Liberating the “Gay”: New Media & Politics ofGay Activism in Singapore

Choi Yik Heng20149655

UA 2800PSWSNM: Seminar New Media & PoliticsDr. Jeroen Van Laer

Submitted on: 20 April 2015

1

Context

LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual & Queer) activism

in Singapore has historically been limited given state

legislature and social norms that condemn deviant

sexualities. As such, activism can only be enacted in private

spaces both virtually and physically. Under Section 377 of

the Penal Code of Singapore, acts ‘against the order of

nature’1 are criminalized.

‘Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse

against the order of nature with any man,

woman or animals, shall be punished with

imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment

for a term which may extend to 10 years, and

shall also be liable to fine.’2

Within the same act, Section 377A follows by explicitly

criminalising sex between men. This legislation states that:

1 Lim, Puay Ling.(2010).Penal Code Section 377A.  Retrieved from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1639_2010-01-31.html2 Ibid.

2

‘Any male person who, in public or private,

commits, or abets the commission of, or

procures or attempts to procure the commission

by any male person of, any act of gross

indecency with another male person, shall be

punished with imprisonment for a term which

may extend to 2 years.’3

As apparent in this legislature, rather than LGBT rights per

se, homosexuals are the core social group in question. Gay

activists constitute the most visible social movements in

Singapore. As such, this paper will focus on gay activism and

gay rights in Singapore. In recent years, this has become an

increasingly contentious social issue. Conflicting legal &

social manifestations on homosexuality in Singapore polarize

society on issues of gay representation, visibility and

ultimately, citizenship rights.

Besides that of (de)criminialising homosexuality, popular

discourse is also centered around the debate of homosexuality

as against family values. The public sphere is then divided

into pro-family or pro-gay. Under these circumstances, gay

rights movements construct frames of activism according to

assessments of opportunities and constraints based on the

tense socio-political environment. Singapore’s political-

cultural uniqueness necessitates a more sensitive and

pragmatic approach. As illustrated by its infamous tagline-

“Disneyland with a Death Penalty”4, Singapore has a ‘complex3 Ibid.4 Gibson, William. “Disneyland with the Death Penalty”. Wired. Issue 1.04, Sept/Oct 1993. Retrieved from http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html

3

relationship with modernity’5 wherein civic participation and

civil liberties cannot be procured in the same way like in

Western liberal democracies. Due to its multicultural

demographic, discourse on sensitive topics are very much

institutionalized and constrained in fear of social unrest.

However, Foucault notes how identity is negotiated through

the modern discourse of sexuality- wherein the subject’s body

becomes a source for ‘power over life’6. As such, the

construction of a socially acceptable gay persona is an

important feature of the gay rights movement.

Challenging the status quo requires unique strategies to

effectively negotiate gay rights. Chua highlights this

strategy as ‘pragmatic resistance’7- a ‘strategic dance that

involves interplay among legal restrictions and cultural

norms’8. These strategies converge significantly in the

politics of collective identity and new media, as gay

movements utilize various new media strategies for increased

representation in civic society and state policies. Chua

agrees that ‘laxer Internet controls have become key to the

mobilization of not only gay activism but also political

activism’9. In the ‘shared virtual space of the internet’10,

5 Phillips, Robert. (2014). "And I Am Also Gay": Illiberal Pragmatics, Neoliberal

Homonormativity and LGBT Activism in Singapore. Anthropologica, 56(1): 45-54.6 Foucault, Michel. (1976). The History of Sexuality. Vintage: UK. 7 Chua, J. Lynette. (2012). ‘Pragmatic Resistance, Law, and Social Movements in Authoritarian States: The Case of Gay Collective Action in Singapore’. Law & SocietyReview, 46: 713–748. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00515.x8 Ibid.9 Ibid.10 Coleman, Stephan & Jay G. Blumler. (2009). ‘E-Democracy from Below.’ The Internetand Democratic Citizenship, New York: Cambridge University Press, p.117-138.

4

gay rights movements are increasingly proactive in initiating

‘ongoing public conversations’11.

Introduction

This paper explores how gay activism in Singapore utilizes

new media strategies to negotiate issues of representation,

visibility and citizenship against opposing forces. These

include anti-homosexuality laws, pro-family state rhetoric

and religious organizations against the normalization of

homosexuality in Singapore. How do new media tools bolster

participation-oriented gay movements under (soft)

authoritarian12 conditions in Singapore? In particular, do

these tools provide alternative discourses and participatory

spaces13 to negotiate gay rights in the context of a

domestically conservative state against rising pro-

homosexuality referendums and movements around the world?

11 Ibid.12 Roy explicates ‘soft authoritarianism’ as revealing ‘the influence of Confucian values that champion order, a strong but moral state, and the needs of society as a whole over personal freedoms and limitations on government’. Roy, Denny. (1994). Singapore, China, and the "Soft Authoritarian" Challenge.Asian Survey. University of California Press: USA. Vol. 34 (3). pp. 231-242. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/264498213 In particular, new media is argued to improve the democratic potential of socialmovements by cultivating alternative discourses as well as more active relationshipsbetween different bodies.

5

Methodology

Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Participation’14 enumerates different

levels of participation from non-participation to tokenism to

citizen power. However, I wish to utilize a more nuanced

approach that takes into consideration structuralist and

constructivist perspectives when analyzing the political

participation of Singaporean gay rights movements. Therefore,

I argue that local gay activists require a different strategy

of ‘citizen power’15 to negotiate with socio-political

constraints. Drawing upon Ray’s ‘political fields’16, a

structuralist perspective would guide perceptions of

possibilities and limitations. However, it is important to

also interrogate discourse inherent in the pro-gay/anti-gay

vernacular and see how these narratives shift with the socio-

political environment. This essay will thus illuminate the

actors and processes participating in the identity politics

of homosexuality in contemporary Singaporean society.

Diani defines social movements as ‘networks of informal

interaction between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or

organizations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict on

the basis of a shared collective identity’17. As Phillips

14 Arnstein, Sherry. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 35 (4): 216–224, doi:10.1080/0194436690897722515 Ibid.16 Ray defines the political field as ‘ a dominant political culture and the rule ofa political party’. Shama, Shubhra. (Dec, 2000). “Fields of Protest: Women’s Movements in India by Raka Ray.” Gender & Society. Vol. 14(6). Pp 829-831. Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/19038317 Van Laer, Jeroen.Van Aelst, Peter. (2010). 'Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires: Opportunities and Limitations'. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8): pp.1146–1171.

