The Nation, Jun 8, 2004
Homosexuals do not necessarily indulge in what it describes as 'homosexual behaviour'
Although the Ministry of Culture swiftly held a "damage-control" press conference to clarify and partly refute an earlier report about its anti-gay campaign, much of its homophobic rhetoric is still unaccounted for.
Sensing that such a move might be unconstitutional, it denied that it had a plan to ban gays from government posts, saying ministry officials had been "misquoted". (Compare this to a speech last year by Singapore's prime minister that acknowledged the contributions of gay
civil servants.) But it has yet to produce any evidence for the contradictory claim of "inappropriate public displays of affection" and violence among gay teens, or to explain its demeaning comparison between gays and pornographic distributors, as quoted in the local press.
Moreover, deputy permanent secretary for Culture Dr Kla Somtrakul confirmed his ministry's intent to pursue its campaign against "homosexual presence" on television. This week it will send a letter requesting television stations not to air "sexually deviant homosexual" messages, which allegedly influence youths negatively.
In doing so, the ministry is showing multiple levels of ignorance about homosexuality. Not very long ago, the Department of Mental Health made a clear statement that homosexuality is a normal, natural form of human sexuality and gay people are not "deviants", echoing what the World Health Organisation and international health community have emphasised for decades.
Not only did the ministry fail to note this, it also fell short of making distinctions between gay people and what it perceives as "homosexual behaviour". Many gay people do not display such unrestrained behaviour as the ministry described. In fact, most of such behaviour on television is played by heterosexual actors. By branding such behaviour "homosexual", the ban will end up victimising gay people rather than discouraging certain acts as it intends.
In addition to being sloppily-phrased, the ban is ill-conceived to begin with. It is increasingly obvious that the ministry - with its narrow-mindedness - sees itself as the sole authority and owner of "Thai culture", which in fact belongs to every Thai citizen.
It shows little regard for freedom of expression - the basis for evolving arts and cultures as opposed to ones on the brink of extinction. This authoritarian tendency has previously been observed in the ministry's narrow-minded plans to blacklist songs, censure fashion shows, dictate Songkran dress codes, and so on.
Despite the ministry's flimsy claim that this "homosexual behaviour" can alter a child's sexual orientation, scientific research shows that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics and to a small extent by different pathways in brain development in the first few years of life - nothing to do with television.
If the ministry is serious about addressing parental concerns regarding "homosexual behaviour", what it can do, instead of infringing on artistic freedom, is educate the public that while behaviour is like a costume that can be put on and grown out of, sexual orientation is like skin that doesn't change at will.
On the other hand, the ministry could do much good in helping to shape well-balanced gay teens by encouraging a positive image of gay people on television - although this seems far-fetched in its current "gay equals deviant" mindset.
Now the responsibility lies with Thai society to debate how much liberty can be sacrificed in exchange for the ministry's imposed "cultural order". Remember that "homosexual behaviour" is just one item on this busybody ministry's list, and it doesn't stop there.
As for the gay community, it must now take up the battle against homophobia, as the vicious cycle doesn't entirely start and end with homophobes. It's easy to perpetuate the lie that gays are mentally ill and have a negative influence on society when there are not enough well-balanced gay public figures in view.
This is regrettable, because there are plenty of successful gay people in our society, many of them famous artists, who have yet to come out publicly.
Naturally, this isn't helped by the institutional homophobia now made evident, ironically, by the Ministry of Culture itself.
In Thailand, gay rights are often said - even among gays - to be an individual's private rights, as it's easier to defend oneself from behind a wall. But to fight institutional homophobia, gay rights need to step out of the bedroom. The more gay people come out, the harder it will be to maintain the lie. Then and only then can the gay community reclaim its rightful share of the culture to which it contributes.