore, and had the qualifications to find a well-paying job. Thus, sacrificing their careers meant giving up their financial independence and security. At the same time, the cost of living in Singapore had rapidly increased in the 1980s due to development and modernization, and many families found it necessary to rely on two-income earners to maintain a middle-class standard of living. But for many Singaporean Mormon families, relying on the husband’s income put them in a lower socioeconomic class that did not measure up to their intellectual qualifications. As a result, their relatives could not understand why Singaporean Mormon women would voluntarily choose to live with one- income, and told them it was “a waste” to not use their degree.729

What helped them persist through these impediments was seeing their children grow up to be responsible, contributing adults to society, which they interpreted as validating their decision. Holly who quit her job because her son showed signs of a disruptive behavior disorder, she said that when she devoted her full attention to him, her son’s behavior changed over the years, and he grew into a mature young man who completed a successful LDS mission later. This experience drove home to her the rightness of the gospel and wisdom of Church leaders in counseling women to stay home, and she said that she “saw the promises of the Lord fulfilled” in her life and in her son’s.

Another woman, Claire, said that even though she suffered from financial insecurity, she still felt that it was a “privilege” to be a fulltime homemaker because she experienced

729 Audrey, interview; Jaime Lim, interview. 315 very “special moments” with her children amid the mundanity of housework. Hearing their children express their appreciation was also a boost for them. Anne recalled her daughter telling her, “Every time I come [home], it’s so nice to have you at home.” Her daughter’s words gave Anne the confidence that she made the correct decision to remain at home. Elizabeth also shared that in taking the unpopular route, she felt liberated from not having to conform to the expectations of the world, and that there was worth in motherhood. “Because of what I learned in church…I [found] that even though I’m a stay-at-home mother, I [had] value…I’m contributing in my own way…I [didn’t] have to follow what the world [said],” she said.

The minority of Singaporean Mormon women who continued to work after the birth of their children viewed their choice as a result of exceptional family circumstances, rather than a disagreement with Church doctrine. Despite being unable to raise their children fulltime, they still expressed their strong support for Church teachings about motherhood and its centrality in their lives. For instance, Sarah debated whether to work when her husband’s income could not cover their family’s expenses. After praying over the matter, they both “felt good” about her going out to work, and took it as a sign that

God understood the circumstances which necessitated her employment. Another woman,

Rachel, had to work because she was divorced, and had custody of her children. As one of the few divorced women in the Church, it was not easy for Rachel to remain active.

Yet, not only did she find being in the family-oriented Church crucial to raising her children with correct moral values, it taught her to be a better single mother. While her colleagues focused their energy on climbing the corporate ladder, she would “go home to

316 my kids [and] spend time with them… My focus [was] to be a good mother, the top-most priority.” Even with her struggles as a single mom, she was grateful to experience motherhood, and described it as “just amazing…[seeing] someone that…[grew] in you, grow up and mature, and that you had such an important role in their development, it’s just amazing.”730

Therefore, whether they chose to stay at home or continue working fulltime,

Singaporean Mormon women agreed that the Church taught them to prioritize motherhood and their families, as opposed to their peers who, in conforming to state policies, sacrificed the welfare of their children for their personal aspirations and monetary comfort. Notwithstanding the problems they faced, they would have agreed with Amy, who said, “I believe that whatever we are told to do [by Church leaders], [if] we follow despite our discomfort and lack of understanding, we will be blessed even more.” In choosing to embrace the Church’s paradigm of putting their family first, they hoped to strengthen their bonds with their children, and build a family unit with ties that would last beyond this life.

Singaporean Mormon men also staunchly defended the concept of separate gender roles as taught by the Church because it went well with the cultural traditions they grew up with. A few interviewees cited the “Oriental culture…[of] yin and yang” and

“Confucius teachings” as factors for their support for what the Church taught.731 Many also felt that the Church’s teachings “[made] perfect sense,” was “right,” and that

730 Rachel [pseud.], interview by author, Singapore, June 19, 2016. 731 Leonard Woo, interview; Teo Choon Seng, interview. 317

“things…work out better” when men and women “have our own roles to play.”732 As

Wong Sai Lim said, “We are thinking in terms of the long term development of the child…We are not talking about just feeding the child; we are talking about educating the child, giving him emotional support, and that needs someone to be home.”733

But unlike the social dictates of the traditional local culture that treated women’s domestic work as inferior, the Church taught Singaporean Mormon men regard motherhood and domestic housekeeping as equal to the men’s financial contributions to the home. Adam said that he was “grateful” that his wife “made the choice to be a homemaker…although she was qualified to [work] outside” because “I would not have been able to raise and nurture my children like my wife [did].” Jacob Soh noted that he

“lost out in [his wife’s] potential earned income, but how do you measure the time she spent looking after the home, bringing up our children, looking after me?... It’s immeasurable.” A few felt that women were “natural…nurturers,” and not as

“insensitive” as men, and thus their presence and impact in the home was “irreplaceable.”

In contrast, when a man or woman left an organization or corporation, “your absence will never be felt. Nobody will miss you.”734 The Church “absolutely” helped Andrew learn to appreciate the contribution of his wife more, and ensured that he “[didn’t] look down on the things she [did] as a mother.”735

732 Joshua, interview; Dennis Chai, interview; Stephen Lai, interview. 733 See also Noah, interview. 734 Victor Chen, interview. 735 Andrew, interview. 318

Yet, Singaporean Mormon men also made clear that they were sensitive to the circumstances that prevented women from remaining at home. Many shared that serving as branch presidents and bishops exposed them to the various circumstances that compelled women to work, and helped them develop compassion for working mothers.

Kelvin said that when he became a bishop, he realized that “it’s a personal decision” whether a mother should work. Although Kelvin agreed that “you cannot replace the mother at home, no question about it,” he told the single mothers in his congregation to simply “do [their] best,” and not worry about the counsel to remain at home. Another interviewee, who also served in several leadership positions in Singapore and China, stressed that the Church’s teaching about differentiated gender role is “correct and good,” and “we want to teach the right thing. But people can adapt the principle to their own…It’s not for us to judge them.”736

Nonetheless, Singaporean Mormon men and women supported the Church’s teachings of differentiated gender roles, and felt strongly that their families benefitted the most from having the mothers remain at home fulltime to take care of their children.

Although they sacrificed financial security and material comfort, they believed God would bless them and their children for their obedience. Even if not all of them could live the “ideal” of having the mothers stay at home, the Church still taught them to prioritize parenthood over their careers.

PARENTHOOD

736 Teo Choon Seng, interview. See also the interviews of Joshua and Andrew. Singaporean Mormon women were also sympathetic to the circumstances that prevented some Mormon mothers from staying at home. For instance, see Jaime Lim and Pongkodi Rajikannu’s interviews. However, they were also more firm in stating their support for women to stay at home when the children are young. 319

The Church also influenced Singaporean Mormons when it came to deciding the number of children to have. Church leaders have always been pro-natalist, and encouraged members to obey the Biblical command to “multiply and replenish the earth.”

While the Church never specified a number for what constituted the size of the ideal

“Mormon family,” the expectation was that righteous Mormon couples endeavored to have as large families as their circumstances permitted.737 Thus, Church leaders reacted strongly against American feminists in the 1960s and ‘70s who advocated the usage of birth control, even by married women, to prevent pregnancy, and the legalization of abortion. In a 1971 article written for a church periodical titled “The Women’s

Movement: Liberation or Deception?” apostle Thomas S. Monson lambasted the “idiotic and blatantly false philosophy” of scientific experts and media personal who advocated that mothers should choose to remain childless to advance their careers.738 Two months after the United States Supreme Court passed the landmark Roe v. Wade decision to legalize abortion, the First Presidency of the LDS Church739 issued a statement declaring abortion to be “one of the most revolting and sinful practices” in modern day society.740

In the 1980 general conference for the Church, N. Eldon Tanner, second-in-command in the Church’s hierarchy, also spoke out against “curtailing the birth of children or the size

737 This expectation remains in force today. A 2009 Pew Study found out that Mormons had larger than average families compared to the rest of the American population. See the section “Age, Gender and Family Structure” in the Pew Research Center’s “A Portrait of Mormons in the U.S.,” July 24, 2009, http://www.pewforum.org/2009/07/24/a-portrait-of-mormons-in-the-us/#age-gender-and-family- structure (accessed May 30, 2017). 738 Thomas S. Monson, “The Women’s Movement: Liberation or Deception?” Ensign, January 1971. 739 The First Presidency consists of the president (prophet) and his two (or three) counselors, and they are the highest governing body in the LDS Church. 740 “News of the Church- Abortion is Considered ‘Revolting Sin’ by Church,” Ensign, March 1973. 320 of families…they are contrary to the laws of God.” The “early citizens” of the United

States, he claimed, were “patriotic and God-fearing” and “believed in large families, and from that stock came some of our greatest statesmen and finest lawyers, scientists and educators.”741 Church leaders were concerned that Mormon women in the United States would be influenced by feminist philosophies, and delay having children in favor of building their careers. However, it is certain that they also expected members all over the world to abide by the same principles since the above-mentioned articles and speeches were circulated worldwide.