6

observed, “gay culture” has actually been visible in

Singaporean society despite its illegality18. The case studies

I have selected follow the changes and continuity of the gay

rights movements’ collective action frames over the years

with the rise of new media. I will focus on the framing of

three gay rights events organized by different actors in

Singapore from 2007 to 2015. Namely, they are: the

constitutional challenges to Section 377A, peaceful

mobilization of Pink Dot SG 2014 and e-democracy from below

in the NLB (National Library Board) Saga. These cases

exemplify the utilization of new media to improve the

democratic potential of gay rights movements. They will be

analysed based on their goals, political strategies and

offline/online tools of collective action. Here, Van Laer &

Van Aelst’s typology of digitalized action repertoire19 will

be referenced. Thereafter, I will reflect on the

possibilities and limitations of their ‘new digitalized

action repertoire’20 in strengthening gay rights in Singapore.

An assessment on whether the ‘repertoire of actions supported

and/or created online’21 were successful will be made.

18 Phillips, Robert. (May, 2014). "And I Am Also Gay": Illiberal Pragmatics, Neoliberal Homonormativity and LGBT Activism in Singapore. Anthropologica, 56(1): 45-54.19 Van Laer, Jeroen.Van Aelst, Peter. (2010). 'Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires: Opportunities and Limitations'. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8): pp.1146–1171.20 Ibid.21 Ibid.

7

Constitutional Challenges to Section 377A

There has been a notable shift in the dynamics of, and

responses to, gay movements in Singapore- especially in the

arena of legislature. The state’s position on homosexuality

has noticeably softened, going for a more balanced of

interests approach that acknowledges gay people22 but within

(vaguely defined) ‘limits’23. In this case, gay activists and

movements seek socio-legal change via legal legitimacy.

Construction of Collective Gay Identity as

Marginalised

Singapore experienced an important wave of gay rights

advocacy with unprecedented civil participation and debate

sparked by the parliamentary review of the Penal Code in

October 2007. In view of the Penal Code’s ecclesiastical22 Chua, L. J. (2012). ‘Pragmatic Resistance, Law, and Social Movements in Authoritarian States: The Case of Gay Collective Action in Singapore’. Law & SocietyReview, 46: 713–748. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00515.x23 Tan, Weizhen. (29 Jan 2013). “Let’s Agree to Disagree on Gay Rights: PM Lee”. Today. Retrieved from http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/03/TD_Lets-agree-to-disagree-on-gay-rights-PM-Lee_290113.pdf

8

roots from the British Colonial administration and shifting

social norms, the government introduced the Penal Code

(Amendment) Bill. While s.377 was repealed- thereby

decriminalizing oral and anal sex, s.377A was retained in

favour of the status quo. This led to widespread dissent from

the local gay community, sparking public debate on whether to

repeal or retain s.377A. Gay activists and movements used

“liberalist” rhetoric questioning the legality and therefore

citizenship rights of homosexuals in Singapore under such

punitive laws. I will first focus on the protest websites of

two oppositional web-based movements: Repeal377A.com and

Keep377A.com. (Figure 1.)

Tools of Mobilisation

o Online

These groups employed ‘internet-based action with low

thresholds’24 in creating social media communities. Through

online discourse spaces of blogs and Facebook posts,

individuals of the gay community were mobilized to produce

and consume news on the issue. Soon, protest websites were

formed by netizens to consolidate online petitions and

Facebook group pages to lobby signatures. Through these

websites, the citizen group can ‘promote social causes and

chiefly mobilize support through its website’25. As Van Laer

24 Van Laer, Jeroen.Van Aelst, Peter. (2010). 'Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires: Opportunities and Limitations'. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8): pp.1146–1171.

25 Van Laer, Jeroen.Van Aelst, Peter. (2010). 'Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires: Opportunities and Limitations'. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8): pp.1146–1171.

9

and Van Aelst note, ‘the internet can reduce costs of setting

up or participating in an online petition’26. In particular,

‘anyone with a Facebook profile can form a group against/or

in favour of a particular cause and invite other member to

sign this cause by becoming member[s]’27. Both groups then

published open letters of protest to the Prime Minister (PM),

Mr. Lee Hsien Long.

In the group for repeal, the public is encouraged to sign the

open letter and petition to be submitted to the Parliament by

Nominated Member of Parliament, Siew Kum Hong. Prominent

local theatre practitioners even created a promotional rap

video entitled, “Repeal 377A Singapore!”28. In the video

uploaded on October 11 2007, the rap was non-confrontational

and delivered in a simple, entertaining and inclusive manner.

Evidently, the goal was not to provoke the “conservative

majority”29 but instead engage them. This overarching rhetoric

of equality (“not [just] a gay thing”30) and the “freedom to

love” will gain traction later on in Pink Dot SG. It is

interesting to point out that the PM’s eventual conclusion on

the matter reinforced the state’s tolerance of the homosexual

lifestyle, but not activism31. This further highlighted the

social reality of activism in Singapore and how gay movements

26 Ibid.27 Ibid.28 Kleerup, Andreas. (Producer). (2007, October 11). Repeal 377A Singapore!. Video retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTGrzte9ZjQ29Adrianna Tan. (2014, July 11). “Singapore’s So-Called Conservative Majority”. Retrieved from http://popagandhi.com/2014/07/singapores-so-called-moral-majority30 Kleerup, Andreas. (Producer). (2007, October 11). Repeal 377A Singapore!. Video retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTGrzte9ZjQ31 Tan, Weizhen. (29 Jan 2013). “Let’s Agree to Disagree on Gay Rights: PM Lee”. Today. Retrieved from http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/03/TD_Lets-agree-to-disagree-on-gay-rights-PM-Lee_290113.pdf

10

like Repeal377A had to frame its collective action

strategies. The organisers of Repeal377A repeatedly

emphasized that they had ‘strived to work within the legal

mechanisms’32 and engaged in ‘civilised debate and

discussion’33.

Figure 1. “The blogosphere debates alongside the

government.”. This figure illustrates the oppositional website

petitions. (2007).34

Keep377A was formed by a group of ‘concerned citizens’35

called “The Majority”. They contend that ‘repealing Section

377A is a vehicle to force homosexuality on a conservative

population that is not ready for homosexuality’36. During its

news cycle, Keep377A.com eventually gathered more signatures

but both sites (and its comments) have since been taken down.

