Why do Singapore politicians remain silent on gay issues?
"Silence remains, inescapably, a form of speech."
-- Susan Sontag, U.S. Author, "The Aesthetics of Silence," (1967)
"Silence is the best security to the man who distrusts himself."
-- François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld, French writer, moralist, repr. F.A. Stokes Co., New York, Moral Maxims and Reflections.
When Singapore's previous Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong mentioned gays are tolerated in a TIME magazine interview in 2003, not a single politician suggested decriminalizing consensual same sex male activity stated under the Penal Code, sections 377 and 377A.
When People Like Us (PLU), an LGBT advocacy group, tried to register itself as a society and was rejected twice, once in November 1996 and February 2004, not a single politician highlighted the government's action as unconstitutional in denying citizens their freedom of association.
When Fridae.com parties were banned because the government claimed that it was inconsistent with our Asian values and an affront to our conservative society, not a single politician condemned the government's double standards of attracting the pink dollar including foreign talent; and the hypocrisy of giving it permits in previous years.
When NVPC approved funding to Liberty League (LL), an organisation with links to ministry churches that aims to conduct focus groups for teens with sexuality issues, politicians once again did not rise to the bait to question why public money was used.
In a nutshell to the last incident, PLU alerted the press of LL's questionable methodologies with its programs that claimed to heal "sexual brokenness". One of their aims include helping teens "come out of " their homosexuality similar to gay conversion therapies that has been proven to be detrimental. NVPC which receives public money was also questioned if it has neglected to discover that LL does not adhere to some of the guidelines that it has drawn up including LL's status as a company. Moreover, LL links with church ministries contradicted the government's and NVPC aims of not funding non-secular causes. Subsequently, in the TODAY newspaper follow up story, NVPC stated that the funds have yet to be disbursed; and that they will continue to monitor the group's programs.
Despite the uniqueness and severity of the situation, none of the politicians have tabled further questions on NVPC or the government.
In the wake of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) Scandal, LL's case is similar to the predecessor as it highlights the structural deficiencies of our bureaucracies that of a lack of check and balances bugged by transparency and accountability issues. LL is nowhere similar to NKF in many areas including size, mission aims or popularity but the problem is seemingly compounded by a unique cultural Singaporean trait – the blind trust of the government and its sectors to work like clockwork.
PLU has put LL's work on hold by alerting the story to the press. Yet, there is no guarantee that such an incidence has not happened or will not happen again. Moreover, this story would never have made it to the press and public if Channel News Asia did not publish the report in the first place.
Like the NKF scandal, this case should not be filed away and ignored by Singaporeans and the politicians especially. There is much follow up to be done, including ensuring that LL does not get the grant, lobbying the government to prevent funding non-secular causes in the future and educating the population on the work of LL. This requires structured organizational effort which unfortunately PLU cannot manage by itself not only because of resource constraints but also due to the government's adamant refusal to recognize it as a legal society.
The case aside, one of the pertinent questions that continue to bug the sexual minority community remains a big question mark.
Why do our politicians continue to sit on this issue? Or more importantly, why are they adamantly silent when it comes to the gay community?
Politicians avoid gay issues as the sexual minority community is unlikely to constitute a major part of their constituency. Moreover, they do not want to risk alienating their supporters, of whom a majority might be homophobic or against the LGBT cause.
The conundrum of our politicians?
Unfortunately, these half-hearted explanations beg further questions.
Are our politicians entering into politics because they believe it is a higher calling or are they in it for the votes? Should they debate on issues that will get them into office or should they speak up for those without a voice?
If they believe that our conservative society has no room for LGBT concerns, are they missing out on the big picture or on issues deserving attention? Are they truly or do they choose to be ignorant? Are they homophobic?
To use the lame excuse of Singapore being a conservative society does not make sense when seen in the light of other Asian countries.
In Taiwan, for example, the President has proposed laws to legalise same sex marriage in 2004. In the 2004 legislative elections, a minority group, "Tongzhi Hotline Association" published a "Rainbow List" of gay-friendly candidates. These 14 candidates signed a white paper proposed by the association and pledged to revise relevant laws addressing the concerns of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered communities. In 2005, two Democratic Progressive Party legislators has called for an amendment to the Gender Equality in Employment Law, which will protect the welfare and interests of sexual minority in the workplace.