Meanwhile, in Singapore, the anti-natalist state policies of the 1970s effected a decline in the birthrate of Singapore. Although the government relaxed its anti-natalist campaign in the mid-1980s (see chapter one), new state policies to incentivize

Singaporeans to have more children were too little, and came too late. Moreover, the government needed women to continue contributing to the economy, and hence, could not discourage women from entering the public workforce. Hence, societal pressure remained extremely high for women to delay childbirth, and have fewer children in order to build their careers. Singaporean Mormons were thus caught in a bind. Although state population policies and the Church’s teachings about families aligned with each other by the mid-1980s, obeying Church counsel to have more children still set them apart from their peers, and created additional stress when it was already difficult for Singaporean

Mormon women to remain in the home.

741 N. Eldon Tanner, “Celestial Marriages and Eternal Families,” Conference Report (April 1980). 321

In this small sample size of interviewees, Singaporean Mormons tended to have more children than their non-member peers. Of the twenty-nine women who were married and had children, most had three children. Two of the women had four children, one had five, and three had six children. Only two women had one child; one because she had difficulty conceiving, and the other because she married later in life. The statistics for the nineteen interviewed men reflected similar results. Granted, the average number of children in these Singaporean Mormon households (three) is not a large figure, especially considering the sizes of Singaporean families in the 1950s when the fertility rate (per woman) was 6.4.742 Around two-thirds of the interviewees reported that their parents had five or more children, with one interviewee sharing that her father had fifteen children from two wives. Therefore, compared to their parents, Singaporean Mormons had significantly smaller families. This suggests that they were influenced to some extent by the population campaigns of the state, and even the constraints of a modernized life.

However, in comparison to the low fertility rate in Singapore (1.6 in 1985, 1.9 in 1990 and 1.7 in 1995), Singaporean Mormons had larger families, evidence that Church teachings about children had an impact on them.

It took faith and obedience for Singaporean Mormons, especially the women, to heed the Church’s counsel and have more children than the average Singaporean. Few members had the tenacity and means like Michael Ang, who said that governmental policies did not factor into his and his wife’s decision to have six children. They

742 “World Population Aging 1950-2050: Singapore,” Report prepared by Population Division, DESA, United Nations, http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldageing19502050/pdf/180singa.pdf (accessed June 21, 2017). 322 considered each child “a gift from our Father in Heaven,” and only stopped when his wife

“felt that she couldn’t cope.” But for most members, it was a struggle to have more children, and one interviewee shared that he knew a few members who got “snipped” because of the 1970s state policies. Their struggle to obey Church leaders was compounded by the difficulty of explaining to puzzled non-member family members and friends their reasons for having more children on a single income. For instance, when

Anne became pregnant with her second child, her mother asked if she was sure that she wanted to keep the child. Anne herself was surprised that she had two children because growing up as the sixth of eight children, she witnessed her parents struggle to feed the family, and promised herself that she would only have one child at most in her future family. However, because the Church taught her about “the purpose of life and also womanhood, the importance of being a mother when you have a chance,” she decided to make her family bigger than she had originally planned, and gave up her career to take care of her children. Other Singaporean Mormon women agreed that Church teachings influenced them to have more children, and in doing so, they took the less popular route among Singaporean women. Emily, a mother of five, said that if it were not for the

Church, she might have “joined some of [my friends in] being career-minded, and

[where] family comes second. I could very well [have been] one of those people.” Amy also said that if it weren’t for the Church’s emphasis on families, “I would still be a yuppie, enjoying my life, maybe having one kid or no kid…I never expected to have four

323 children.”743 But the men also made the same difficult choice. Victor Chen remembered that he and his wife had to go for a state-sponsored pre-marriage counseling class in the early-1980s, where they learned various methods of birth control, and were cautioned to have fewer children. It took a leap of faith for them to have their three children when

Church teachings “clashed with the law of the land” at this time.

At times, the state did penalize members and their children. Although the government started incentivizing couples to have more children in the mid-1980s, it took time for the government to reverse all its anti-natalist policies. Hence, certain state legislations that penalized couples for having more than two children remained in the place into the 1990s. Janice said that her third, fourth and fifth children were disqualified from the “Edusave Scheme,” a small grant given to every Singaporean student to fund school enrichment activities. If their children wanted to participate in these activities,

Janice and her husband had to pay for it themselves. Esther’s children were more fortunate and barely dodged the penalty bullet. Esther had registered her third child in a neighboring Primary (elementary) school in 1993 when she received a notification from the school registrar who told her that they would place that child on the school’s priority acceptance list. However, they warned her that her fourth and fifth child would not be given the same privilege, and would be located to a different school further away.

Despite the potential state penalties, Singaporean Mormons clung to their faith to overcome this impediment. Esther was troubled by the news about her children’s school

743 Another interviewee, Beth, also said that if she hadn’t joined the Church, “I might choose to work as a mother. Maybe I might not get married. Maybe I might have children, or maybe I’ll have less children.”

324 registration, but her member-husband simply said, “Don’t worry, when the time comes, the policy will change. The Lord will make it possible for us.” True enough, the government reversed its policy less than two years later, and her younger children were given priority registration into that school. It was a faith-promoting experience for Esther who, on reflecting back on this incident, said, “To me, the Lord will always find a way to help you, to compensate you. If you want to keep the commandments, the Lord will help you. Don’t worry.” Even though Janice’s children were not given the same educational benefits, she felt that God blessed her husband with the means to pay for these extracurricular activities, and years later, they even received a tax deduction for having so many children. When Dorothy Chen was studying at BYU-Hawaii in the mid-1980s, she prayed that the Singaporean government would reverse its population policy, so that she could obey the Church’s counsel to have more children. To her surprise, the government changed its policies by the time she returned to Singapore in the late-1980s, and “when I went home, I was able to [have more children.]” Hence, even though Singaporean

Mormon women experienced negative societal repercussions due to the size of their families, their faith empowered them to persevere through these obstacles, and in turn, they felt that God rewarded them in ways that allowed them to counter these penalties. In fact, Esther felt that she had been rewarded twofold because not only was she able to raise her large family, she did not have the same regrets as her friends who wished that they had not stopped at two children.

In addition to the conflict Singaporean Mormons experienced between the Church and society about the number of children to have, tensions also emerged on when to have

325 them. Since the 1970s, the Singaporean government has discouraged couples in the lower income brackets from having children. The anti-natalist campaign of the Singaporean state promoted the message that young couples should delay getting married until they were more financially secure, and imposed harsher penalties on people in the lower income brackets who had more children. Later, when the Singaporean government changed its policies in 1987, it instructed Singaporeans to “have three, or more (children) if you can afford it.” 744 In using the phrase “if you can afford it,” the Singaporean government still believed that only women in higher income brackets should expand their families.745 Singaporean couples soon adopted the same mentality when they decided to have children, and it became the social norm, even the “culture,” to wait until the husband was financially stable before starting a family.

In contrast, Church leaders instructed members not to delay having children until they could “afford it.” Benson, for instance, delivered a seminal speech in 1987 at a

“fireside” for parents that taught couples not to “use the reasoning of the world, such as

‘We’ll wait until we can better afford having children, until we are more secure, until

John has completed his education, until he has a better-paying job…’ This…is not pleasing in the sight of God.” He also counseled that “in the eternal perspective, children—not possessions, not position, not prestige—are our greatest jewels,” and

744 Alan John, “Have 3, or more if you can afford it,” Straits Times, March 2, 1987, 1. 745 The new population slogan that women should have more children “if you can afford it” was a softened version of the 1984-5 Graduate Mother’s Scheme, which gave graduate mothers incentives to expand their families, while penalizing women in the lower income bracket for having more children. The scheme was so unpopular that the government was forced to rescind it after a year. The mentality that graduate mothers were responsible for the social future of Singapore, and should be the ones reproducing instead of those with lower education, stemmed from Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s belief in hereditary intelligence. 326 couples who make the “sacrifice” to have children will experience “the deepest joys and blessings in life.”746

Going to BYU and seeing how American Mormons heeded the words of the prophet was an eye-opening experience for Singaporean Mormons, and changed their thinking on when couples should start their families. Elizabeth said that she did not think it was possible for college students to have children because “the Chinese believe that the man must provide for the family. Before you can get married, you must have a job [and] a steady income.” But her time at BYU taught her that “your husband can go [to] school, you can still get married, and you can still have children. Of course, life was not easy, but then you also realized that [it] can be done because so many people were doing it.”