32 Ibid.33 Ibid.34 Retrieved from http://theory.isthereason.com/?p=192235 Ng, Ansley. (2007, October 19). “KEEP377A.COM VS REPEAL377A.COM”. Retrieved from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/today20071019-1.2.6.2.aspx36 Ibid.

11

Both citizen groups’ goals were to utilize online space and

its hotbed of ‘ongoing public conversations’37 to exert

pressure on government policy. Here we see the practice of e-

democracy from below gaining fruition. The petitions

highlighted how the ‘Singaporean blogosphere, discussion

board have been abuzz’38 with user-generated content

highlighting marginalized voices in society. Phillips

proclaims that ‘the internet has … allowed for the creation

of and utilization of various online sites that serve the

needs of diverse LGBT communities’39. For example, a viral

and contentious blogpost by a high school educator, Otto

Fong, at Raffles Institution (a prestigious boy’s school in

Singapore) declared: “I am also gay”40.

o Offline

These online tactics have spillover effects on the grounds as

well, particularly in the arena of public debate. Many forums

were organized by various parties to discuss the

homosexuality issue and the place of Section 377A in

Singapore. These social groups were largely pro-gay: LGBT-

friendly church Free Community Church, theatre company W!ld

Rice and even a parliamentary forum that had Members of

Parliament (MP) Baey Yam Keng and Nominated Member of37 Coleman, Stephan. Blumler, G. Jay. (2009). ‘E-Democracy from Below.’ The Internetand Democratic Citizenship, New York: Cambridge University Press, p.117-138.38 Kevin Lim. (2007, October 27). “What Singapore could learn from the 377A Debate”.Retrieved from http://theory.isthereason.com/?p=192239 Phillips, Robert. (May, 2014). "And I Am Also Gay": Illiberal Pragmatics, Neoliberal Homonormativity and LGBT Activism in Singapore. Anthropologica, 56(1): 45-54.40 Ibid.

12

Parliament (NMP) Siew Kum Hong express support for the

repeal. Notably these forums and inter-body meetings

constitute higher ‘practical participation costs’41. Online

blogs and forums of alternatives news websites like AsiaOne,

TheOnlineCitizen, and even the government’s official e-

engagement portal (REACH) were rife with opinions that range

from civil to extreme42. (Figure 2.) Ultimately, PM Lee

concluded in Parliament on 23 October 2007 to “leave Section

377A alone”43. Homosexuals will be ‘accomoda[ted]’ but not

‘encourage[d]’44 to ‘champion gay rights as they do in the

West’45. Hence, s.377A was to remain. His remarks highlight

the Parliament’s ‘reluctance to repeal the provision

legislatively’46. Yet, quite hopefully, ‘its articulation of

non-enforcement in 2007 means that the Judiciary’47 is the

deciding state power on its constitutionality48. This brings

us to the landmark cases of a gay rights activist and

movement challenging s.377A in 2010 and 2012.

41 Van Laer, Jeroen.Van Aelst, Peter. (2010). 'Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires: Opportunities and Limitations'. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8): pp.1146–1171.42 Kevin Lim. (2007, October 27). “What Singapore could learn from the 377A Debate”.Retrieved from http://theory.isthereason.com/?p=192243 Tan, Weizhen. (29 Jan 2013). “Let’s Agree to Disagree on Gay Rights: PM Lee”. Today. Retrieved from http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/03/TD_Lets-agree-to-disagree-on-gay-rights-PM-Lee_290113.pdf44 Yawning Bread. (2007, Nov). “Lee Hsien Long’s Speech on Section 377A”. Retrieved from http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2007/imp-360.htm45 Ibid.46 Ibid.47 Ibid.48 Chua,J, Lynette. The Power of Legal Processes and Section 377A of the Penal Code:Tan Eng hong v. Attorney-General. (Dec 2012). Singapore Journal of Legal Studies. Pp457-466.

13

Figure 2. A screenshot of “LGBT” forum postings on REACH demonstrating some

extreme opinions. 49

Construction of Collective Gay Identity as Positive

and Amenable

Tan Eng Hong was charged under s.377A ‘for having oral sex

with another man in the restroom of a shopping mall’50 on 9

March 2010. In 21 August 2012, the Court of Appeal concluded

that ‘any gay male has locus standi to challenge the

constitutionality of the s.377A, and that he does not have to

be first charged with an offence under it’51. The rights

litigation went on for three years until Gary Lim and Kenneth

Chee pursued a similar appeal on 30 November 201252. To which,

the Court of Appeal finally ruled on 29 October 2014 that

49 Retrieved from http://www.google.com/cse?cx=001092496951764254203%3Aux5vdll_p4s&ie=UTF-8&q=lgbt#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=lgbt&gsc.page=150 Yawning Bread. (2012, Dec 2). “ New Constitutional Challenge to Section 377A filed”. Retrieved from https://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/new-constitutional-challenge-to-section-377a-filed/51 Ibid.52 Ibid.

14

s.377A is constitutional and those stated causes of appeal

involved ‘extra-legal considerations and matters of social

policy outside the remit of the court’53.

Chua argues that ‘ the government has always won’54, but in

light of this, ‘strategic adaptation aids the gay movement’s

progress as well as ensures its survival’55. Despite Lim and

Chee’s failure, their case highlights collective action

strategies that strike a balance between ‘pushing

boundaries’56 and ‘toeing the lines’57. The strategic timing of

the litigation comes after the Court of Appeal’s approval of

Tan Eng Hong’s legal standing. They remained respectful of

hegemonic powers (state interests) by downplaying

confrontation and focusing on the specific legality of ‘non-

enforcement’58- which the Court itself questioned. While the

narrative of victimization persists, there is a shift towards

normalisation in tackling the issue of stigma and

discrimination i.e. assimilation into society. Notably, the

plaintiffs also represent the poster boys of the local gay

community. This reflects a desire for a new, collective “gay”

identity amenable to the “conservative” masses. This was

manifested in a strong social media presence and approach.

