COMMENT: Facing LGBT opposition from religious right, should Pink Dot fight for more?

Shah Salimat is the editor-in-chief of Popspoken, an entertainment and lifestyle newsblog. He tweets at @shahsalimat. All views presented herein are his own and do not reflect his personal and professional affiliations.

On May 16, 2009, the idea of a peaceful gathering to celebrate the freedom to love regardless of sexual orientation was executed. More than 1,000 people (or Today’s more conservative estimate of 500) formed the signs ‘Love’ and ‘4All’ as they formed a giant pink dot at the heart of Hong Lim Park.

Fast-forward to the sixth Pink Dot event to be held this coming Saturday, 28 June. The event now has celebrity ambassadors, a slickly-produced video and a concert featuring performances by musicians and other talents. Heavyweight companies have come onboard to lend their support and a bazaar gathers community groups in support of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders (LGBTs).

But when the pink dot disperses and the crowd steps out of Hong Lim Park, how much has changed in Singapore?

Some strides have been made towards LGBT visibility. MP Hri Kumar Nair said in a Straits Times roundtable that “non bread-and-butter issues” will feature more prominently in the coming years, including same-sex marriage being a possible vote-changer. Transparent reportage over LGBT matters has risen, from Health Promotions Board’s sexuality guide to a Robinsons employee suing his former company for wrongful dismissal on the grounds of his sexual orientation.

In spite of all of this, Pastor Lawrence Khong has – whether he likes it or not – become the face of the anti-LGBT campaign in Singapore. From contacting ministers to oppose a constitutional challenge to Section 377A to starting a “pro-family” event called Red Dot to be held on the same day as Pink Dot, Khong’s seeming crusade has been met with fervent support from the Christian right and feverish disdain from LGBTs and their allies.

The Wear White campaign has taken a bit of a hit after LGBT opposition and an advisory by Singapore’s governing Islamic body, MUIS, made religious teacher Ustaz Noor Deros backpedal in his initial statement that Pink Dot is hijacking the Ramadan fasting month. The final stance now veers towards Pastor Khong’s calls for a return to the man-woman definition of a family and a call for Muslim youths to return “to the values as guided by Islam”.

Has the tussle changed at all, six years later?

Different perceptions, different audiences

In the many LGBT-related articles online, commenters are split over LGBT acceptance. Tussles can often be seen in Facebook threads and comment fields of sites such as TODAYonline and Yahoo Singapore. Debates from the basic family unit to same-sex marriage have torn apart the online sphere, often forming their own camps instead of engaging in constructive dialogue.

Among the young, a barometer of LGBT acceptance can be seen at the thousands of teenage girls who screamed in excitement when gay YouTube stars Tyler Oakley and Troye Sivan walked on the red carpet for Singapore’s recent YouTube Fanfest. Many chanted “Troyler” -- the couple name fans have coined the artistes’ “coupling” or OTP (one true pairing).

The profile of Pink Dot attendees has changed with each event. Initially perceived to be an event exclusive to LGBTs, many now bring their straight friends and family members to the event. The mood is friendly and welcoming, more like a gathering rather than the flashy pride parades held in other countries. The addition of LGBT support groups is the defining factor in adding a strong sense of camaraderie and support.

However, last year, six topless men paraded themselves at the booth for bubble tea company Sharetea. For an event so purposefully designed to be accommodating to all, such displays of skin were in a position to distract attendees from the event’s more wholesome message. Sexualisation should not be shamed, but it may be jarring for those just getting used to the idea that LGBTs may not be the sexual deviants conservative society paints them out to be.

Pink Dot’s campaign video this year is using perception to shift the debate to signal that change already is here, that the country is at a crossroads of societal acceptance. But as a country, we are miles behind political acceptance. Who will be there to vouch for the repeal of Section 377A and the right for housing and medical benefits for LGBT couples and their children?

The next step?

Take a step outside Pink Dot and one can see that it is a mass picnic in a safe space, at its most simplistic.

After munching down sandwiches, shining pink lights in the air and singing songs of acceptance and freedom, the question begs to be asked: So what? So what if more than 10,000 turn up for Pink Dot but so many more are out there with bigoted views and beliefs? So what if LGBT couples hold hands in Pink Dot but break contact as soon as they leave Hong Lim Park?

As an event that has used a friendly, pluralistic approach to tackle LGBT equality, it has succeeded in changing the face of LGBTs here. As an event that aims to give LGBTs equal rights in Singapore, it is not doing enough.

Should it be more combative? Doing so could inevitably face more resistance from anti-LGBT camps and the government may have to make tough decisions to protect both parties from bickering. In fact, it may even be welcomed by the religious right who can paint LGBTs in a bad light.

However, will religious Singapore one day welcome LGBTs? That is unlikely to happen and should be accepted -- a tough pill to swallow, indeed. Since that section of Singapore is clear about what they stand for, so should an event as monumental as Pink Dot.

Pink Dot must be more responsible for its place in the bid for LGBT equality. It will need to empower LGBTs to live their truest lives outside of the event and urge attendees to impact social ties outside of their communities. It will need to remind others that the ground is shifting and that the government is listening.

Pink Dot must be responsible in the stance towards Section 377A of the Penal Code, on the basic unit of a family, on adoption, on LGBT citizen benefits and on union and divorce. Not doing so would mean that such an event is shirking the responsibility on its shoulders -- whether they want it or not -- to make the LGBT stance more definitive on what really matters.

Four years ago, when I interviewed gay playwright Ng Yi-Sheng, he said that LGBT visibility was increasing but not LGBT rights in Singapore. It is time to use that visibility so that LGBTs here can come out of the shadows of Hong Lim Park’s greens and be treated as equals in the eyes of the community and the law.

If the freedom to love is to be celebrated, it should be outside of Hong Lim Park.