Because of the examples she saw at BYU of poor and young married couples having children, she and her husband decided to start their family when her husband was still in school, and they had two young children at the time of his graduation. It helped that BYU fostered a family-friendly environment that enabled young students to study, work, and raise a family at the same time. Adam remembered that “it was difficult” to be a working student and father when he was at BYU-Hawaii, and said, “I don’t know how I did it.”

But he recalled that his boss had a flexible work policy, and gave him permission to take his child to work with him when his wife was pregnant with their second child.747

Although it was a difficult phrase of their lives, none of the interviewees regretted having children at a young age, or having more children than their peers. In fact,

746 Ezra Taft Benson, “To The Mothers in Zion,” Fireside for Parents (February 22, 1987). Copy of talk can be found in the LDS Church’s Eternal Marriage Student Manual, 2003 ed., 347-72. 747 See also the interviews for Dennis Chai and Margaret Lau. 327

Margaret Lau even advises young Mormon couples in Singapore that “if you know you are meant for each other, just go ahead [and get married]. Don’t worry about all the other things. Somehow it will fall into place.”748 There were a few interviewees who also wished they had been more obedient to Church counsel to have their children earlier, such as Anne who confessed that she refused to start having children till her early thirties.

Alas, she regretted being so stubborn, and lamented that “if I got married earlier, my children will be so much older…That was my mistake, because I wanted to enjoy a few more years.”749 Another interviewee said that he wished he had started his family earlier because “[other members] my age are already grandparents…Imagine the joy that I’m supposed to have.”750 In contrast, Singaporean Mormons who were obedient to Church counsel felt glad that they heeded the words of their religious leaders, and did not cave in to state or societal pressure to limit or delay having their children, and in doing so, multiplied their fulfillment and joy in life.751

The Church also taught Singaporean Mormons, and particularly the women, to parent and discipline their children in a manner different than what they learned during their childhood. As Emma explained, “my parents, they didn’t express love, and when they taught [their children] …they taught by caning, scolding, and all that. Whereas the

Church taught a different way.” To be clear, the Church, as exemplified by the Relief

Society curriculum, did not oppose using physical punishment to discipline children.

748 Lau, interview. 749 Anne, interview. 750 Dennis Chai, interview. 751 For example, see Esther’s interview. 328

Still, it urged parents to seek out more effective and peaceful methods of resolving disciplinary problems, and to always reaffirm their love for their children after a disciplinary session.752 The examples of the Mormon expatriates were crucial in helping

Singaporeans understand how to apply Church counsel into their family relationships.

Soren Cox related that a Singaporean member once expressed her surprised that his wife,

Fern, thanked their daughter after helping her mother. “We never say thank you to our children,” that member exclaimed.753 Karen said that one of the things she found most attractive about the Church attractive was the way expatriate sisters taught their kids— “it wasn’t like, a lot of fear, like the Asian culture…a lot of threatening.”

Singaporean Mormons believed that the Church taught them that caning and using harsh, threatening words were not the best way to parent, nor should they lord their authority as parents over their children. For instance, Holly and Esther said they were more “patient” and communicative with their children because “you know that they are a child of God,” and should be treated with respect as well. When Vivien was a young mother, she was “pretty strict” with her children, and caned them when they were disobedient. However, as she grew in the gospel, she learned to “treat [my children] like a friend,” and “explain” to them where they went wrong, instead of immediately using physical force.754 The men also learned to discipline their children differently. For

752 “Helping Our Children: Discipline and Self Image,” 1975-76 Relief Society Courses of Study (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, c.1975), 125-127; “Constructive Discipline,” Relief Society Courses of Study 1980-81 (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1980), 133-35; “Developing Self-Discipline,” Relief Society Courses of Study 1985 (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1984), 95-7. 753 Soren Cox, interview. 754 Viven [psued.], interview by author, Singapore, August 25, 2016. 329 example, Joshua said that the gospel taught him a “better way” of teaching his children than caning. “The world will teach fathers [that] you are the head of the house, you take charge, no nonsense from the children,” he said, “The gospel is different…it’s not so important to always be right…It’s more important to do the right…So sometimes [doing] what is right is apologizing [to my wife and children], being humble... Sometimes…it means you need to be firm.”755

It wasn’t easy for Singaporean Mormons to forsake the cane or the Asian style of parenting. Karen tried to emulate the examples of the expatriate sisters she saw, but she struggled to stop threating her children. Melissa said that she “flip-flopped” between using the cane to discipline her children, and using the method of “persuasion” as advocated by the Church. Because “the cane was very effective” in compelling her children to be “straightaway, one hundred percent obedient,” it was “easier” for her to immediately turn to it when her children misbehaved. Only after many years of “flip- flopping” between the two methods did she decide that she was “done with the caning.”756 Her example, and those of other Singaporean Mormons, demonstrated that even though they struggled to let go of the parenting styles they grew up with, they tried their best to apply Church counsel, and find other methods to teach their children.

A few interviewees also mentioned that the Church taught them to implement a weekly “Family Home Evening” program in their families. In April 1915, the First

Presidency of the LDS Church released a statement “[advising] and [urging] the

755 Joshua, interview. 756 Melissa, interview. 330 inauguration of a ‘home evening’ throughout the Church, at which time fathers and mothers may gather their boys and girls about them in the home and teach them the word of the Lord.” These “home evenings” were to dispense with “formality and stiffness,” and be “devoted to prayer, singing hymns, songs, instrumental music, scripture reading, family topics, and specific instruction on the principles of the gospel and on the ethical problems of life.”757 Hosting “Family Home Evening” was a new concept for

Singaporean Mormons, and many said they learned how to organize such meetings from the expatriates who took turns opening their home for young single adults to gather as a

“family” for “Family Home Evening.”758 Later, when Singaporean Mormons married and started their families, they carried on this tradition of weekly home evenings. Although it took effort and time, Singaporean Mormons like Tina Khoo credited the Family Home

Evening program for raising her children with correct life values. Judy agreed with Ith’s assessment, and said that “if we follow whatever the Church advised us to do, like have

Family Home Evening and all that, it [will] really help us to teach our kids.” Thus, the

Church not only changed the way parents disciplined their children, it also fostered stronger ties between parents and children through an allocated weekly family time.

IMPACT ON FAMILY

Singaporean Mormons overwhelmingly agreed that the Church had a positive impact on their families. Many shared that living the values and teachings advocated by the Church strengthened family relationships. Kogen Yuen related that her daughter once

757 “Hundred Years of Family Home Evening,” Ensign, April 2015. 758 Joshua, interview; Kelvin, interview. 331 told her, “My friends are very envious of me,” because her family was “tighter” and

“[did] things together.” Teo Choon Seng said that he would “not treat my wife and children the same way” if it wasn’t for the Church. However, because of “this eternal family relationship, I saw the importance of nurturing the relationships in the family, [and between] husband and wife…It certainly affected my behavior.” Furthermore, Jacob Soh found that the gospel helped him find “common ground” and “reduced” disagreements with his children because they practiced the same beliefs and values, and thus he did not need to worry about their behavior.

Mormonism also enhanced the bonds of marriage between couples who married within the faith. One interviewee said that her marriage would have been a “disaster” if not for Church teachings, while another believed that it would have been very hard to manage her marriage without the “anchor” of the gospel, and would have likely built a

“dysfunctional family” without the “virtues and traditions” that her family practices today. Because her husband followed the “standards” set by the gospel, Judy said that she

“[trusted] him one hundred percent” whenever he traveled for work, even though his clients were mostly female. Another interviewee, Noah, also shared that “If it’s not for the gospel, the relationship between me and wife may not be [as close as] what we are now… The gospel helped me to appreciate [my] role as a father and husband.”

Singaporean Mormons felt pride and joy when they saw their children apply the values and principles they learned from the gospel into their own lives. Dorothy Chen felt validated in her sacrifice to stay home because her children were “more mature” and

“better off” than she was when they were her age, while Christina Chan said that the

332 gospel “definitely” had a “positive influence” on her children “when it came to values…like being good people, like doing good, being humble, accepting people…looking at others as children of God as well.”759 Jason also felt that his children were “not so materialistic-minded” and “more balanced” compared to their cousins because they grew up with the gospel.760 Not every child remained faithful, practicing

Mormons, of course, and their parents related that the Church also taught them appropriate ways to treat these children, and maintain strong family ties with their children.761 One interviewee struggled with the inactivity of her child, but decided to follow the counsel to “love the person…[and] build the relationship so strongly that you can gain their trust and love.” Even though she disagreed with the decisions made by her child, she learned to focus on building the relationship rather than “about being right.”