53 Lum, Selina. (2014, Oct 29). “Court of Appeal Rules that Section 377A that Criminalises Sex Between Men is Constitutional”. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-crime/story/court-appeal-rules-section-377a-criminalises-sex-between-men-const54 Chua, J. Lynette. (2012). ‘Pragmatic Resistance, Law, and Social Movements in Authoritarian States: The Case of Gay Collective Action in Singapore’. Law & SocietyReview, 46: 713–748. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00515.x55 Ibid.56 Chua, J. Lynette. (2012). ‘Pragmatic Resistance, Law, and Social Movements in Authoritarian States: The Case of Gay Collective Action in Singapore’. Law & SocietyReview, 46: 713–748. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00515.x57 Ibid.58 Section 377A will be retained but not proactively enforced. Lim, Puay Ling.(2010).Penal Code Section 377A.  Retrieved from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1639_2010-01-31.html

15

Tools for Mobilisation

o Online & Offline

The legal affirmation of the gay community’s ‘tolerated

existence’59 paved the way for gay activism-related Internet

operations. The ‘communication possibilities of the

internet’60 has provided a ‘shield’61 for gay movements to

mobilise members and organise events. Unlike Tan’s (and his

lawyer, M.Ravi62) one-man pursuit of challenging the status

quo, Lim and Chee represented the local gay community.

Furthermore, their offline actions were also ‘accompanied

with tactics online’63. ‘Members and allies of the LGBT

community deeply moved’64 by the couple created an online

fundraising campaign on the ‘specialised warehouse website’65,

Indiegogo, to raise funds for their legal challenge. Van

Laer and Van Aelst see ‘donating money [as] a way of active

59 Chua, J. Lynette. (2012). ‘Pragmatic Resistance, Law, and Social Movements in Authoritarian States: The Case of Gay Collective Action in Singapore’. Law & SocietyReview, 46: 713–748. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00515.x60 Bennett, W. Lance. Segerberg, Alexandra. 2012. ‘The Logic of ConnectiveAction’. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5): pp.739–768.61 Chua, J. Lynette. (2012). ‘Pragmatic Resistance, Law, and Social Movements in Authoritarian States: The Case of Gay Collective Action in Singapore’. Law & SocietyReview, 46: 713–748. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00515.x62 ‘Ravi Madasamy is a [infamous] law practitioner dealing with corporate, civil litigation, intellectual property and human rights cases in Singapore’. Retrieved from https://doweexist.wordpress.com/about-m-ravi/63 Van Laer, Jeroen.Van Aelst, Peter. (2010). 'Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires: Opportunities and Limitations'. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8): pp.1146–1171.64 Retrieved from https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/fundraising-for-s377a-constitutional-challenge65 Van Laer, Jeroen.Van Aelst, Peter. (2010). 'Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires: Opportunities and Limitations'. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8): pp.1146–1171.

16

participation that involves no risk or commitment’66. Through

the Internet, the movement could ‘more effectively pool

small-scale acts of support’ through ‘individualised

collective action’67. For example, the website allows donors

to become different levels of “friends”68, and even “angels”69,

according to their donation amount. Thereafter, they will be

invited to share this “event” with their friends on social

media. These “sharing” affordances parallel how individuals

increasingly seek self-identity through group memberships in

social causes. Drawing upon Bennett and Segerberg, besides

spreading ‘digital connection among friends or trusted

others’70, the sharing of ideas via ‘personal communication

technologies’71 like Twitter and Facebook are also ‘acts of

personal expressions’72. This speaks to ‘self-actualising

citizenship’73, ‘networks of ‘interative information

techonologies’74 maintain a ‘higher sense of individual

purpose’75. Moreover, as an Indiegogo project, the campaign

had transnational access, which further framed the cause as a

universal human rights issue. The campaign ended on June 16

2013 with $107,730 USD- more than double of its $50,000 USD

goal. (Figure 3.)

66 Ibid.67 Ibid.68 Retrieved from https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/fundraising-for-s377a-constitutional-challenge69 Ibid.70 Bennett, W. Lance. Segerberg, Alexandra. (2012). ‘The Logic of ConnectiveAction’. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5): pp.739–768.71 Ibid.72 Ibid.73 Bennett, W. Lance. (2008). ‘Changing Citizenship in the Digital Age.’ in W. LanceBennett. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur (eds.). Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth. Edited by. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, p.1-24.74 Ibid.75 Ibid.

17

Figure 3. The Indiegogo fundraising campaign for challenging Section 377A

in court.76

Organisers also complemented the campaign with a promotional

video entitled “15 years”77 to alter popular consciousness of

the gay imaginary. It candidly interviews the “Singaporean

gay couple of fifteen years”78, portraying their “cliché” love

story and wholesome family life. The video makes use of

slideshows of “family” photographs, and day-to-day activities

of the pair in the heartlands and their Housing Development

Board (public housing) apartment to emphasise how homosexuals

are normal members of society. This brand of normalcy and

integration is reinforced by their likeable personas-

depicted as well-educated, successful and ‘law-abiding

citizens who have been in a loving relationship for fifteen

76 Retrieved from https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/fundraising-for-s377a-constitutional-challenge77 Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/6408008878 Ibid.

18

years’79. They dwell on the ‘stigma’80 of not being ‘legally

part of the system’81, as ‘outsiders’ and ‘criminals’82.

Therefore, by portraying the injustice of their exclusion

from society, ‘human rights are remade into the vernacular’83.

Strikingly, the movement departs from the controversy

narrative as challenged by Tan’s case.

Peaceful Mobilisation in Pink Dot SG

79 Ibid.80 Ibid.81 Ibid.82 Ibid.83 Chua, J. Lynette. (2012). ‘Pragmatic Resistance, Law, and Social Movements in Authoritarian States: The Case of Gay Collective Action in Singapore’. Law & SocietyReview, 46: 713–748. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00515.x

19

The strategy of playing to legal legitimacy is intimately

linked to cultural legitimacy and the preservation of social

stability. To navigate the constraints against the promotion

of homosexuality, the goal became framing the gay community

as inclusive i.e. not oppositional to family values.

Pink Dot SG was established in 2009. In its most recent rally

on 28 June 2014, it amassed its highest amount of supporters-

26,000 people, as well as heightened backlash from

conservative social groups. Here is where Chua’s typology of

social norms for activism can be extrapolated- non-

confrontation, social stability as a foundation for economic

progress, preservation of the ruling party’s monopoly and

legal legitimacy84. The legal demonstration was held in the

Speaker’s Corner at Hong Lim Park, a socially sanctioned

space for freedom of speech and lawful assembly. It was peace

loving, family-friendly, avoided ideology and sponsored by

MNCs like Google Singapore. Rather than the typical gay

activism frame of “gay pride”, the political mobilization of

LGBT persons and allies converge under the branding of the

“freedom to love”85 in order to construct a pro-gay and pro-

family Singaporean collectivity. The affective dimension of

the discursive frame on “love” was extremely palatable and

effective to promote on social media.

