UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title How Does Law Matter to Social Movements? A Case Study of Gay Activism in Singapore Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/010339d4 Author Chua, Lynette Janice Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California How Does Law Matter to Social Movements? A Case Study of Gay Activism in Singapore By Lynette Janice Chua A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Jurisprudence & Social Policy in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Kristin Luker, Chair Professor Calvin Morrill Professor Catherine Albiston Professor Kim Voss Spring 2011 Abstract How Does Law Matter to Social Movements? A Case Study of Gay Activism in Singapore by Lynette Janice Chua Doctor of Philosophy in Jurisprudence & Social Policy University of California, Berkeley Professor Kristin Luker, Chair This study is aimed at gaining a better understanding of how people fight for change collectively in societies that, unlike the United States, have less of democratic processes, and fundamental civil-political rights, and, of how law matters to their processes of doing so. It focuses on a particular minority group, gay people, in one particular society – Singapore, an Asian country with shades of authoritarianism – and explored how gay activists make sense of their grievances, strategize and take action to achieve their goals, and evaluate their own efforts. Based on systematic collection and analysis of data, including in-depth interviews with 100 activists, the study found: Unlike what sociology of law has learned in the United States, law - in the form of legal rights - is neither a strategic nor symbolic resource for these activists. The role of law in collective fights for social change goes beyond that of rights, which are stymied by the very legal system set up by the powers in control. Gay activists in Singapore regard law as a key source of oppression that obstructs their movement. The ruling party, in control for the past 45 years, has used law’s power of sanction and delegitimization not only to deter legally, but also to cultivate cultural norms that discourage its people from coming together to agitate for social change, to use rights, and to ask for change in the form of rights, which are painted as confrontational, and detrimental to their society’s stability and economic progress. Hence, these activists focus on achieving social changes outside formal law, such as gaining acceptance from society at large, and the state to come out, speak out, and have their grievances heard, and to organize, and assemble more publicly as a group of people with shared concerns and interests. Rather than turning to the law to aid their cause, they resist it through “pragmatic resistance,” a strategy that precariously balances movement survival, and advancement. To “live to fight another day,” they abide by the law, and oppressive cultural norms so as to avoid legal sanctions that could lead to the repression of their movement, and demise of small gains already accumulated, thus reversing their hard work; meanwhile, to advance their goals, without changing formal law they 1 imperceptibly push the boundaries of those cultural norms – which are backed by legal sanctions - on what are socially and politically acceptable. They are conscious of, and accept, their strategy as a trade-off between the accumulation of informal gains outside formal law, and the reification and reinforcement of legal power that perpetuates the cultural legitimacy of the existing political order. ! 2 CONTENTS List of Diagrams, Graphs and Tables ii Acknowledgements iv ONE Introduction 1 TWO Literature Review 28 THREE Research Design and Methods 49 FOUR Trajectory of the Gay Movement in Singapore 83 FIVE Motivations and Aspirations 117 SIX Rights, and Socially Constructed Boundaries and Practices 141 SEVEN Dancing, Toeing the Line, and Pushing Boundaries 165 EIGHT Relationships and Lessons 208 NINE Pragmatic Resistance and Collective Action 237 TEN Gains, Losses, and a Conscious Trade-off 257 ELEVEN Pragmatic Resistance, and Rights, Democracy and Social 309 Change References 326 Bibliography 343 APPENDIX I The Interviewees: Who They Are 365 APPENDIX II Activist Status and Relationships 379 APPENDIX III Brief Descriptions of Organizations and Major Events 389 APPENDIX IV Non-responses and Rejections in the Recruitment of 392 Interviewees i DIAGRAMS, GRAPHS, AND TABLES DIAGRAMS DIAGRAM 7.1 The tactical process 167 DIAGRAM 8.1 Meaning-making processes of gay activists in Singapore 212 DIAGRAM 9.1 Everyday resistance, pragmatic resistance, and collective 251 action GRAPHS GRAPH 10.1 Pattern of increase in state attention 270 GRAPH 10.2 Pattern of media reports on entrapment 271 GRAPH 10.3 Pattern of increase in media coverage 278 GRAPH 10.4 Pattern of increase in activist voices in the media 279 GRAPH 10.5 Pattern of increase in positive visibility 282 TABLES TABLE 