Another couple shared that they also remained in close contact with one of their children who was now less active, and were pleased that she still “[kept] to some of the things” they taught her from the gospel.762

The Church also proved to be a source of knowledge and strength for some interviewees. Queenie Chew found the doctrine of eternal families to be “comforting” when her husband passed away because “I knew that we were already sealed,” and “the church members also helped” her get through the immediate period following his

759 Dorothy Chen, interview; Christina Chan, interview. 760 Jason, interview. 761 Adam also said that the gospel helped him “define the role of the father very clearly. And Church leaders have further explained what fathers should do in the modern day, in particular, what are some of the concerns the father should look out for…be aware of, and how to deal with them.” 762 Judy, interview; Gary, interview. 333 death.763 It was also through her religion that Jean Loh gained “a sense of purpose…I knew exactly what I needed to do as a mom, as a daughter, to my own mother, and as a sister in church… This knowledge was very empowering to me. It really helped me to know what exactly I should focus on, in terms of my own family, my influence as a mother, my influence as a wife…” Given her “challenging” childhood and family circumstances, Loh believed her life would not have as much “purpose and direction,” and influence on her children, if it wasn’t for the Church.764

Singaporean Mormon women who stayed home fulltime to take care of their children also reported that they had no regrets with their decision. Karen was reluctant to stay home and did so only because she “put her faith in the Lord.” But now, with the benefit of hindsight, she “[saw] the wisdom in that…When I look back, I think my life skills came from being a mother… If I was pursuing my career…I think I would [have] missed out [on] a lot of things.”765 Now that their children are grown, many Singaporean

Mormon women have returned to the workforce or engaged in community service. A few of them wished they had kept up certain skills so that they would have had a better transition re-entering the working world. Nonetheless, they never regretted their decision to put their family first. If anything, they had the same feelings as Claire who said that she felt blessed to be able to stay at home, and that in the long run, “the Lord has blessed

[my family] even more.” When her children were older, the government paid her to take a diploma course to upgrade her educational qualifications, and she found a job soon

763 Chew, interview. 764 Loh, interview. 765 Karen, interview. 334 after. “God never shortchanged us!” she exclaimed, “I’m truly grateful for the leaders of the church for giving us good advice and counsel that we can follow to stay on the right path.”766 Although it wasn’t easy to sacrifice their personal dreams and career aspirations as young married women, they believed that God compensated them in the long run by blessing them with stronger ties to their children, a healthier relationship with their husbands, and the ability to still become economically independent later in life.

Jacqueline even expressed her regret for not devoting herself fulltime to the care of her children when they were young. Although she stayed home, “I still [went] and [gave] part-time tuition,” and admitted that in doing so, “neglected” her two older children. “If

[only] I had been more patient [and] faithful,” she lamented.767

We thus see that Singaporean Mormons felt that the Church benefitted their families, and improved their relationships with their spouses and their children. While it was difficult to obey Church counsel, and not a guarantee that their children would remain active, they still believed that their families were stronger than they might have been.

SINGLEHOOD

In as much as the Church had a positive impact on the lives of married

Singaporean Mormons who had families, single Mormons felt neglected and left out.

Eight of the people interviewed indicated that they were single before 1995 (two had married since), and all eight identified as female. While it is certain that there were single

766 Claire, interview. 767 Jacqueline, interview. 335 men in the Church, the lack of single male interviewees reflected a reality that, before

1995, more Mormon women than men experienced singlehood in Singapore.768

The consensus among these eight interviewees was that it was difficult to be a single Mormon woman in a Church that revolved around building and strengthening families. They, like Lee Pheck Leng, felt “left out” whenever she saw “families together…at sacrament meeting or activities. Just a bit left out.” Another interviewee,

Laura, said that even though the Church tried its best, “I didn’t think the Church provided a lot of support for single sisters.” But she also qualified her statement with the observation that many single Mormons were also “very busy” and wouldn’t go for social activities, which only compounded the situation. Single Mormon women also felt that their married sisters “didn’t understand where you’re coming from as a single.”769 Even

Emma, the only individual who said she was “happily single,” and wholeheartedly participated in all Church activities, said that she sympathized with other single sisters because “they felt that the Church emphasized too much on [the] family…That’s why they didn’t want to go to certain church activities.”

The main problem that single Mormon women struggled with was to remain active in the Church when they felt alone, and had no one to rely on for spiritual companionship. Linda Marican started coming to church when she was sixteen years old, graduate from BYU-Hawaii, served an LDS mission, and fulfilled several leadership

768 There are no statistics indicating whether there are more single women than men in the Church in Singapore today, but this is certainly the case of the United States. A Time magazine article revealed that in 2015, single Mormon women outnumbered single Mormon men in the United States. See Jon Birger, “What Two Religions Tell Us About the Modern Dating Crisis,” Time, no date, http://time.com/dateonomics/ (accessed May 31, 2017). 769 Janet, interview. 336 callings in the Church. And yet, she said that she still needs to motivate herself to come to church “every week,” because of the difficulty of relying on herself to remain spiritually strong. It was a problem that her other single Mormon friends struggled with as well. “It’s not that they don’t have a ‘testimony,’” she said, “Because all of them served missions…It’s just the motivation to stay active…to come to church [when] they’re alone, and most of the ward [are] families and all that, so it’s quite challenging.”

Despite not having the opportunity to marry, all of them were strong defenders of the Church’s doctrine about the family, and expressed their support for the Church’s teachings about eternal families, and differentiated gender roles. Janet confessed that when the Relief Society lesson was about families, she would “switch off” or “kind of listen” to the teacher. However, it wasn’t because she felt “negative” or disagreed with the content of the lesson, but more because it did not apply to her. Indeed, it was precisely because these women had a deep belief in the Church’s teachings about the family that they struggled to find a companion who shared the same conviction and sentiments. Kalai Selvi Nadarajan, for instance, always believed that she would have been married by now if she wasn’t a member because her father would have arranged her marriage. “[But] for me, I must marry someone in the Church,” she explained, “Someone

[who] has the same values, the same religion… So I said ‘no, no, no,’ (to potential arranged marriage candidates) until…I couldn’t find anybody to marry.” Moreover, she found that as a female, she was “even more blocked for marriage, because if I’m a man, maybe I can marry a woman and bring her in, but as a female… [Indian men] have this

337 notion that they are the leaders, that they lead the women to religious things… So I don’t know what to do. I’m just living my life.”

However, even though being a Mormon contributed to their singlehood, active

Singapore Mormon women also turned to religion for strength and support though their loneliness. Lee said that her “testimony of Jesus Christ” kept her “hope” strong that one day, she would have her own family, and Nadarajan agreed that even though she felt lonely, at least her “faith and testimony [were] getting stronger.” Religion also helped

Marican pick herself up, and preserver through life. “Knowing the gospel helped me [go],

‘Okay, so I’m in this situation. I can’t do anything about the situation. What can I do that is within my control?’” she said, and listed a few things she took “control” of in her life, such as buying a home.

Thus, it was hard to remain faithful in a religion that emphasized marriage and family, even though they wholeheartedly agreed with the Church doctrine on these topics.

Single Mormon women felt alienated at Church, and it took much determination to remain active. However, they also drew comfort and hope from their religion, and felt that going through singlehood made them stronger in their faith.

Regardless of their marital status, however, it is clear that the Church shaped the way Singaporean Mormons conceptualized gender roles, and ideas about the family and parenthood. Church teachings strengthened the cultural concept of Asian male patriarchal authority in the home, and extended it to the church. However, Singaporean Mormon women did not necessarily view this as detrimental. In certain instances, Singaporean

Mormon women even supported patriarchy because they did not want to take on the 338 responsibilities and duties of being the main breadwinner of the family and priesthood holders. Instead, they used religious teachings and the examples of the top-most Church leaders to promote righteous patriarchal behavior, and ensure that men treated them with kindness and love. At the same time, they used the same religious beliefs to advocate for

“equal partnership” with the men. In a way, the Church’s ambiguous position on gender equality allowed Singaporean Mormon women to promote both patriarchy and gender equality, citing either one as and when it suited their purposes. As contradictory is it was, perhaps their examples demonstrate the complex reality that devout religious women navigated within patriarchal structures. Married Singaporean Mormon women also struggled to abide by the unpopular decision to remain in the home as fulltime homemakers, and have children even when they could not “afford it.” Obeying the counsel of their patriarchal religious leaders took faith as young mothers, but witnessing the rewards in their families validated their sacrifice. In all, their devotion to a patriarchal religion provided the doctrinal justification for Singaporean Mormon women to exercise power and widen their scope of influence over their husbands, children, and religious leaders. This is the value they gained from joining this conservative American religion.