84 Ibid.85 Retrieved from http://pinkdot.sg/faq-things-to-know-about-pink-dot/

20

Construction of Collective “Gay” Identity as Family-

Centric

In Singapore, the official discourse of sexuality is largely

heteronormative and ‘essentialises West versus East’86 values,

or what Leong calls ‘Asian exceptionalism’87. “Asian values”

prioritizes family and communitarian ethics. Thus as Chua

explains, heavily utilizing ‘international legitimacy’88 via

‘issues of international human rights’89 or ‘transnational

movement networks’90 upsets the State’s ‘domestic hegemony’91

and this “Asian” collective identity. However, it is

important to view the progress of the local gay movement in

2014 in context of the Washington Referendum 74 in 2014,

which legalized same-sex marriages across various U.S states.

Moving forward from testing the tolerance of homosexuality in

society, issues of gay visibility in public spaces then take

central focus. Pink Dot SG’s ‘high visibility and active

engagement with the mass public’92 was a significant

advancement in the gay rights movement.

The ambiguity of legislation regarding gay rights in

Singapore opened doors for the gay movement to proactively

seek cultural legitimacy via the vernacular. This means that86 Leong, Wai-Teng. Laurence. “Asian Sexuality or Singapore Exceptionalism?”. Liverpool Law Review. Vol. 33(1). Pp 11-26. doi:10.1007/s10991-012-9106-8.87 Ibid.88 Chua, J. Lynette. (2012). ‘Pragmatic Resistance, Law, and Social Movements in Authoritarian States: The Case of Gay Collective Action in Singapore’. Law & SocietyReview, 46: 713–748. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00515.x89 Ibid.90 Ibid.91 Ibid.92 Loh, Chee Long. Yap, Ying Ying, Yvonne. (2014). Grasping the Gay: The Politics ofCollective Identity in the Pink Dot SG. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/7965252/Grasping_the_Gay_The_Politics_of_Collective_Identity_in_the_Pink_Dot_SG

21

gay “rights” has to be revisioned according to social norms.

The goal of social integration is reflected in the discourses

emphasising co-existence with straight and religious allies.

Unlike typical discourse of rights litigation, issues of

freedom of speech and civil rights are downplayed. Instead,

they construct a discourse on ‘humanistic ideals about love

and social acceptance’. 93Following Lim and Chee’s

constitutional challenge campaign, the image of the gay

community is deliberately modeled after the wholesome family

unit legitimised by state values. As such, the local gay

movement is positively represented. In order to reach out to

civil society and what is often called the conservative

majority, Pink Dot SG then intensified its new media

strategies to strengthen mobilization and outreach in the

public sphere. It is in this sphere where ‘autonomous

interaction tak[e] place within and between publics and

counter-publics’94. As Chua explains, it was pivotal to

‘sustain and extend the visibility and public consciousness

of gay people’95 by playing to the discourse of social

stability.

93 Loh, Chee Long. Yap, Ying Ying, Yvonne. (2014). Grasping the Gay: The Politics ofCollective Identity in the Pink Dot SG. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/7965252/Grasping_the_Gay_The_Politics_of_Collective_Identity_in_the_Pink_Dot_SG94 Coleman, Stephan. Blumler, G. Jay.(2009). ‘E-Democracy from Below.’ The Internet and Democratic Citizenship, New York: Cambridge University Press, p.117-138.95 Chua, J. Lynette. (2012). ‘Pragmatic Resistance, Law, and Social Movements in Authoritarian States: The Case of Gay Collective Action in Singapore’. Law & SocietyReview, 46: 713–748. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00515.x

22

Tools Of Mobilisation

o Online

As evident in its promotional video entitled “Lighting Up

Hearts”, Pink Dot was represented as a peaceful gathering

fostering a ‘more inclusive, more loving Singapore’96.

Similarly, its campaign video97 tackles the issue of embracing

diversity in Singapore (which is another cornerstone of state

values) by using personal anecdotes of actors from different

backgrounds. In line with the discourse of solidarity and

allies, the narrative of “family” and support was repeatedly

emphasized. These videos were shared on Pink Dot SG’s

official Facebook (Figure 4.) and Twitter (Figure 5.) pages.

They went viral quickly and were subsequently picked up by

news media online.

96 Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iGKeIbxDoQ97 Ibid.

23

Figure 4. Pink Dot SG Facebook Page98. Figure 5. Pink Dot SG

Twitter Page99.

o Online & Offline

To inculcate a pro-gay imagined community, Pink Dot focused

on a cohesive and coherent symbol. In order to subvert the

gay imaginary as a Western (non-Singaporean) ideology,

strategic discursive frames linking nationality to sexuality

were deployed: pink symbolises ‘the colour when you mix red

and white- the colours of Singapore’s national flag’100.

Visually, pink is the central aesthetic theme in all of Pink

Dot’s promotional materials. From its logo to mascot and the

iconic ‘sea of shimmering pink lights’101 (widely reported98 Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/pinkdotsg99 Retrieved from https://twitter.com/pinkdotsg100 Loh, Chee Long. Yap, Ying Ying, Yvonne. (2014). Grasping the Gay: The Politics ofCollective Identity in the Pink Dot SG. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/7965252/Grasping_the_Gay_The_Politics_of_Collective_Identity_in_the_Pink_Dot_SG101 Retrieved from http://pinkdot.sg/more-than-15000-singaporeans-at-pink-dot-2012/

24

over local and international news media) (Figure 6.), pink

became such a significant gay imaginary that religious

conservatives like Faith Community Baptist Church responded

with a “Wear White” campaign to ‘defend marriage’102 and

family values. Civil society was divided once again, with

smaller Facebook group pages like “We Are Against Pink Dot in

Singapore” sprouting up online. In response to such

retaliation, Pink Dot SG released an invitation “engage in

thoughtful and constructive discussion”103 with oppositional

social movements.

102 (2014, June 29). “Thousands of Singaporean Christians Wear White to Protest PinkDot Gay Rally”. Retrieved from https://sg.news.yahoo.com/thousands-of-singaporean-christians-wear-white-to-protest-pink-dot-gay-rally-143235694.html103 Ibid.

25

Figure 6. Compilation of news articles using the iconic picture of a ‘sea

of shimmering pink lights’ from clockwise: The Strait Times (Singapore)104,

BBC (UK)105, Huffington Post (USA)106 and Deustche Welle (Germany)107. (2014).