1.1 Contrast between the ideal-typed, formal characteristics of the 7 socio-political environments of the United States and Singapore TABLE 1.2 Contrast between the cultural characteristics of the socio- 13 political environments of the United States and Singapore TABLE 1.3 Contrast between typical strategies and tactics culturally 21 available to the United States and Singapore TABLE 3.1 Example 1 on the editing of interview excerpts 66 TABLE 3.2 Example 2 on the editing of interview excerpts 66 TABLE 3.3 Summary of observations in the field 70 TABLE 3.4 Summary of attempts to obtain data directly from government 75 agencies TABLE 4.1 Key characteristics of movement phases 85 ii TABLE 4.2 Expansion of movement in organization types and numbers 87 TABLE 7.1 Summary of tactical processes 205 TABLE 9.1 Comparing everyday resistance and collective action based on 249 conventional understandings TABLE 10.1 Summary of informal gains 260 TABLE 10.2 Summary of surveys on Singaporean societal views on 264 homosexuality TABLE 10.3 Summary of (the lack of) formal changes 284 TABLE A1.1 Demographic background of interviewees 365 TABLE A1.2 Racial breakdown compared to general population’s 375 TABLE A1.3 Religious affiliation breakdown compared to general 375 population’s TABLE A2.1 Activist status of interviewees, and their key affiliations 379 TABLE A3.1 Brief descriptions of organizations and major events 389 TABLE A4.1 Descriptions of respondents who did not respond to, or 392 rejected interview requests, and explanations of impact iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe the deepest gratitude to my dissertation chair, Prof. Kristin Luker, who encouraged and believed in me from the first day we met, spent countless hours reading and thinking about my notes, research memos, and drafts, and always made time to talk to me in her office, at home, and through Skype over the past five years. I am also grateful to Prof. Catherine Albiston for her support and guidance since the fall of 2005, and giving me that initial boost of confidence when I was still trying to find my place during that first semester; Prof. Calvin Morrill for initially coming on board with short notice in November 2008, and staying on to give wonderful advice and such marvelous attention to detail; and, Prof. Kim Voss for taking an interest in my project, and for the sharp insights ever since I wandered into her seminar in the spring of 2006. In addition, I thank Prof. Martin Shapiro for his perceptive suggestions while I was writing the prospectus back in the year 2007/2008, and Profs. Lauren Edelman, David Lieberman, Jonathan Simon, Sarah Song, Robert Kagan, Marianne Constable, and Michael Musheno for their advice during my earlier years as a doctorate student. I have also benefited greatly from my interactions with, and encouragement from other faculty members and classmates at Berkeley. In Singapore, at the Law Faculty of the National University of Singapore, I am thankful to the Dean, Prof. Tan Cheng Han, for his enthusiasm, vision, and encouragement, and Profs. Michael Hor, Victor Ramraj, Kumaralingam Amirthalingam, Joel Lee, and Eleanor Wong for their moral support and assistance. My gratitude also extends to: Margo Rodriguez and Evelyn Wong at Berkeley, and Wendy Tan and her team at the Law Faculty of the National University of Singapore, for their patience and help as I navigate through the administrative challenges of academic institutions; Indulekshimi Rajeswari, Adrian See, and Mohan Gopalan for their excellent organization and compilation of legal and political background information on Singapore, and for putting up with, and answering my endless questions over e-mail, instant messaging, and phone texting; Chu Boyang, Carmen Chu, Nicholas Deroose, Koh Xintian, Rachel Leow, Rachel Lin, Sherilyn Teo, Amos Toh, Azimin Saini, Elida Wong, Yeap Laipeng, and Lynette Zheng for their assistance in small but important ways that made my fieldwork a smooth and productive one. This dissertation would have been impossible without funding from the Social Science Research Council’s International Dissertation Research Fellowship awarded in 2008, and the Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant awarded in 2010 (SES-0962129) by the National Science Foundation’s Program in Law and Social Sciences. It is also made possible with financial support from the National University of Singapore, and the Fulbright Graduate Study and Research Program, which sponsored the first two years of my Berkeley program, and set me on the path to making this doctorate degree a reality. I also thank my family and friends, especially Catherine, Kim, Michael, Ron, and Zahn. Lastly, but definitely not least, to my study respondents and informants: thank you for sparing the time, opening up your hearts and minds to me, and sharing your stories. iv CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION We are in the middle of Stonewall.