339

CONCLUSION

In 1995, two momentous events happened to the Church in Singapore. In January, the Asia Area Authority announced that all expatriate members in Singapore would now attend one branch (Clementi Branch), separate from the local members.770 They gave two explanations. First, having separate congregations would enable expatriates to reach out to other foreign members who were spiritually struggling. As one interviewee observed, when some expatriates came to church and saw their local branch president, “they couldn’t accept it.” Already uncomfortable in a foreign environment, these expatriates needed leaders who were part of their culture. Second, the needs and interests of the expatriate and local youth greatly differed due to the different education systems, and it made sense for the expatriates to meet in one congregation to pool their resources, and create a Church program more suited for their youth. Hence, Church leaders felt that these advantages would offset the cost of the split, which was that expatriates and locals would no longer enjoy frequent and close contact with each other.771

770 Pang, 94. The Clementi Branch was later renamed the Clementi Ward, after the Singapore district became a stake. Later, in August 1995, President Woo decided to change the name of the ward for the expatriates as the Singapore First Ward, while the Clementi Ward was once again designated as a ward for local members. 771 The records do not indicate if the Asian Area presidency set the same policy for Hong Kong and Taiwan (the two other countries they oversaw). However, in May 1998, they created the Hong Kong International District to serve the needs of Church members who did not speak Cantonese. The creation of the International District essentially segregated members into local people who spoke Cantonese, and expatriates who may not have known the language. See “Country Information: China,” from the Church 340

When the split was announced, both the locals and active expatriate members were shocked. They resented the new policy. Hannah “remembered crying about it.”772

Other Singaporean Mormons were puzzled and hurt, especially since the timing of the split came on the heels of the 1994 Michael Fay case. Fay, an American teenager, was sentenced to six strokes of caning for theft and vandalism in Singapore. His case garnered so much attention from the American media that U.S. officials intervened for leniency

(Fay’s sentence was reduced from six to four strokes of the cane). Because of Fay, some

Singaporean members thought that the Americans wanted to segregate themselves because the locals were “not good enough for them.”773 In reality, the expatriates were equally angered by the split, and a group even collected a petition to protest the policy.774

But their efforts failed to persuade the Asia Area Authority to rescind policy, and the segregation of the races into separate congregations remained.

The next month, on February 25, 1995 (Saturday), Church members in Singapore filed into the chapel for a special meeting with Church apostle, Neal A. Maxwell. He was in Singapore for two days with the Asia Area President, John Carmack. Carmack rose to speak first, and told the audience that he and Maxwell had been visiting Hong Kong the past week to make plans for “organizing a stake.” Then he remarked that the attendance rate that evening “looked like what a stake conference attendance rate” looked like.775

Whenever the Church opened a mission in a country, members first congregated in small

News, http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/58550/Country-information-China.html (accessed June 23, 2017). 772 Hannah, interview. 773 Chan, interview. 774 Hannah, interview. 775 Pang, 42. 341

“branches,” and a conglomerate of five to ten branches was called a “district.” A district was led by a district president, who in turn reported to the mission president, the highest

Church authority within that country. However, when a district grew large enough, with a certain number of active men who held the priesthood, the district was converted into a

“stake,” with the branches turned into “wards.” The stake president took over from the mission president as the highest authority, and directly reported to the Area Authority.

The creation of a stake also affirmed that the members had exhibited a level of spiritual maturity and leadership for the topmost Church authorities to grant them “stakehood.” Up to that point, stakehood seemed a lofty goal for the Church in Singapore as most stakes had 3,000 to 5,000 members, and Singapore only had around 1,500 members.

Carmack’s remarks sent a sizzle of anticipation through the audience, however.

Was it possible that their district was going to be converted into a stake? Apostle

Maxwell stood up to speak next. His sermon touched upon the milky way and God’s creations, and he reminded them that God was aware of his children around the world. As fascinating as his remarks were, every minute that he spoke dampened the hope of the audience. If he was there to convert the Singapore district into a stake, his words or demeanor gave no clue to his intention to do so. But just as he was about to close his remarks, he announced that he would organize the Singapore Stake of Zion the next day, and asked the audience to return mentally and spiritually prepared. The audience buzzed with excitement the rest of the evening.

The next morning, the chapel was packed to maximum capacity when Maxwell created the first stake in Singapore. Leonard Woo was called as the new stake president,

342 with Jacob Soh and Michael Fisher, as his two counselors. It was also the first stake created in Southeast Asia, outside of the Philippines. Maxwell told the Saints that even though the membership was small, Church leaders were inspired by their spiritual strength, and counseled them to be a beacon to other countries in Southeast Asia. He also reminded them that as a stake, the members would be required to do more heavy lifting in running Church affairs. Perhaps Maxwell was giving the local members a portentous warning of the work that would be required from them.776

Indeed, with the segregation of congregations by race and citizenship,

Singaporeans could no longer depend upon the expatriates for guidance and leadership.

And now with the creation of the Singapore Stake, they led the entire Church in

Singapore. But Church leaders at headquarters were confident that Singaporeans were ready to take on more leadership duties. The expatriates had tutored the local converts since 1968 when the Church opened the mission in Singapore. Missionaries arrived in

Singapore with “Cold War Orientalist” understandings of the Asian people. In their minds, Singapore was a Third World country that desperately needed the economic, technological, and religious guidance of the United States and other more developed

Western countries. They could not provide the economic or technological capital that

Singapore needed, nor was it their duty to interfere in the political affairs of the country.

But they could strengthen the spirituality and morality of the people in this impoverished nation, and bring the souls of Singaporeans back to Jesus Christ. The missionaries were not alone in their endeavor. Mormon businessmen and military personnel from the United

776 Ibid. 343

States, Australia, New Zealand , and Britain stationed in Singapore joined the missionaries to help convert locals to Christianity, and more specifically, Mormonism. To be clear, expatriate missionaries and members did not go to Singapore with intentions to begin a new American colonization project. Mormon expatriates were not interested in taking away the political sovereignty of Singaporeans. Instead, they wanted to build connections and peaceful relationships with Singaporeans, and viewed themselves as surrogate parents and older siblings to local converts in this Church family.

The genuine intentions and affection for Singaporeans expressed by expatriate

Mormons soon won over locals searching for a church to join. Many young Singaporeans

(not just those who joined the Church) wanted to become Christians in the 1960s and

‘70s because Christianity seemed more rational and modern compared to the beliefs purported by traditional Asian religions (Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism).

“Window-shopping” for a church became a growing trend among young locals, and it is during this fortuitous period that the Church arrived in Singapore. While the Church faced public opposition and state penalization because of its racist and polygamous past, it still attracted a group of Singaporeans to its fold. The Church’s systematic missionary program and discussions, as well its doctrine about deity and family, drew investigators to learn more. While the Church struggled in the United States to defend itself against accusations of being “too white” in the 1970s and ‘80s (and continues to do so today), it was this very characteristic that attracted Singaporeans who were seeking to join a

“Western” church. Family and friends of Singaporean Mormons objected to them joining this “cult” and leaving their traditional Chinese and Indian roots, but they could not deny

344 the emotional conviction they felt to the Church. Membership slowly snowballed as new converts introduced their own families and friends to their new faith. Thus, even when the Singaporean government imposed a visa ban on the number of foreign missionaries allowed to enter Singapore, church membership continued to grow.

As more Singaporeans converted to Mormonism, the Church became a contact zone where a high level of interracial and intercultural exchanges took place between the expatriates and Singaporean converts. The two disparate groups socialized while working together on church callings, and at church activities. They also introduced their respective foods, traditions and festivities, and other cultural elements to each other, and engaged in informal, non-state sanctioned cultural diplomacy at a grassroots level. These transnational interactions impacted Singaporeans more than expatriates. While expatriates did their best to acculturate to the climate and country, they were not always successful. This was due in part to the transitory nature of Mormon missions and expatriate jobs, and because expatriates did not receive sufficient training about the local culture to prepare them for their assignments. Orientalism and hints of racism thus colored the perspectives of expatriates and their interpretations of the local culture. The global Cold War geopolitical division between First World and Third World nations solidified the notion in the minds of both expatriates and locals that people from Western countries had more to offer Singaporeans than vice-versa. It wasn’t that expatriate

Mormon did not try to engage in these cultural exchanges; they were generous in sharing their knowledge, and were eager to make friends with the locals. But they were less able to assimilate the Singaporean culture into their lives, especially the older expatriates.

345

Joining the Church and interacting with the expatriates had a more lasting impact in the lives of Singaporean Mormons, and fundamentally changed their concepts of race.

They learned to cook and eat Western food, celebrate Christmas and other Western holidays, and be more open and expressive of their feelings with family members. Those who went on missions and BYU reported that they became more committed Christian-

Mormons, and were more confident in themselves and in God. Their missions and time at

BYU also opened the door toward upward social mobility by honing their employment and communication skills, and providing the opportunity to earn a university degree at a time when they could qualify for Singapore’s universities. Singaporean Mormons also learned how to better run the Church by observing the leadership skills of American

Mormons in the United States. More significantly, Singaporean Mormons felt enriched by these multicultural experiences with the expatriates. Although the Church was from the United States, it did not advocate elements of Western culture that Singaporean

Mormons deemed immoral, such as sexual promiscuity. No doubt the Church accelerated their “Westernization,” but it did not detract from their Asian values and traditions.