Through the visual symbolism of pink, online and offline

tools became mutually enforcing. The sea of pink on the field

bolstered Pink Dot’s social media presence. At the event,

supporters were all encouraged to wear pink and share their

“selfies” (Figure 7.) on social media platforms like

Instagram. One by one, supporters gathered virtually and

physically via the hashtag “#freedomtolove”. Bennett and

Segerberg state that ‘the linchpin of connective action is

the formative element of sharing’108 whereby ‘personalisation

[leads] actions and content to be distributed widely across

social networks’109. The spectacle of the Pink Dot festival

engages supporters to create ‘personal action frames’110 of

gay activism that spread through social media. It is

important to highlight ‘the role of emotions as [its] glue

for collective identity’111 and to create an imagined

104 Retrieved from http://www.fcbc.org.sg/about/sp-in-the-news/big-turnout-pink-dot-gathering105 Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27584565106 Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/28/singapore-pink-dot_n_5539810.html107 Retrieved from http://www.dw.de/record-number-attend-pink-dot-gay-rights-rally-in-singapore/a-17744087108 Bennett, W. Lance. Segerberg, Alexandra. (2012). ‘The Logic of ConnectiveAction’. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5): pp.739–768.109 Ibid.110 Ibid.111 Loh, Chee Long. Yap, Ying Ying, Yvonne. (2014). Grasping the Gay: The Politics ofCollective Identity in the Pink Dot SG. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/7965252/Grasping_the_Gay_The_Politics_of_Collective_Identity_in_the_Pink_Dot_SG

26

community112 of pro-gay Singaporeans. On 28 June 2014; the a

‘large, visceral, physical presence combined with heavily

sensory simulation of sights and sounds, sweep[ing]

participants into the moment as part of a unified body’113.

Such personalization also encourages creative expression of

gay rights and identity through witty posters and costumes.

Ivan Heng, a prominent theatre practitioner and gay activist,

dressed up as a samsui woman114 (Figure 8.) to salute the

pioneer generation”. Moreover, this strategic move

complemented the government’s target policy group of the

elderly, or “pioneer generation”, in 2014 as well.

Figure 7. Supporters in pink pose for a “selfie” with banners and

mascots.115 (2014).

112 Benedict Anderson’s concept of “imagined community” explicates the personal and cultural feeling of belonging to the nation. Anderson, Benedict. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso. 113 Ng, Yi Shu. “A Dialogue should Occur Between the Wear White Movement and the PinkDot organisers. Sooner than Later.”http://mothership.sg/2014/06/a-dialogue-should-occur-between-wear-white-movement-and-the-pink-dot-organisers-sooner-than-later/114 “The term Samsui women broadly refers to a group of Chinese immigrants who came to Singapore between the 1920s and the 1940s in search of construction and industrial jobs. Their hard work contributed to Singapore's development, both as a colony and as a nation.” Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsui_women.115 Retrieved from http://cdn2.coconutsmedia.com/styles/photo_essay_v2/s3/selfies_1.jpg

27

Figure 8. Ivan Heng dressed as a Samsui woman in a nod to the pioneer

generation. 116 (2014).

Furthermore, organisers also enlisted the participation of

prominent figures in ambassadorial speeches that reinforced

nationalist rhetoric117. The speeches were disseminated via

their own and Pink Dot’s official Facebook pages, as well as

other similar interest blogs. Corporate sponsors like Google

Singapore, Barclays and J.P Morgan were integral to Pink

Dot’s pursuit of cultural legitimacy. As such the promotion

of ‘gay consciousness’118 managed to promote social stability

via the strategic targeting of family and social (economic)

values.

116 Retrieved from http://cdn.mothership.sg/wp-content/uploads/aws/mothershipfiles/Martino+Tan/People+of+Pink+Dot+2014/Goh_Lay_Kuan_2.JPG117 Retrieved from http://pinkdot.sg/category/ambassador-speech-2014/118 Loh, Chee Long. Yap, Ying Ying, Yvonne. (2014). Grasping the Gay: The Politics ofCollective Identity in the Pink Dot SG. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/7965252/Grasping_the_Gay_The_Politics_of_Collective_Identity_in_the_Pink_Dot_SG

28

E-Democracy from Below in National Library Board (NLB) Saga

Shortly after Pink Dot SG 2014, the gay rights movement was

swept into the spotlight again on July 8 2014. Following

complaints, two children’s books depicting homosexual parents

were withdrawn from library shelves and even (proposed to be)

pulped. The books in question were: “And Tango Makes Three”

and “White Swan Express”. The NLB saga offers an interesting

look at how gay rights movement evolve spontaneously from the

ground in reaction to the transpiring of controversial events

online. Bennet and Segerberg highlight the ‘logic of

connective action’119 whereby individuals collaborate on

‘socially mediated networks’120 like Facebook groups to share

ideas and action in ‘trusted relationships’121 . As compared

to a professional collective like Pink Dot SG, the NLB saga

illuminates how citizens can also push the gay rights

movement forward in their own ways via democratic

citizenship.

Construction of Collective Gay Identity as Civilised

Teo Kai Loon, a member of the Facebook group, “We are Against

Pink Dot in Singapore”, lodged the complaint. The group

119 Bennett, W. Lance. Segerberg, Alexandra. (2012). ‘The Logic of ConnectiveAction’. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5): pp.739–768.120 Ibid.121 Ibid.

29

professes to be a pro-family ‘public policy group’122 that

provides ‘resource and networking’123 for like-minded

individuals and organisations. Teo posted the official reply

from the state-run NLB in the group page124. It was swiftly

picked up on various media outlets to the chagrin of many

concerned parents, Singaporean writers and literary citizens.

Rather than criticizing the discrimination of gay families,

they focused on the issue of book pulping as opposing the

civil body i.e. the civilized (educated) image of

Singaporeans. Social media was abuzz with calls to “free my

library”. Renowned writers like Alvin Pang and Alfian Sa’at

released statements of concern over ‘censorship’125 and

‘serious impoverishment of what books are and what knowledge

means’126. Rather than using the civil liberty and sexuality

discourse i.e. whether children should be exposed to books

with homosexual content, the citizens touch upon the national

interest of education and academic pursuit. In comparison,

given the timing of Teo’s complaint that was shortly after

Pink Dot SG 2014, the pro-family justification for the

destruction of books becomes socially unacceptable and for

the sake of ‘the spectacle of a pyre’127. In such ways,

opponents of book pulping reverse the issue into a charged

metaphor for an uncivilized witchhunt of anything remotely

homosexual in Singapore.