In Hong Kong, homosexuality was decriminialized by 1991 and the government sector, the Home Affairs Bureau, has adopted various measures to combat sexual orientation discrimination. It has an Equal Opportunities Funding Scheme which exists since 1998, "to fund selected projects that seek to promote equal opportunities on the ground of sexual orientation." In 2005, the scheme went under the care of Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Unit (GISOU) which also run a hotline for enquiries and complaints in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity; as well as providing secretariat support to the Sexual Minorities Forum which are meetings held regularly between the government and people of different sexual orientation.
Note that these are governmental efforts coming from politicians and bureaucrats. One cannot deny these initiatives might have arose from international, grassroots pressure, and lobbying from local gay rights activists. Similarly, the amount of publicity that PLU has garnered over the years has never been publicly supported by any political party, NGO or politicians.
Case in point, the Worker's Party manifesto for the upcoming elections neglected the LGBT community despite having suggestions on improving lives of Singaporeans such as the disabled, elderly and the new poor. This is not to point the finger on Worker's Party as other Opposition and PAP has not supported or even mention the LGBT cause.
Politicians cannot categorize the LGBT community together with those economically disadvantaged sectors as this is an unfair comparison. The sexual minority population faces a different set of issues which gay rights NGOs have the expertise to manage. In Singapore however, PLU is caught in a deadlock for they cannot function effectively as part of civil society in comparison with other legal NGOs. The contributing silence from the politicians only makes matter worse.
Alienating a LGBT community that is exposed to international advancement in global LGBT affairs will only make our politicians appear conservative, uninformed or incompetent to deal with community issues.
Imagine this scenario. If some gay rights activists were to hold a protest or march and get arrested, will any of our politicians come to their aid? If I were you, I would not hold my breath.
By indirectly refraining from gay issues, Singaporeans and politicians are misled to believe that our sexual minorities have no immediate concerns, have invalid concerns, or worse, is contented to be invisible.
Footnotes
1. Non-profit group gets grant to promote 'healthy gender identity', Channel NewsAsia, Pearl Forss, 13 Jan 2006
2. Singapore govt gives $100,000 to Christian anti-gay group, People Like Us (PLU), 19 Jan 2006, long URL
3. Why Liberty League was offered funds, TODAY, Wednesday, January 25, 2006, Vinita Ramani
4. The 3 layers of the Liberty League issue, Yawning Bread, January 2006, http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-537.htm
5. Government gives $100K to a religious and anti-gay group, Yawning Bread. January 2006, http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-534.htm
6. Singapore government awards S$100,000 grant to group with ex-gay affiliation, Fridae.com, January 17, 2006, Sylvia Tan, long URL
7. Liberty league's S$100,000 funding raises questions, Fridae.com, Alex Au, long URL
8. Taiwan promises gay marriages. Few here oppose rights including same-sex unions.; Island's tolerance rooted in cultural, political realities, Toronto Star, Canada, February 8, 2004, Martin Regg Cohn, Taipei , http://www.globalgayz.com/taiwan-news04-05.html
9. Gay-friendly candidates named, `Pink Vote Although gay voters are a minority, a gay rights group said they could make a difference and that should make their voices heard on Saturday, Taipei Times, Dec 07, 2004, Wang Hsiao-wen, http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/12/07/2003214076/print
10. Revision of the gender law proposed, Gendered Identity Two DPP legislators are calling for an amendment to the 2002 Gender Equality in Employment Law, aiming to protect more people in the workplace, Taipei Times, May 01, 2005, Mo Yan-chih, http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2005/05/01/2003252684
11. Equal Opportunities Funding Scheme (Sexual Orientation), Hong Kong Home Affairs Bureau, long URL
12. Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Unit (GISOU) . Hong Kong Home Affairs Bureau, long URL
13. People Like Us, http://www.plu.sg
14. Liberty League, http://www.libertyleague.com.sg/tpl/
15. Exodus Asia Pacific, http://www.exodusasiapacific.org/
16. National Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre, http://www.nvpc.org.sg/