Instead, they learned to select and amalgamate certain Western cultural elements with their own culture, and thus enjoyed the “best of both worlds.” Working closely with the expatriates also exposed the imperfections of Caucasians, and diminished notions of white supremacy for Singaporean converts.

The Church also had long-term ramifications on Singaporean Mormons in their conceptualization of gender roles and family formation. The Singaporean government implemented a set of policies in the 1960s and ‘70s designed to encourage women to

346 enter the public working sphere have fewer children. Yet, the government did not change social attitudes about traditional Chinese and Indian male patriarchy, and so Singaporean women carried the double burdens of contributing to the family income and overseeing the domestic duties of the home. The Church offered another model based upon conservative American values of the family. It required women to sacrifice their careers and have more children even when they could not “afford it.” But Church leaders promised that God would bless their families. Singaporean Mormon women who obeyed the counsel of Church leaders felt that their marriages and families were indeed strengthened, and that God did fulfill his promise to them. Furthermore, the Church provided the justification for Singaporean Mormon women to advocate for more power in their marriages and in church. Both their culture and religion had socialized them to accept patriarchal authority of their husbands and religious leaders. But instead of seeing this as oppressive or disadvantageous as second wave feminists claimed, Singaporean

Mormon women used Church doctrine to hold men accountable to God for any abusive or unrighteous behavior. At the same time, because of the Church’s contradictory stance on the issue of gender equality, Singaporean Mormon women invoked the dual concepts of “righteous male patriarchy” and “gender equality/ equal partners” as and when it suited their circumstances. Understanding the benefits of Church membership for

Singaporean Mormon women provide another case example for how women in patriarchal religious structures exercise power, and how women of other cultures and circumstances defined terms such as “gender equality” differently.

347

Ultimately, despite their trials and challenges of remaining devout to their faith, many said the Church gave them more direction and purpose in their lives. Others felt that the gospel helped them become a more moral, forgiving, and kinder. Overall, their lives were “happier” and “blessed in every aspect” because of their religion.777

Mormonism changed the lives of Singaporean converts, and it was in part due to efforts of the Mormon expatriates. But by 1995, Church leaders at headquarters felt that

Singaporean had gained sufficient tutelage from the expatriates, and formed a stake in

Singapore. Like a bird leaving its nest, Singaporean Mormons treaded with cautious but optimistic steps into this new phrase of Church history. They still felt unsure about their abilities, even though by this time, some had already been members for decades.

Furthermore, Singapore had transformed into a modern, developed country by this point.

The growth of Church in the proceeding decades would depend upon the ability of the local leadership to overcome new challenges. For instance, many wondered if their children would be converted to the faith, independent of their parents. Yet, despite their concerns, the first generation of Singaporean Mormons marched forward, confident that

God would continue to guide and bless their lives.

Understanding the perspective of Singaporean Mormons helps scholars of

Mormon history understand the process by which Singaporeans localized and adapted

Mormonism and American culture into their lives, and which parts they rejected.

Moreover, the history of the Church in Singapore illuminates the benefits and value

Singaporean Mormons felt that they enjoyed from Church membership, and serves as a

777 Claire, interview; Esther, interview. 348 starting point for scholars seeking to understand the growing presence of the Church in

Southeast Asia since the 1960s.

This case study of Mormons in Singapore also hints at how non-Americans viewed the United States in the latter-half of the twentieth century, and why certain segments of the global population supported American leadership. In a way, America did win the “heart and minds” of the citizenry in certain nations, such as Singapore.778 But it wasn’t simply because the United States waged a successful propaganda campaign. Non-

Americans needed to be receptive to these outreach efforts, and in this, American non- state actors played a crucial role in ensuring that transnational cultural diplomacy was successful. In this case, the grassroots intercultural exchanges between expatriate and local Mormons in Singapore helps explain in small part the wider national sentiment of

Singaporeans who favored a strong Singapore-U.S. relationship. As more future histories are written from the perspective of non-Americans, we can piece together a more comprehensive understanding of how other nations came to recognize (or reject) the

United States, despite its more controversial aspects of its history, as the undisputed global power at the turn of the twenty-first century.

778 The phrase “hearts and minds” is a reference to Gen. Sir Gerald Templer who said in 1952 about the Malayan Emergency, “The answer [to defeating communist insurgents] …rests in the hearts and minds of the Malayan people.” American political leaders later adopted the phrase to refer to the cultural war against communism during the Cold War. 349

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Interview list [* Indicates use of pseudonym in dissertation chapters] Ang Seng Hong Michael Chai Teck Wee Dennis Chai Rosemary* Chan Chee Pang Charlie* Chan Geok Ee Christina Chan Kim Chin Valoy* Chen Dorothy Chen Victor Cheong Siew Chin Alice* Chew Li-Lian Julia Alexis* Chew Queenie Chia Norman* Hah Foong Yin Cecelia* Ho-Cheong Lai Fong Patricia* Ho-Leong Peck Har Helen* Hsiah Lily* Kalai Selvi Nadarajan Khoo Tina Kwan Yew Mun* Lai Chee Kong Stephen Lau Mei Leen Margaret Lee Chee Choong John* Lee May Har Evelyn* Lee Pheck Leng Leong Dalicia* Lim Chen Wee Terence Lim Ite Chen* Lim Lay Suat Jaime Lim Yi Cheng* Loh Meng Tuck Philip* Marican Linda Nadarajan Pongkodi Rajikannu 350

Ng Yong Meow* Ow Kit Yue Connie* Pang Meng Hock* Peh Tiew Poh Christina* See Jascinda* Sim Siew Cheng Rita* Soh Chong Seng Jacob Tan Chew Yian Tan Kee Eng Alice Tan Swan Kiang Francis Teo Choon Seng Thong Geok Lee* Tu Rosalind* Wong Sai Lim Woo Hoi Seng Leonard Woon Tai Boo* Yee Mui Lang Jean Yuan Lip Hwa Kogen [The following are individuals who wanted to remain anonymous.] Anne Esther Gary Jacqueline Vivien

Soren F. and Fern Cox Richard D. Rands Lionel F. and Marianne Walters

Archives Church History Library of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Argentine North Mission, Missionary Handbook, 1969 Central German Mission, Missionary Handbook. Dusseldorf, Germany: 1966 Church News Eastern Pearl Echo Asia (in Singapore Mission Minutes—Publications 1969) George Carlos Smith, Jr., interview by William G. Hartley, Salt Lake City, September 8-28 LaVon Petersen Smith, Lavon P. Smith Journal, 1969 October-1972 July Marianne B. Walters mission journal Miller F. Shurtleff Mission Papers New England Mission, Missionary Handbook, Cambridge, MA: 1967? Pang Meng Hock, Journal Excerpts, 1979 July to 1980 October Sheila Hsia, interview by Ronald O. Barney, Singapore, September 20, 1996 351

Singapore Branch, Southeast Asia Mission, Singapore Branch General Minutes, 1964-1973 Sao Paulo Brazil Mission, Missionary Handbook, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1962? Singapore Mission Minutes—Publications 1969 Southeast Asia Mission, Missionary Handbook, Singapore: Acme Printers Ltd, 1970? Southeast Asia Mission, Southeast Asia Mission Manuscript and Historical Reports, 1969-1978 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, A Uniform System for Teaching Investigators, January 1966 William F. and Marianne Walters mission papers, 1982-1985 – includes copy of The Ambassador

National Archives of Singapore The Courier

Other primary sources

Baer, Roger. Mission diary and photograph. Copy in author’s possession.

Benson, Ezra Taft. “A Witness and a Warning.” In Conference Report, October 1979.

Benson, Ezra Taft. “Counsel to the Saints.” In Conference Report, April 1984.

Benson, Ezra Taft. “The Honored Place of Women.” In Conference Report, November 1981.

Benson, Ezra Taft. “To the Mothers in Zion.” Fireside for Parents. February 22, 1987.

Cox, Dale S. A Brief History of the LDS Church in Singapore, June 1978.

“Cox family returns with Singapore tales,” Emery County Progress, August 31, 1978.

Cox, Soren Franklin. Interview by John H. Adams, Oral History Program of the Provo, Utah North Stake, Provo, Utah, March 9, 1986.

“Friends in Singapore.” Friend, September 1975.

“Hundred Years of Family Home Evening.” Ensign. April 2015.

Hunter, Howard W. “Being a Righteous Husband and Father.” In Conference Report October 1994.

Jack, Elaine S. “’Ponder the Path of Thy Feet’.” In Conference Report, October 1993. 352

Kimball, Spencer W. “Marriage and Divorce.” In 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year. Provo, Brigham Young University Press, 1977.

Kimball, Spencer W. “Our Sisters in the Church.” In Conference Report. October 1979.

