LGBT rights: Will we go round in circles?

Kirsten Han is a Singaporean blogger, journalist and filmmaker. She is also involved in the We Believe in Second Chances campaign for the abolishment of the death penalty. A social media junkie, she tweets at @kixes. The views expressed are her own. “The purpose of the proposed event you have stated in your application is related to LGBT advocacy, which remains a socially divisive issue. We regret to inform you that your application is rejected in the interest of public order. You may wish to consider conducting your event at the Speakers’ Corner instead.”

“One People, One Nation, One Singapore,” said this year’s National Day Parade (and many of the parades in previous years, too).

Except, it appears, if you’re gay. Then your very presence – especially if this presence occurs in close proximity to that of other gay people – is “socially divisive”. In such a situation you are no longer part of the people or the nation.

In such a situation you are a “public order” concern and should probably take your “homosexual lifestyle” to Speakers’ Corner, where an invisible force-field will effectively neutralise a situation that would cause public order issues anywhere else on the island.

This is my takeaway from the Singapore Police Force’s decision to deny a permit to the Pink Run, jog-a-thon that is just one of many IndigNation events this year. (IndigNation is an annual month-long LGBT festival that involves talks, discussions and screenings around the theme of LGBT rights and advocacy in Singapore.) Organisers have since had to cancel the event, which would have taken place on Saturday.

The “socially divisive” aspect of the LGBT rights movement comes from the pushback from conservative segments of Singaporean society, who seem to be particularly vocal this year. I assume that the public order concern stems from the worry that conservatives will show up at the Pink Run to protest the event, which may then lead to confrontations.

Instead of warning potential protesters about provoking trouble, the police force has chosen to penalise the many LGBT people and their allies who have no intention of causing violence or chaos, and who simply want to participate in a peaceful – even healthy – event. This decision grants the conservative groups an indirect win; they don’t even need to actually show up in protest for the state to bend to their will. Just the suspicion of their disapproval is enough for the state to clamp down on the visibility and rights of the LGBT community.

The alternative the police had presented to organisers of the Pink Run is so pathetic as to be laughable (incidentally, it also highlights the problem of the state trying to box every civil society activity into a small, easily-forgettable corner of the country). Hong Lim Park is only 0.94 hectares (0.0094 square kilometres) in size. Does the police honestly expect joggers to just run round and round the park for the duration of the event?

Perhaps that is exactly what the participants of Pink Run should do. Run round and round in circles around Speakers’ Corner. It could become a useful analogy for the LGBT community’s experience in engaging with the state on issues of acceptance and equality. Every time something hopeful happens to suggest progress on the part of the state (such as the Health Promotion Board putting up important information for gay teens and their parents), something else happens to remind us that those in charge are more interested in maintaining the facade of propriety and order than in protecting rights (such as this denial of permit, as well as the recent National Library Board saga).

This denial of permit does not reflect upon the LGBT community, or the “social divisiveness” of their existence. It reflects upon the Singapore Police Force and the state, and their failure to protect the rights of all their people.

As they couldn’t get a permit, organizers have decided to cancel the event.

So much for “one people, one nation, one Singapore”.