122 Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/542917079078427/123 Ibid.124 http://mothership.sg/2014/07/national-library-board-apparently-banned-two-childrens-books-as-they-are-deemed-not-pro-family/125 Martin, Mayo. (2014, July 11). “S’pore Writers Not Happy Over NLB Controversy”. Retrieved from http://www.todayonline.com/blogs/forartssake/spore-writers-not-happy-over-nlb-controversy?page=1126 Ibid.127 Ibid.

30

Tools for Mobilisation

o Online

I focus on the creation of the Facebook group- Singapore

Parents Against Library Censorship, by two mothers: Ms Jolene

Tan and Ms Germaine Ong. Social media was ‘buzz[ing] like mad

with the spread of the penguin meme’128. This meme is an

example of culture jamming, which is an ‘Internet based

action with high thresholds’129. The revisioning of the famous

Penguin Books books logo into a nuclear (penguin) family unit

works on intertextuality and irony (Figure 9.). While making

a statement to “free my library”, the penguins serve a more

subtle political purpose in not just symbolizing characters

in the controversial book (the penguins in “And Tango Makes

Three”) but also homosexuality as actually pro-family. As Van

Laer and Van Aelst explain, it ‘changes the meaning of

corporate advertising through artistic techniques that alter

corporate logos visually and by giving…new meanings’130.

128 Martin, Mayo. (2014, July 11). “S’pore Writers Not Happy Over NLB Controversy”. Retrieved from http://www.todayonline.com/blogs/forartssake/spore-writers-not-happy-over-nlb-controversy?page=1129 Van Laer, Jeroen.Van Aelst, Peter. (2010). 'Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires: Opportunities and Limitations'. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8): pp.1146–1171.130 Ibid.

31

Figure 9. The revisioned Penguin logo. 131

o Online & Offline

With the help of Facebook, the group formed a peaceful

protest titled “Let’s Read Together”132 outside the NLB

atrium, where 400 people read the controversial books

together. As shown in Figure below, the group reacted swiftly

to, and circulated, updates by Facebook and Twitter accounts

of news websites like The Strait Times. By doing do, they

could quickly gain attention of like-minded citizens, rally

support and exchange ideas for collective action strategies

like calling for more transparent review processes. Coleman

and Blumler highlight the nature of distributed coordination

in online organisations, which ‘dra[w] upon the spontaneity

and inventiveness of citizen’s knowledge and the multiple

linkages and organizational stretching afforded by a global

communications network’133. Notably, as shown in the Facebook

post below, the organisers were able to quickly draw

attention to another event page. (Figure 10.) Facebook’s131 Retrieved from http://www.todayonline.com/blogs/forartssake/spore-writers-not-happy-over-nlb-controversy?page=1132 Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/events/467613160008280/133 Coleman, Stephan & Jay G. Blumler. (2009). ‘E-Democracy from Below.’ The Internet and Democratic Citizenship, New York: Cambridge University Press, p.117-138.

32

‘multifunction networking platform’134 ‘in which other

networks become embedded’135 quicken and consolidate

collective action strategies. Futhermore, the event page for

“Let’s Read Together” functions like a “wiki” as members

acquire and exchange information freely. For example, after

the event, the organiser sought “official” event photographs

by ‘crowdsourcing’ from the members. (Figure 11.) This

further highlights the ‘non-hierarchial, broadly distributed

and flexible’136 structure of online activism groups. Other

members used the platform to come up with follow-up events as

well, like a talk on book censorship inviting the authors of

some of the withdrawn books. Coleman and Blumler argue that

the Internet’s ‘lowered barriers to collective action have

benefited a range of citizen activists’137. Utilising the

connectivity and efficiency of Facebook, pro-gay citizens

were able to read about and participate in policy decisions.

After two petitions calling for NLB to reinstate the

withdrawn books and writers boycotting NLB events,

Communications and Information Minister Yaacob Ibrahim

finally instructed the NLB to move the books into its adult

section in lieu of ‘community norms’138.

134 Bennett, W. Lance. Segerberg, Alexandra. (2012). ‘The Logic of ConnectiveAction’. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5): pp.739–768.135 Ibid.136 Coleman, Stephan & Jay G. Blumler. (2009). ‘E-Democracy from Below.’ The Internetand Democratic Citizenship, New York: Cambridge University Press, p.117-138.137 Ibid.138 Tan, Dawn Wei. (2014, July 18). “NLB Saga: Two Removed Children’s Books will go into Adult Section at Library”. The Strait Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/nlb-saga-two-removed-childrens-books-will-go-adult-secti

33

Figure 10. Members of the “Singapore Parents Against Library Censorship”

Facebook Group react to official news.139 (2014).

Figure 11. “Lets Read Together” Facebook Event Page, community post by the

organiser pooling photographs of the event.140 (2014).

Limitations

The gay movements explored have been relatively successful in

attaining their goals. While the Internet has enabled gay

movements to secure more representation and citizenship

rights in various ways, the Internet also ‘engenders

fragmentation’141. Margolis & Moreno-Riano argue that ‘without

139 Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/librarycensorshipisbad140 Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/events/467613160008280/141 Margolis, Michael & Gerson Moreno-Riaño. (2009). ‘Democracy, Tolerance 6 and the Internet.’ The Prospect of Internet Democracy, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, p.69-94

34

a commitment to the norms of political tolerance, a

democratic regime will not survive’142. The “modern concept of

tolerance”143 as developed in liberal democracies is

problematic in a case like Singapore. As we have seen in the

above cases, new media is also a ‘breeding ground for

extremism’ 144.