Kimball, Spencer W. “The Role of Righteous Women.” In Ensign, November 1979.

LaVon P. Smith. “My Story,” September 1986. Copy of manuscript in author’s possession.

Lee, Kuan Yew. “Speech at the NTUC’s International Women’s Year Seminar-cum- Exhibition.” September 1, 1975.

Monson, Thomas S. “The Women’s Movement: Liberation or Deception.” In Ensign, January 1971.

“News of the Church- Abortion is Considered ‘Revolting Sin’ by Church.” In Ensign, March 1973.

Rand, Richard. “On Being Assigned to Work for Hewlett-Packard Co. in Singapore.” Manuscript in author’s possession.

Smith, G. Carlos. Red and Gold, 1971.

Tanner, N. Eldon. “Celestial Marriages and Eternal Families.” In Conference Report, April 1980.

Tanner, N. Eldon. “No Greater Honor: The Women’s Role.” In Conference Report, October 1973.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 1971-72 Relief Society Courses of Study. USA: Relief Society of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1971.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 1975-76 Relief Society Courses of Study. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1975.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Aaronic Priesthood/ Adults: Priesthood Advancement Seminar Series A. Salt Lake City: The Presiding Bishopric, c. 1969.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Aaronic Priesthood Young Men Handbook. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1977.

353

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A Royal Priesthood, 1975-6: A Personal Study Guide for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Deseret Press, c. 1975.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Come unto Christ: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1984/1988. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, c.1986.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part A. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, c. 1980.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part B. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ca.1980.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “First Presidency Statement.” Church News, October 30, 1976.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Gospel Doctrine Volume: Selections from the Sermons and Writings of Joseph F. Smith, a Course Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorum. Utah: First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, c.1971.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He That Receiveth My Servant Receiveth Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1979-80. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1978.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Relief Society Courses of Study 1980-81. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ca. 1980.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Relief Society Courses of Study 1985. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1984.

Widtsoe, John A. “The ‘Mormon’ Woman.” In The Relief Society Magazine: Organ of the Relief Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. June-July 1943, Volume 30, 372-5.

Secondary Sources

Online sources

354

Barr, Michael D. “Lee Kuan Yew: Race, Culture and Genes.” http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan004070.pdf (accessed June 12, 2017).

Department of Statistics, Singapore. “Chart—Home Ownership Rate of Resident Households.” http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/visualising-data/charts/home- ownership-rate-of-resident-households (accessed November 18, 2016).

Gallup and Meridian International Center. “The U.S.-Global Leadership Project: Report for 2011.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/153998/global-leadership-project- report.aspx (accessed June 22, 2017).

HistorySG. http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history (accessed October 17, 2016).

Lepoer, Barbara Leitch, ed. Singapore: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1989. http://countrystudies.us/singapore.htm (accessed November 16, 2016)

Meteorological Service of Singapore. “Climate of Singapore.” http://www.weather.gov.sg/climate-climate-of-singapore/ (accessed November 15, 2016).

National Library Board of Singapore. Singapore Infopedia. http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/ (accessed October 10, 2016).

Pew Research Center. “A Portrait of Mormons in the U.S.” July 24, 2009. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/07/24/a-portrait-of-mormons-in-the-us/ (accessed June 27, 2017).

Population Division, DESA, United Nations. “World Population Aging 1950-2050.” http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldageing19502050/pdf/180sing a.pdf (accessed June 21, 2017).

The World Bank. “Singapore—Chart on Life Expectancy at Birth, Total (Years).” http://data.worldbank.org/country/singapore?view=chart (accessed November 18, 2016).

Trade Chakra. “Singapore Natural Resources.” http://www.tradechakra.com/economy/singapore/singapore-natural-resources- 94.php (accessed November 15, 2016).

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. “Chart—Literacy rate among the population aged 15 years and older.” http://en.unesco.org/countries/singapore (accessed November 18, 2016). 355

Theses and Dissertations

Kho, Ee Moi. “Religion and State in Singapore, 1959-1978.” Bachelor’s honors thesis. University of Singapore, 1979.

Marianno, Scott D. “To Belong As Citizens: Race and Marriage in Utah, 1880-1920.” Masters thesis. Utah State University, 2015.

Wagenen, Lola Van. Sister Wives and Suffragists: Polygamy and the Politics of Woman Suffrage, 1870-1896. Ph.D. dissertation. New York University, 1994. Later published into a monograph in 2003 by the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History and BYU Studies.

Books

Aikau, Hokulani K. A Chosen People, A Promised Land: Mormonism and Race in Hawaii. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2012.

Akashi, Yō ji and Mako Yoshimura, eds. New Perspectives on the Japanese Occupation in Malaya and Singapore, 1941-1945. Singapore: NUS Press, 2008.

Baker, Jim. Crossroads: A Popular History of Malaysia and Singapore. 2nd ed. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions, 2006.

Baker, Jim. The Eagle in the Lion City: America, Americans and Singapore. Singapore: Landmark Books, 2005.

Bradley, Martha Sonntag. Pedestals and Podiums: Utah Women, Religious Authority, and Equal Rights. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2005.

Briggs, Laura. Reproducing Empire: Race, Sex, Sciences, and U.S. Imperialism in Puerto Rico. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

Bringhurst, Newell G. Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Black People within Mormonism. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1981.

Britsch, R. Lanier. From the East: The History of the Latter-day Saints in Asia, 1851- 1996. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1998.

Brooks, Juanita. The Mountain Meadows Massacre. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1950.

356

Cannon, Donald Q. and Richard O. Cowen, eds. Unto Every Nation: Gospel Light Reaches Every Land. Salt Lake City, Utah, 2003.

Carpenter, Joel A. and Wilbert R. Shenk, eds. Earthen Vessels: American Evangelicals and Foreign Missions, 1880-1980. USA: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990.

Conrad, Penne D. Out of the Killing Fields, into the Light: Interviews with Mormon Converts from Cambodia. Springville, Utah: Cedar Fort Inc, 2011.

Costigliola, Frank and Michael J. Hogan, eds. America in the World: The Historiography of American Foreign Relations since 1941, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Chinese Women’s Association. Chinese Women’s Association 1oo Fabulous Years. Singapore: Didier Millet Pte Ltd, 2015.

Compton, Todd M. In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Utah: Signature Books, 1997.

Connelly, Matthew. Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010.

Cummings, Kathleen Sprows. New Women of the Old Faith: Gender and American Catholicism in the Progressive Era. North Carolina, USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2009.

Daughters in My Kingdom: The History and Work of Relief Society. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2011.

Davidman, Lynn. Tradition in a Rootless World: Women Turn to Orthodox Judaism. University of California Press, 1991.

Derr, Jill Mulvay, Janath Russell Cannon, and Maureen Ursenbah Beecher. Women of Covenant: The Story of Relief Society. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1992.

DuBois, Ellen Carol and Lynn Dumenil. Through Women’s Eyes: An American History with Documents, 4th ed. Boston and New York: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2016.

Embry, Jessie L. Asian American Mormons: Bridging Cultures. Provo, Utah: Charles Redd Center for Western Studies, Brigham Young University, 1999.

Garrett, Matthew. Making Lamanites: Mormons, Native Americans, and the Indian Student Placement Program, 1947-2000. Utah: University of Utah Press, 2016. 357

Goedde, Petra. GIs and Germans: Culture, Gender and Foreign Relations, 1945-1949. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.

Hales, Brian C. Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 1: History. Greg Kofford Books Inc, 2013.

Hanks, Maxine, ed. Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism. Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1992.

Henold, Mary J. Catholic and Feminist: The Surprising History of the American Catholic Feminist Movement. North Carolina, USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2012.

Herzog, Jonathan P. The Spiritual-Industrial Complex: America’s Religious Battle Against Communism in the Early Cold War. New York, USA: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Higginbotham, Evelyn Brooks. Righteous Discontent: The Women’s Movement in the Black Baptist Church, 1880-1920. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Holbrook, Kate and Matthew Bowman, eds. Women and Mormonism: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 2016.

Hudson, Chris. Beyond the Singapore Girl: Discourse of Gender and Nation in Singapore. Great Britain: NIAS Press, 2013.

Hutchinson, William R. Hutchinson. Errand to the World: American Protestant Thought and Foreign Missionaries. USA: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Inboden, William. Religion and American Foreign Policy, 1945-1960: The Soul of Containment. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Jones, J. Talmage. In Singapore and other Asian Cities. Salt Lake City: Publishers Press, 1984.

Kaufman, Debra Renee. Rachel’s Daughters: Newly Orthodox Jewish Women. New Bruinswick and London: Rutgers University Press, 1991.

Kho, Ee Moi. The Construction of Femininity in a Postcolonial State: Girl’s Education in Singapore. Amherst, New York: Cambria Press, 2013.

