The struggle for LGBT rights in Singapore

Pink Dot 2014 Singapore

Photography by Jnzl’s Photos via Flickr

Christopher Soelistyo investigates why discriminatory laws against the LGBT community in Singapore still stand strong.

Last December, much was made of Disney’s decision to a cut a same-sex kiss from the Singaporean version of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. The kiss, though very brief and not at all relevant to the plot, would have earned the film a strict M18 rating in Singapore, revealing the country’s conservative attitude toward LGBT rights in general.

It is an attitude enshrined in Singaporean law. For instance, Section 377A of the Penal Code, first imposed by the British in 1938, effectively bans consensual sex between men. Furthermore, same-sex marriage is not recognised in Singapore, and there are no laws that specifically protect homosexuals from discrimination in areas such as employment.

It may be interesting to ask just why those laws remain in a modern, cosmopolitan city-state such as Singapore. After all, it’s not as if this architecture of discrimination has remained unchallenged. Galvanised by India’s decision to legalise gay sex in September 2018, activists have brought three major constitutional challenges against 377A to Singapore’s Supreme Court. These challenges, though so far unsuccessful, have nevertheless served to invigorate the debate on LGBT rights in Singapore.

Indeed LGBT activism remains strong in this small city-state, as can be witnessed in the annual “Pink Dot” rallies that have sent thousands of activists thronging to Hong Lim Park every summer. Pink Dot 2019, described as “by far Singapore’s largest public civil society event”, culminated in attendees coming together to form a huge light display that read “REPEAL 377A”.

Attitudes are also undergoing a gradual shift, especially among younger people. A 2018 survey found that for those between the ages of 18 and 25, 25.4% considered gay sex “always wrong” and 30.2% considered it “not wrong at all”. This is a stunning shift from just five years prior, where the same age group responded with 47.6% “always wrong” and 11.6% “not wrong at all”. However across all age groups, attitudes are still conservative, with 50.4% responding “always wrong” and 11.4% “not wrong at all”.

So it is clear that although the ground is shifting, we are still at a stage where only a minority of Singaporeans take a liberal stance on LGBT rights. This might seem like a clear-cut explanation for why laws such as 377A remain, but the thing is that popular attitudes have seldom been a determining factor in forming government policy. Rather, the People’s Action Party (PAP), which has ruled Singapore continuously since 1959, has always sought a course of action that may be described as “pragmatic”. Regardless of popular opinion, the PAP’s enlightened decision-making elite would make policy based on their own appraisal of what best serves the national interest.

Perhaps Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first prime minister, put it most tellingly: “When people say, ‘Oh, ask the people!’, it’s childish rubbish … They say people can think for themselves? Do you honestly believe that the chap who can’t pass primary six (year six) knows the consequences of his choice when he answers a question viscerally, on language, culture and religion?” Thus we glimpse the attitude of a prime minister often described as a “benevolent dictator”, who tolerated no political opposition whilst gaining mass support by bringing Singapore into the developed world.

Whatever one thinks of Lee Kuan Yew, this elitist, meritocratic mentality serves to explain a number of past policy moves taken in spite of public opinion. For instance, in early 2010, Singapore opened not one but two large casinos to spur on economic growth post-recession, despite low levels of support for gambling in the country. In fact, in the aforementioned survey, the proportion of respondents who considered gambling “always wrong” actually increased from 53.8% to 55.6% from 2013 to 2018.

So if we accept that “pragmatism”, however defined, steers the ship of government policy in lieu of popular opinion, we are only left to find a “pragmatic” reason why restrictive laws on LGBT rights remain despite a visibly rising movement in favour of their repeal. Perhaps we should hear what Lee Kuan Yew had to say: “If in fact it is true … that you are genetically born a homosexual … you can’t help it. So why should we criminalise it? But there is such a strong inhibition in all societies: Christianity, Islam, even the Hindu-Chinese societies”. His appeal to religion is not insignificant, given the religious diversity of Singaporean society.

When Singapore was expelled from Malaysia to become an independent state in 1965, it was left a multiracial and multicultural society that had witnessed years of deadly inter-ethnic violence. Thrown in there was a mix of various religions, all with the potential to split society along communal lines. In neighbouring Malaysia, the ruling party governed on a platform of Malay nationalism and the proliferation of Islam. The antagonism this aroused within Singapore’s Chinese-majority population was considerable.

Given this history, Singapore’s leaders have always sought to maintain social harmony between these various racial and religious groups in a country recently described as the most religiously diverse in the world. Today, it is maintained partly through the “Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act” which prohibits, among other things, “causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups”. That means being extra careful around issues that may inspire such “ill-will” or “hostility”, including LGBT rights.

Indeed, this issue is one that is significantly delineated along religious lines in Singapore. According to the aforementioned 2018 survey, those who considered gay sex “always wrong” consisted of 76.5% of Muslims, 73.7% of Christians, 35.9% of Buddhists and 30.5% of the non-religious. Those who considered it “not wrong at all” consisted of 4.5% of Muslims, 6.2% of Christians, 13.1% of Buddhists and 20.6% of the non-religious.

Furthermore, religious communities in Singapore have spared no effort in mounting a forceful reaction to the rising tide of support for LGBT rights. In 2014, Islamic religious teacher Noor Deros launched the “Wear White” campaign, urging Muslims to wear white on the first night prayer of Ramadan to protest against Pink Dot. Two years later, Christian pastor Lawrence Khong upped the ante, urging the public to wear white on the very same day as Pink Dot, in support of “pro-natural family values”. This man, who described the “homosexual act” as “the greatest blasphemy against the name of God”, rides a growing wave of Christian evangelism in Singapore. If these opposing movements clash, the consequences for “social harmony” could be dire.

Given its endemic aversion to stirring up the hornet’s nest, it is perhaps no surprise that the PAP has chosen to retain Section 377A. Indeed, it has chosen arguably the most “pragmatic” solution possible. As Janadas Devan, Chief of Government Communications, explains, “Given the majority view, the law remains on the books. But the Government does not and will not enforce 377A”. So the government has chosen to walk the tightrope between the pro- and anti-repeal camps by retaining the law while explicitly acknowledging that it would not enforce it.

In the end, what may be needed is a more tolerant society. As activist Daryl Yang writes, “repealing Section 377A will not automatically change people’s minds about homosexuality. What will create a more inclusive society for … LGBT people is mutual empathy. To foster a more inclusive society, we must start by dispelling the misconceptions and fears of those who are ignorant or misinformed”. This is indeed an important project, whether we are in Singapore or the UK, and it should strike a note of optimism.

During the parliamentary debates that led to the legalisation of abortion, Health Minister Chua Sian Chin said, “I do hope that [MPs] will not falter just because of some pressure, social or otherwise, brought to bear on them by some minority groups outside who, on account of their religious dogmas, desire to impose their will on the majority … I am certain that the opposing stand …  will also in the course of time end up in the dustbins of history”. Someday, discrimination against Singapore’s LGBT community may end up in the “dustbins of history” as well.