Archive of The Online Citizen article, "Why I would like to have worn pink but couldn’t", 3 July 2013

Why I would like to have worn pink but couldn’t

Posted date: July 03, 2013

By Nicholas Leow

I attended Pink Dot this year and it was a spectacular event to say the least. A record 21,000 people attended celebrating Pink Dot’s message of the freedom to love. Community groups of all kinds and businesses sympathetic to the LGBT community had a presence there, the atmosphere was jubilant with celebratory performances, and there were also more moving and serious bits like the singing of adapted national songs and delivery of speeches.

This is Pink Dot’s fifth year. Founded in 2009, it aims to promote the freedom to love and has a vision articulated succinctly on its facebook page: “Pink Dot stands for an open, inclusive society within our Red Dot, where sexual orientation represents a feature, not a barrier” (emphasis mine). I recall being absolutely and thoroughly enthusiastic back in 2009 when the first Pink Dot was held. I wore, of course, pink!… and took many pictures with friends.

Things have changed lately though.

As the years went by and Pink Dot’s numerical turnout grew from strength to strength, beginning last year I started suspecting that something was amiss. How many of those attending really knew what was being fought for? Is it really possible (especially given the huge numbers today) for everyone to feel and be included in what is undoubtedly a much more inclusive environment (at least where sexual orientation is concerned) than day-to-day Singapore society? Was I really part of this “inclusive” community where I was valued and accepted for who I am – or was there a more “acceptable” or “privileged” way to “be yourself”? I had my doubts. And those doubts grew.

This year, unfortunately, there wasn’t a shred of doubt left.

And it was one very specific issue that convinced me of that and I want to talk about this for the rest of my short article here. It concerns the ongoing constitutional challenge against section 377a taking place in our courts at the moment. And it wholly concerns the different treatment (for doing the exact same thing) the plaintiffs for each of the two separate challenges before the courts are receiving from the “LGBT community”. DSC_3941.MOV.Still001

Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee waving their flags at center stage at the Pink Dot event.

The first challenge is brought by Tan Eng Hong, represented by lawyer M Ravi while the second is brought by couple Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee, who have been together for many years. Lisa Li has just written an excellent piece detailing the backgrounds and how the latter case was made possible only by the former case so I shall not elaborate on that here. Suffice to say that in terms of substance, there is no difference at all between the two cases. The only difference lies in a) who the plaintiffs are and b) who the lawyers are. Even the attorney from the Attorney-General’s chambers arguing against them and the presiding judge are the same.

Yet, the response from the “LGBT community” was worlds apart. At an earlier event by Ivan Heng and Glenn Goei which staged a reading of the trials of Oscar Wilde, both sets of plaintiffs were present, both were acknowledged, but the difference in volume of applause for each of them from the audience was extremely telling. The “community” raised $100,000 in support of the couple’s court challenge, but not a cent for Tan (despite Tan’s case having started years before the couple’s and despite the tireless pro bono efforts by his lawyer, M Ravi). And then at Pink Dot this year, Gary and Kenneth were hailed as heroes in front of the massive gathering, but not a word of acknowledgement for either Tan or Ravi.

Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on how one looks at it) for the “LGBT community”, in this instance there are two cases which are exactly the same substantially. The implication is that if the “community” does not treat them in exactly the same manner, it will lead to questions and it will put the “community” under the spotlight of criticism. And people will seek out reasons to account for the difference, and where else to look for such reasons other than one of the only and most obvious differences between the two cases – that of who the plaintiffs are.

Of course, I cannot speak for the entire “community” nor is there any way of knowing for sure what the reasons for differing treatment are. But a reasonable third-party onlooker who does some minimal research can discern the following: Tan is an older, working-class single who was caught doing the nasty in a public toilet while the couple are middle-aged professionals in a long-term relationship. It really is a no-brainer as to who is more easily glamorised and is very revealing (whether intended or not) of the possible stratifications by any combination of the following: age, class, coupled/single, known record of engaging in stigmatized sex acts. These are hierarchies within the “LGBT community” and to the extent that they are present, they cast that extent of derision and mockery on the touted claim of promoting inclusivity. Again, these internal hierarchies and accompanying oppression are made abundantly clear precisely because there are two cases which are exactly the same in substance.

To make things worse, it is totally unpersuasive that the difference in treatment was due to “benign neglect”. In promotional videos, Tan could have easily been asked to contribute a short segment; in the fund-raising campaign, Tan could have easily been included too, even as an unimportant “extra” in the marketing; at Pink Dot, the emcee could have easily spared an extra half-sentence worth of breath to acknowledge Tan along with the couple. The ease with which each of these could have been done point not towards “benign neglect”, far from it, it points to deliberate exclusion. It is such a shame since it was not the couple but Tan who (despite the Prime Minister’s promise) was threatened with 377a; and it was not the couple but Tan who was forcibly “out”-ed and shamed in public. These reasons, in addition to the strong likelihood that Tan might be facing financial and job difficulties as a result of his public shaming, make him much more in need of both emotional and financial support from the “LGBT community”. His lawyer, M Ravi, having worked pro bono on his case for so long, could also do with just a fraction of that generosity the “community” has shown to the couple, especially since the couple needed Ravi’s work in order to initiate their own challenge.

So this year, I was at Pink Dot – in black. In fact, the only reason I was there was to listen very carefully as to how any mention of the constitutional challenges would be made. I really would have loved to be in pink like everyone else and my friends, but principle dictates that given such a blatant act of discrimination I couldn’t come without any mark of protest. I saw Alfian Sa’at staging his own protest with the following placard – “Queerness is radical; not sanitised; not commodified”. I couldn’t agree more. It is unfortunate that (as exemplified by Pink Dot) the “LGBT community”, in its pursuit to be accepted by mainstream society, has chosen the less noble path of presenting an elite “sanitised” and “commodified” gay/lesbian prototype in the hopes for acceptance. At last we now know what is meant by the stated vision of an “inclusive” society – that the gay/lesbian elite be “included” by the mainstream. The celebration of true diversity – the non-elite within the “LGBT community”, is sorely lacking and, in this case, deliberately avoided.

Update: just after the writing of this article, Pink Dot responded to Lisa Li’s article, crediting Tan and Ravi. I thank Pink Dot for rightfully doing so. However, the issues at stake as highlighted by both Lisa Li and myself here are far deeper and fundamental which needs major effort by the community if it wishes to tackle them.

=See also=
 * Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)

=References=
 * Nicholas Leow, "Why I would like to have worn pink but couldn’t", The Online Citizen, 3 July 2013,.

=Acknowledgements=

This article was archived by Roy Tan.