358

Klein, Christina. Cold War Orientalism: Asia in the Middlebrow Imagination, 1945- 1961. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003.

Kratoska, Paul J., ed. Malaya and Singapore During the Japanese Occupation. Singapore: Distribute by Singapore University Press, 1995.

Kwang, Han Fook, Warren Fernandez and Sumiko Tan. Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions and The Straits Times Press, 2015).

Lee, Geok Boi. The Syonan Years: Singapore Under Japanese Rule 1942-1945. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore, 2005.

Lee, Kuan Yew. The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions and The Straits Times Press, 2015.

Leong, Wai Kim. The Singapore Women’s Charter: 50 Questions. Singapore: Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2011.

Lim Jason and Terence Lee, eds. Singapore: Negotiating State and Society, 1965-2015, London and New York: Routledge, 2016.

Lim, Jenny Lam, Phyllis G.L. Chew, Lisa Kong, and Tan Ee Sze. Voices & Choices: The Women’s Movement in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Council of Women’s Organisations and Singapore Baha’I Women’s Committee, 1993.

Lim Teck Ghee. Peasants and Their Agricultural Economy in Colonial Malaya 1874- 1941. Kuala Lumpur, 1977.

Long, S.R. Joey. Safe for Decolonization: The Eisenhower Administration, Britain, and Singapore. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 2011.

Ludlow, Daniel H., ed. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1992.

Lyons, Lenore. A State of Ambivalence: The Feminist Movement in Singapore. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004.

Madsen, Carol Cornwall and Cherry B. Silver, eds. New Scholarship on Latter-day Saint Women in the Twentieth Century: Selections from the Women’s History Initiative Seminars 2003-2004. Provo, Utah: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, 2005.

359

McAlister, Melani. Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, and U.S. Interests in the Middle East, 1945-2000. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.

McMahon, Robert J. The Limits of Empire: The United States and Southeast Asia Since World War II. New York: Columbus University Press, 1999.

Miksic, John N. Singapore & The Silk Road of the Sea, 1300-1800. Singapore: NUS Press, 2013.

Neilson, Reid L. Early Mormon Missionary Activities in Japan, 1901-1924. Utah: University of Utah Press, 2010.

Nguyen, Lien-Hang T. Hanoi's War: An International History of the War for Peace in Vietnam. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2012.

Painter, Nell Irvin. Sojourner Truth: A Life, A Symbol. W.W. Norton & Co, 1997.

Pang, Beng Ling. A History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Singapore: Journey to Stakehood, 1964-1997. Singapore: C.O.S. Printers Pte Ltd., 1997.

Pratt, Mary Louise. Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. London: Routledge, 1992.

Prentiss, Craig, ed. Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity. New York: New York Press, 2003.

Preston, Andrew. Sword of the Spirit, Shield of Faith: Religion in American War and Diplomacy. New York and Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012

Quah, Jon S.T. “Religion and Religious Conversion in Singapore: A Review of the Literature.” Report Prepared for Ministry of Community Development, December 1987.

Reeve, W. Paul. Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Reeves-Ellington, Barbara, Kathryn Sklar, and Connie A. Shemo, eds. Competing Kingdoms: Women, Mission, Nation, and the American Protestant Empire, 1812- 1960. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2010.

Rosenberg, Emily S. Spreading the American Dream: American, Economic and Cultural Expansion, 1890-1945. New York: Hill and Wang, 1982.

360

Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.

Takagi, Shinji. The Trek East: Mormonism Meets Japan, 1901-1968. Greg Kofford Books, 2016.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 2013 Church Almanac. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News, 2012.

Tong, Chee Kiong. Rationalizing Religion: Religious Conversion, Revivalism and Competition in Singapore Society. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007.

Turnbull, C. M. Turnbull. A History of Modern Singapore, 1819-2005. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press, 2016.

Wagnleitner, Reinhold. Coca-Colonization and the Cold War: The Cultural Mission of the United States in Austria After the Second World War. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994.

Walker, Ronald W., Richard E. Turley, and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Warren, James Francis. Ah Ku and Karayuki-San: Prostitution in Singapore, 1870-1940. Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Ward, Barbara E, ed. Women in the New Asia: The Changing Social Roles of Men and Women in South and South-East Asia. Paris: UNESCO, 1963.

Westad, Odd Arne. The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Wu, Judy Tzu-Chun, Radicals on the Road: Internationalism, Orientalism, and Feminism during the Vietnam War Era. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2013.

Journal Articles and Chapters in Books

Bingham, Ryan Stuart. “Curses and Marks: Racial Dispensations and Dispensations of Race in Joseph Smith’s Bible Revision and the Book of Abraham.” In Journal of Mormon History 41, no.3 July 2015): 22-57.

Chan, Jasmine S. “The Status of Women in a Patriarchal State: The Case of Singapore,.” In Women in Asia: Tradition, Modernity and Globalisation, eds. Louise Edwards and Mino Roces, 39-58. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000.

361

Chew, Phyllis Ghim Lian. “The Singapore Council of Women and the Women’s Movement.” Journal of Asian Studies 25 (March 1994): 112-140.

Clark, Rebekah Ryan. “An Uncovered History: Mormons in the Woman Suffrage Movement, 1896-1920.” In New Scholarship on Latter-day Saint Women in the Twentieth Century: Selections from the Women’s History Initiative Seminars 2003-2004, eds. Carol Cornwall Madsen and Cherry B. Silver, 19-38. Provo, Utah: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, 2005.

DeBernardi, Jean. “The Localization of Christianity among Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia.” In Chinese Populations in Contemporary Southeast Asian Societies: Identities, Interdependence and International Influence, eds. M. Jocelyn Armstrong, R. Warwick Armstrong, and Kent Mulliner, 123-150. Surry, Great Britain: Curzon, 2001.

Goh, C.B. and S. Gopinathan. “Education in Singapore: Development Since 1965.” In An African Exploration of the East Asian Education, edited by B. Fredriksen & J. P. Tan, 80-108. Washington D.C.: The World Bank, 2008.

Griffith, Casey Paul, et al. “‘Colegios Chilenos De los Santos De los Últimos Días’: The History of Latter-day Saint Schools in Chile.” Journal of Mormon History 40 (Winter 2014): 97-134.

Hanciles, Jehu J. “Mormonism and Global Christianity.” Journal of Mormon Studies 41, (April 2015): 35-68.

Kong, Lily L. L. and Jasmine S. Chan. “Patriarchy and Pragmatism: Ideological Contradictions in State and Policies.” Asian Studies Review 24 (December 2000): 501-531.

Lawrence, Mark Atwood. “Explaining the Rise to Global Power: U.S. Policy toward Asia and Africa since 1941.” In America in the World: The Historiography of American Foreign Relations since 1941, eds. Frank Costigliola and Michael J. Hogan, 2nd eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014: 236-259.

Madsen, Carol Cornwall. “Woman Suffrage.” In Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 1572. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992.

Miller-Davenport, Sarah. “Their blood shall not be shed in vain”: American Evangelical Missionaries and the Search for God and Country in Post-World War II Asia.” Journal of American History (March 2013): 1109-1132.

Mueller, Max Perry. “Beyond ‘Race and the Priesthood’—Toward a New History of Race and Mormonism.” Journal of Mormon History 41, no. 3 (July 2015): 1-10. 362

Mueller, Max Perry. “History Lessons: Race and the LDS Church.” Journal of Mormon History 41, no. 1 (Winter 2015): 139-155.

Nabhan-Warren, Kristy. “Little Slices of Heaven and Mary’s Candy Kisses: Mexican American Women Redefining Feminism and Catholicism.” In The Religious History of American Women, ed. Catherine A. Brekus, 294-317. North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

Poon, Angelia. “Pick and Mix for a Global City: Race and Cosmopolitanism in Singapore.” In Race and Multiculturalism in Malaysia and Singapore, edited by Daniel P.S. Goh et al., 70-85. London and New York: Routledge, 2009.

Robert, Dana L. “From Missions to Missions to Beyond Missions: The Historiography of American Protestant Foreign Missions Since World War II.” In New Directions in American Religious History, eds. Harry S. Stout and D.G. Hart, 362-393. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “Chapter Six: Organization of the Church of Jesus Christ.” In Church History in The Fullness of Times Student Manual, 67-78. Salt Lake City, Utah: Church Education System, 2003.

Vasu, Norma Vasu. “(En)countering Terrorism: Multiculturalism and Singapore.” Asian Ethnicity 1 (February 2008): 17-32.

Voekel, Pamela, Bathany Moreton and Michael Jo. “Vaya con Dios: Religion and the Transnational History of the Americas.” History Compass 5 (2007): 1604-1639.

Wells, S. Spencer. “Muslims Under the Mormon Eye: Theology, Rhetoric, and Personal Contacts, 1830-1910.” Journal of Mormon History 42 (April 2016): 61-94.

363