Wednesday, August 15, 2007
302 questionaire
This is a questionaire that I helped a writer with NUS campus magazine RIDGE on the pink issue.
1) what do you know about cat 302? any info you know from friends who were in it? my other interviewees said they heard rumors about it, but nobody knew exactly what was going on.
Basically, the 302 classification is a medical category. And yes, I do have friends who have declared whilst in service.
Do you know any short-term or long-term repercussions of declaring?
I am not aware of any repercussions of declaring. That's the common misconception that many gay men have. Rumors; marriage, civil service, does it show on your I/C, track records etc.
As far as I know, there aren't any. If there is, the military is being really secretive about the way they handle homosexuals. I think this is a common grey area that needs to be addressed.
My Certificate of Service does not indicate anything about my 302 status. Your 302 status belongs in the army and it should stay there.
an interviewee was a discreet gay guy, and he didn't declare. u know gay guys in the army who didn't declare? if you do, do you know the reason why?
Declaring homosexuality in the military would mean coming out and many gay men dread that.
Of course there are many gay men in the army who did not declare, whether or not they were open outside the military.
1. Grey area:
Like I mentioned earlier, there is little or no information on this issue readily available. No one likes to be thrown into something they are unsure of.
2.Classification:
For some, they'd prefer to complete their service like any other servicemen without any complications.
For some, they do not feel the need to declare as they do not feel any different from the rest.
3.Closet cases:
Many gay men are still 'in the closet' and thus, are not ready to come out to anyone, including the military.
2) what do you think about 302? is it justified to separate the homosexual guys from the heterosexual guys?
There is no direct segregation between the homosexuals and the heterosexuals in the military. From what I gather, it is a case-by-case basis. I feel that 302 can be helpful for those who find difficulty adjusting to a mandatory military life. In such cases, segregation serves to protect the 302 personnel instead. I stress that the classification should be known to serve to protect the interest of the 302 personnel, the minority, and not to protect the heterosexuals from the homosexuals.
i heard too that the army also asks not only if the guy is gay, but whether he is effeminate, and to what degree.
Humans are definitely more complex than macho heterosexuals and effeminate homosexuals. We must understand that there are effeminate heterosexuals, masculine homosexuals, heterosexuals and homosexuals with gender issues as well as yes, effeminate homosexuals.
302 personnels will be accessed by a psychiatrist/ psychologist (the term I'm sure), not just to classify them into different stereotyped classifications but to also better know their situation and to address their
emotional/ physical issues whilst in service.
For me, I was found to be slightly effeminate. But who's to define your level of effeminacy? Again, humans are definitely more complex than the typecast we have.
do you think it's ok to have effeminate guys in the army, and even hold command positions?
I find it ok to have effeminate guys in the army. Being effeminate doesn't render us physically and intellectually redundant. As much as I loathe the mandatory military service, I do feel that there are many parts we play in the military and it's not just guns and war. I should also highlight that not all 302 personnels are downgraded to become clerks to hold administrative positions as commonly thought. I was a 'B' vehicle technician in the service but revocationalised as a clerk due to vocation shortage in my unit. But even so, I was still required to go outfield and for range as well. As for command positions, I'd say that many heterosexuals might not be able to work well under the command of effeminate guys. But let's look at female commanders in the army- many of them are not the stereotyped butch women we made them out to be. In fact, many of them are every of a lady they are and many of them are even mothers!
3) some of my interviewees say that 302 is for the best of everyone, both straights and gays, esp since the army is a place where guys live in very close proximity for a long time. if you're straight, you won't feel uncomfortable mixing with gay guys (one mentioned communal showers). and if you're gay, you won't feel discriminated since with your fellow gay guys. what do you think of this opinion, as a guy who has been in NS?
I think the whole idea about being open is to be transparent and tolerant with one another. Communal showers in the military might pose as much as a problem for heterosexuals besides homosexuals too. Homosexuals are not sex-craved perverts, but if we're physically and emotionally attracted to men, it might pose as a problem for some to be in such close physical proximity. Imagine throwing a heterosexual guy into a shower full of naked women?!
Similarly, heterosexuals might feel uncomfortable if there is a homosexual within such close physical proximity. However, I think this is more likely to be the common misconceptions about homosexuals that these heterosexuals have. “He's going to touch me, I'm going to turn into a sissy, I'm going to turn gay, or even worse, I'll contract HIV or AIDS from his touch.” I always feel that these heterosexuals are the ones with the 'problem', not the homosexuals.
Like any social circle, there are bound to be people who are more comfortable with the sexuality of others as well as people who aren't. This might lead to rejection or even violence and abuse from people who are very uncomfortable with homosexuals. This is the problem to be addressed. Homosexuals are definitely the minority in the military and we certainly do not want cases like this to happen.
4) (similar to qn2) should 302 be abolished? do you view it as unjustly discriminatory, or acceptable and understandable for the good of everyone? or do you think it just simply needs to be improved? if so, how?
I feel that 302 should not be abolished, but revised. It is currently a medical classification and that should not be the case. The debate about homosexuality being a choice or in-born trait is still going on but we're should be aware that the World Health Organisation has declassified homosexuality as a mental illness in 1992 and even China has declassified it in 2001. However, since National Service is mandatory in Singapore, all Singaporean men, heterosexual or homosexual, are required to serve. Hence, it is important that there should be a system to handle the situation of homosexuality in the military. We did not choose to be homosexuals and we certainly did not choose to enlist in the service. We're not asking for preferential treatment but we're all different and special in our own way. And the military should take care of all our best interests.
Segregation is not the answer to homosexuality in the army. In that case, they should simply not enlist gay people in the military. The military should be educated on homosexuality so that everyone is clear that we're all serving the nation here, and not our sexuality and masculinity as the main agenda.
niaoren 8/15/2007 09:00:00 PM
