LGBT topics as individual parliamentarian agenda or the focus of an election?

Written by co-writers Christopher Ong and Kelvin Teo. Both writers made equal contributions in terms of research and writing.

SINGAPORE – In 1993, the enacted “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military has its roots during Bill Clinton’s Presidential campaign. This raises an interesting question of whether an LGBT issue will take centre-stage within an electoral campaign in Singapore.

Likelihood of an LGBT agenda during the General Elections
Some time in 2003, the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong revealed in an interview with Time Magazine that the Singapore government’s policy on gays was changed quietly, and that gay people are now allowed to work in “certain positions in government”. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, who was in charge of the Remaking Singapore Committee remarked that Singapore will do “whatever it takes” to attract talent, noting the relaxation of officially sanctioned repression of homosexual citizens as evidenced by the growing number of saunas, discos, and bars that promote directly to a gay clientele.

The government’s changing stance on homosexuality didn’t escape the scorching gaze of the religious conservative group. Religious leaders who didn’t agree with the government’s stance urged members of their group to send what turned out to be a standardized format of a letter to Members of Parliament in an effort to lobby against the changes.

Due to the intense interest generated from the government’s changes in its civil servant hiring policy, a question that arose is whether this LGBT-related topic will be the focus of the upcoming 2006 General Elections agenda for either the ruling PAP or opposition parties. It is interesting to note that in a survey conducted by Nanyang Technological University in 2007, 7 in 10 of the respondents frown on homosexuality. The study by NTU’s School of Communication and Information was published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research.

Thus, will it benefit the opposition at the ballot if they adopt an “anti-LGBT” agenda for the elections, i.e. argue for a restoration to earlier practices of discriminatory hiring of civil servants based on their sexual orientation? Or, will any political party adopting an LGBT-friendly electoral agenda suffer from detrimental effects, a backlash from this 70% group so to speak?

Conservative movement in Singapore
Assuming an LGBT issue is raised by one or more of the political parties during an election, a likely way in which the conservative group can mount a response during the polls is through the mobilization of conservative ranks by conservative groups and movements.

The question is if we will ever see such a group materializing in the first place? The powerful conservative groups we see in the U.S. have religious foundations. While such groups can flourish in the U.S., it is difficult to see one flourishing here in Singapore. An attempt by any religious conservative group to push into political space is frowned upon by the authorities. The spectre of Operation Spectrum looms in the background; although the arrests had nothing to do with a religious group encroaching on the political sphere, it nonetheless serves as a chilling reminder and deterrent to religious conservative groups who harbor ambitions of entering the political sphere.

Whilst as mentioned earlier, certain religious leaders exhorted members of their groups to approach Members of Parliaments with specially prepared letters in feedback sessions, that in itself isn’t considered a high level of organization and sophistication we observe in the powerful religious conservative groups in the U.S.. Furthermore, the leaders of such groups and the groups themselves didn’t have a substantial clout within the religious community in addition to the fact that the influential leaders are in agreement with the government’s stand that religion should be kept out of the political sphere. This fact was amply demonstrated from the head of National Council of Churches in Singapore (NCCS) Dr John Chew’s statement in the wake of the AWARE saga that the pulpit shouldn’t be used for the purpose of involvement in AWARE’s matters. It ended up that one of the leaders who adopted a strong stance against homosexuality and supported his group members at AWARE later recanted and agreed with Dr Chew that the pulpit should not be used for a matter within the civil society sphere.

Mobilization of voters in support of a conservative stance adopted by any of the political parties requires an organized and sophisticated movement. Such would require a close inter-connected network between the political parties and the movements. At this moment and given the current circumstances, it is hard to see such a movement taking shape.

Stand on Section 377A by individual parliamentarians
On 22 October 2007, Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong tabled a petition to the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore in support of the repeal of section 377A. In the ensuing debates, PAP MPs Alvin Yeo, Lim Biow Chuan, Seah Kian Peng, Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim and Ho Peng Kee were positive in their response to Siew in bringing up the issue in Parliament. PAP MPs Charles Chong, Baey Yam Keng and Hri Kumar Nair spoke up in support of the repeal of 377A, while Alvin Yeo, Christopher de Souza, Indranee Rajah and Zaqy Mohamad supported its retention.

Opposition Non-constituency Member of the Parliament, Miss Sylvia Lim, chose to sit on the fence on the issue. Interestingly, she mentioned that the Workers’ Party had deliberated on the issue months ago and were unable to arrive at a consensus that 377A should be repealed.

LGBT issue as part of an electoral campaign from an electoral campaign strategist viewpoint
The campaigning period during the General Elections is a short one. This raises an urgent need to raise issues that concern everyone, ranging from bread and butter to education and healthcare. Thus, the campaign strategist has the unenviable task of identifying an issue of utmost concern to the people and highlight proposals that will hopefully win votes for the party. Although LGBT issues may potentially have a great resonating effect among Singaporeans, it is still an issue concerning a sexual minority group and is unlikely to take top priority in any electoral agenda vis-à-vis other higher priority issues like healthcare for instance.

In addition, an individual’s stance on LGBT topics may be shaped by his beliefs and value system. Within a group setting in a political party, it is difficult to establish a collective ethos on the issue. We already witnessed that even in the PAP ranks, we have the anti-repeal 377A group of Alvin Yeo et al up against the pro-repeal 377A group of Baey et al. And in the case of the Workers’ Party, its leadership is unable to arrive at a consensus on the issue. Thus, it is difficult for any electoral campaign strategist to target an agenda in which a collective ethos is firstly absent, and secondly, polemic standpoints are being adopted by the party members.

Lastly, adopting an LGBT-specific campaign is fraught with uncertainties. If in a hypothetical scenario, the opposition wishes to challenge the PAP government on the gay hiring policies in the civil service, will that necessarily translate into votes among conservative Singaporeans, taking into account the lack of a powerful and sophisticated mobilizing force? In fact, the latter will also run the risk of exposing itself to criticisms of having a discriminatory agenda, and may suffer a public fallout at the ballot box. Similarly, if a political party wants to adopt a pro-LGBT campaign during the elections, it may run the risk of a backlash from conservative voters.

It is unlikely that any of the political parties will adopt an LGBT topic as part of an electoral campaign.

Conclusions
To answer the question of whether we will see an electoral campaign by one of the political parties addressing LGBT issues, it is unlikely to transpire. The issue will be grappled with in Parliament beyond the elections, where the government may either proceed to make silent changes as they did with the hiring practices of gay civil servants or it will be an issue raised by any of the individual parliamentarians which will be subjected to subsequent debates in Parliament.