(In)Tolerance

Rather than fostering mutual understanding and dialogue,

digitally mediated networks on social media also enable hate-

speech and the homogeneity of opinions145. The phenomenon of

“keyboard warriors”146 and anti-establishment user-generated

news websites like The Real Singapore seem to skew public

discourse online towards the extreme. As apparent from all

three cases, popular discourse on homosexuality and family

values are still polarized. Scholars saw the existence of the

conflicting petitions to Repeal and Keep s.377A as evidence

of Singapore’s maturing ‘intellectual democracy’147 that is

able to partake in ‘healthy debate’148. As Coleman and Blumler

propose, the goal of ‘democratic communication…[is] the

142 Ibid.143 Ibid.144 Coleman, Stephan & Jay G. Blumler. (2009). ‘E-Democracy from Below.’ The Internetand Democratic Citizenship, New York: Cambridge University Press, p.117-138.145 Margolis, Michael & Gerson Moreno-Riaño. (2009). ‘Democracy, Tolerance 6 and the Internet.’ The Prospect of Internet Democracy, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, p.69-94146 “Keyboard warrior” is a colloquial term in Singapore describing netizens who utilize the anonymity of the Internet to post vicious hate remarks online. Often they are argued to contribute to a ‘spectre of fear, hatred and self-righteousness’.Retrieved from https://sg.news.yahoo.com/the-keyboard-warrior-manifesto-225202040.html147 Kevin Lim. (2007, October 27). “What Singapore could learn from the 377A Debate”.Retrieved from http://theory.isthereason.com/?p=1922148 http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/today20071019-1.2.6.2.aspx

35

pursuit of mutual recognition’149. Yet as local bloggers like

Dr. Kevin Lim (theory.isthereason.com) and Adrianna Tan

(popaghandi.com) contend, these websites also ‘institu[te]

polarization of opinions’150 that do not actually reflect

constructive political engagement and/or discourse necessary

for what Coleman and Blumler define as a ‘deliberative

democracy’151. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the

feedback from the general public on s.377A was ‘emotional,

divided and strongly expressed’152. In fact, in Feburary 2015,

the National University of Singapore received many negative

responses online for its NUSPA Social Policies forum, “Our

Families”, due to its supposed pro-LGBT panel and lack of

“pro-family” perspectives153.

Representation

Despite Pink Dot’s successes at enhancing gay visibility, its

representation is problematic. As evident from their poster

boys, homosexuals largely dominate the LGBTQ discourse in

Singapore. This leaves one to question the exclusion of other

kinds of marganialised sexualities like lesbians, the elderly

and racial minorities. Furthermore, Pink Dot has been

criticized for depoliticizing gay rights by promoting the gay

lifestyle as a spectacle. By ‘framing itself as festive,149 Coleman, Stephan & Jay G. Blumler. (2009). ‘E-Democracy from Below.’ The Internetand Democratic Citizenship, New York: Cambridge University Press, p.117-138150 Kevin Lim. (2007, October 27). “What Singapore could learn from the 377A Debate”.Retrieved from http://theory.isthereason.com/?p=1922151 Coleman, Stephan & Jay G. Blumler. (2009). ‘E-Democracy from Below.’ The Internetand Democratic Citizenship, New York: Cambridge University Press, p.117-138152 (2014, Nov 3). The Independent Singapore. “Same-Sex Marriage and Repealing 377A in Singapore”. Retrieved from http://theindependent.sg/blog/2014/11/03/same-sex-marriage-and-repealing-377a-in-singapore/153 Farhan. (2014, March 13). “NUS Forum on Family Attracts Controversy Over Pro-Gay Slant”. Retrieved from http://www.allsingaporestuff.com/article/nus-forum-families-attracts-controversy-over-pro-gay-slant

36

friendly and fun’154 (which undoubtedly aids its media

campaign), the rally fails to trigger deeper, critical

discussions of LGBTQ issues that will translate into social

action. The issue of the homosexual as spectacle is

accentuated by the use of social media, whereby images of the

homosexual are abstracted and consumed by masses in one

click. Here comes the question of whether new media

affordances enable critical discussion or simplification of

controversial issues. This is especially as the nature of

social media works against nuanced and considered content,

while news articles with clear (and polarising) headlines

make for easy consumption. Most importantly, this homogenous

gay persona- like the Pink Dot mascot, undermines the

inherent diversity within the LGBTQ community and its varied

political goals.

Censorship

Lastly, state censorship online remains to be a crucial

roadblock. The surveillance of online activity inhibits

alternative political views and discursive spaces in order to

grow democracy in Singapore. The government remains to be the

cultural gatekeeper on defining social norms. This leads to

“sensitive” issues being swept under the carpet. In such

circumstances, the Internet and democratic access to online

information do not necessarily have the power to change

dominant power structures i.e. heteronormativity and state

hegemony. As Morozov warns, under authoritarian conditions,154 Loh, Chee Long and Yap, Ying Ying, Yvonne. (2014). Grasping the Gay: The Politicsof Collective Identity in the Pink Dot SG. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/7965252/Grasping_the_Gay_The_Politics_of_Collective_Identity_in_the_Pink_Dot_SG

37

the technologies of the Internet become ‘tools without

handles’155. In Feburary 2015, a popular socio-political

blogger, Alex Au was charged with “contempt of court” for

writing blog articles condemning the judiciary’s capability

in judging homosexuality-related cases.

Conclusion

As Chua observes, in Singapore, any outright confrontation

and critique of the state is detrimental to activists156.

Therefore in order to ensure survival, gay rights in

Singapore will have to be accessed in a ‘slow and steady’157

manner. This seems to runs contradictory to the instantaneous

and ever-changing nature of new media. It can be concluded

that the Internet is indubitably opportune for civic groups

with limited resources and audiences. However, for large

collectives like Pink Dot SG, the goal is no longer to garner

support but expand political discourse and ‘heighten

intellectualism’158. The controversy stirred by s.377A

presents a glimmer of hope for the democraticisation of

public discourse in Singapore. The maturing public sphere is

present in the Internet with its highly contested space

155 Morozov, Evgeny. (2011). The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, p.1-31.156 Chua, J. Lynette. 2012. ‘Pragmatic Resistance, Law, and Social Movements in Authoritarian States: The Case of Gay Collective Action in Singapore’. Law & SocietyReview, 46: 713–748. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00515.x157 Wong, Tessa. (2013, July 22). “A Singaporean Way of Fighting for Gay Rights?”. The Strait Times. Retrieved from http://www.singapolitics.sg/views/singapore-way-fighting-gay-rights158 Kevin Lim. (2007, October 27). “What Singapore could learn from the 377A Debate”.Retrieved from http://theory.isthereason.com/?p=1922

38

filled with equally contentious opinions. Yet, legislature

seems to point towards the socio-cultural ebbing of time to

do away with conventions that oppose homosexuality. Following

the construction of a new, socially acceptable gay imaginary,

perhaps the next step for gay activists lies in outreach and

education. Drawing upon the merits of the Internet, the

future of politics in Singapore could lie in teaching new

media literacy from young and harnessing its political

opportunities.

(5124 words) excl. 414 words for headings, captions & quotes

39