Rascals incident

Rascals was a discotheque located in the Basement 1 level of the Pan Pacific Hotel in the Marina area in the early 1990s.

It held gay nights on Sundays and was patronised by a moderately large clientele.

The Rascals incident is regarded by some gay activists as Singapore's Stonewall.

=Police raid=

If you’re talking about gay men being “attacked” very openly, very visibly, it happened. If you’re talking about gay men organizing themselves, it happened. If you’re talking about gay men fighting back, it happened. So for all intents and purposes, it was our Stonewall. (Wilfred Ong) May 30, 1993: Beach Road, Singapore

The night for Ong and his friends started out like any other Sunday night at Rascals, when the disco attracted a regular crowd of gay men. People were dancing, drinking, and enjoying themselves. Suddenly, the music stopped and the lights went up. Out of the corner of his eye, Ong saw a senior partner at his law firm try to hide himself in the crowd. “Shut up!” “Police raid.” A plainclothes officer in a striped polo T-shirt warned everyone to keep quiet or, he threatened, “I’ll knock your heads.” He and other officers divided Rascals patrons into those who carried identification documents on them and those who did not. Ong was carrying his identity card, so he was allowed to leave the club. But his flatmate did not have identification and was detained. Ong rushed home to fetch his flatmate’s card and hurried to the Beach Road police station. There, he found his flatmate huddled together with other detainees taken from Rascals, all made to squat outside the station. Ong produced his flatmate’s identification to the police and had him released. The rest were released in the morning without charges.

=Letter of complaint=

Ong’s encounter was common in authoritarian2 Singapore of the early 1990s. The police frequently raided gay businesses congregated along Beach Road, a popular strip of bars and clubs at the time. What transpired after the raid of may 30, 1993, however, was far from common in the island state and former British colony. Angered by the night’s events, Ong looked into Singapore’s legislation. He discovered that the police had no authority to detain a person who did not carry his or her identification card unless they had reasonable belief that the person had committed some wrongdoing, which he did not think was apparent at Rascals. The recent law school graduate decided to write a letter to the police and looked around for signatories. The senior lawyers he approached refused to co-sign the letter. After much effort and persuasion, he finally managed to collect 21 signatures from among Rascals patrons and submitted the letter to the police and the ministry of Home Affairs, its parent ministry.

The letter cited the relevant statutory provisions that supported Ong’s

allegations and went on to say:

It is particularly disturbing to find Singapore law enforcement officers behaving rudely towards and verbally threatening citizens who have not committed any offences. It would also be in the public interest to clarify the legal powers of police officers (plainclothes) to demand the production of personal particulars in cases where no offences have been committed. (Rascals letter, may 31, 1993)

A month later, the assistant superintendent of the Beach Road police station called Ong:

He said, “Look, we’ve received your letter. What do you want us to do? Basically, what we have done internally was that we have educated our police officers that what they did was not in accordance of [sic] the law.” They had told [their officers] that they cannot do this in the future. So I said, “Fine. I want your assurance that there will be no more future occurrences.”. . . And he gave me that assurance. (Ong)

A few days later, Ong received a letter from the Central Police Division Headquarters, signed by its acting commander, explaining that the police had received complaints of overcrowding at Rascals and had suspected some patrons of providing false identification. Then it went on to apologize:

Due to the confusion at the initial stage, our officers had difficulty controlling the large crowd at Rascals. Some of the patrons became unruly and our officers had to raise their voices. We apologise for their lack of tact in dealing with the situation. We will take steps to prevent a recurrence and to caution the officers concerned. (Police reply to Rascals letter, June 29, 1993)

=Singapore's Stonewall=

Old timers often hail Rascals as Singapore’s Stonewall, crediting the raid for galvanizing a fledging gay movement3 that was quietly taking shape in the early 1990s in Singapore. Of course, these activists are speaking of Stonewall the myth—that it started everything (D’emilio 2002)—rather than Stonewall the socially and historically contextualized event. many of them were mere toddlers and some of them were not even born when the notorious riots happened. The famous new york City incident did not single-handedly launch the movement in the United States that had deep roots in earlier decades (D’emilio 1998; Armstrong 2002). nor does their Rascals campaign bear much resemblance to the events that ensued after the police raids in June 1969. In the Stonewall narrative, the name of the famous bar is associated with open confrontation and street riots. In contrast, the absence of open confrontation and the reticence of angry protests on the streets epitomize the Rascals story.

=The Rascals Prize=

=See also=

=References=


 * Lynette J Chua, "Mobilizing Gay Rights under Authoritarianism", Chapter 1 in the book, "Mobilizing Gay Singapore: Rights and Resistance in an Authoritarian State", Temple University Press, 2014, ISBN: 978-9971-69-815-7,.
 * Wilfred Ong, "Singapore's 1993 Stonewall: The police raid at Rascals disco", Yawning Bread, April 2004.
 * Alex Au, "Academic freedom and the Rascals Prize", Yawning Bread, 9 October 2008.
 * People Like Us, "A guide to your legal rights", Yawning Bread, 1993, archived April 2004.

=Acknowlegdements=

This article was compiled by Roy Tan.