Fridae

Fridae is proud to launch a new column by Hong Kong's Civil Rights for Sexual Diversities (www.cr4sd.org), a NGO working for the rights of people who may be disadvantaged by the law, policies and social prejudices in Hong Kong because of their sexual orientation, gender identity and sexual expression. The fortnightly column will be written by founding member Roddy Shaw and various writers.

In the tearful finale of the Chief Executive election on Mar 25, an elite minority spoke for the rest of Hong Kong. An overwhelming majority of the 800-strong election committee voted for Donald Tsang, a 40-year civil servant and remnant of the British colonial era, now bestowed with Beijing's blessings. Of the 772 valid votes, Tsang won 649, overshadowing the 123 votes garnered by challenger Alan Leong , a 49-year-old democrat lawyer.

What does it mean for LGBT rights in Hong Kong for the next five years?
Democrat Leong's loss means the end of hope for any advance in LGBT rights, the pessimist observes. However, are democrats truly supportive of LGBT rights? The first-ever Equal Opportunity Bill (EOB) to protect lesbians and gays from discrimination was tabled in 1997, right before the handover. If it had not been for two democrats who defaulted, the bill would have been passed. In 2004, when Alan Leong first ran for a seat in the Legislative Council (LegCo), he and all other candidates were polled by the Tongzhi (which means comrade but used commonly to mean gay men and lesbians) LegCo Election Campaign (TLEC2004) on their gay platform, including issues of anti-discrimination legislation and same-sex marriage. Leong, a democrat, predictably supported the anti-discrimination law for equal access to jobs and services. Equally predictable was his opposition, as a devout Catholic, to same-sex marriage or unions in other legal forms. However, he further remarked in his answer, "Yet, I am not discriminating against you!" - conveniently forgetting that unequal treatment is discrimination, period.

The democratic candidate was caught off-guard when he was asked during a televised CE election debate, the first of its kind in Hong Kong, about an anti-discrimination law based on sexual orientation. He began his speech with a deadly opening remark which eventually flushed his whole speech down the drain: "Sexual orientation is a very controversial issue." Alan's pretensions to being an authority on public opinion notwithstanding, over 90 percent of respondents in a Poly University survey in 2002 supported equal rights for homosexuals to jobs and services and over 70 percent supported equal access to spousal rights for same-sex couples. Besides, ridiculous as it is, the controversial nature of sexual orientation, in Alan's mind, holds true only for homosexual orientation but not heterosexual orientation.

He went on to say, "Anti-discrimination legislation requires the consensus of the society." Yes, in a democratic legislature, any legislation requires the consensus of society. Yet, what if the majority refuses to protect the minority? Any Democracy 101 course will tell you that democracy does not only warrant majority rule, but also the guarantee of minority rights which is not a function of majority opinion or wishes. I am not in the slightest dubious of whether Leong took his Democracy 101 class in school. I am, though, convinced that he places a higher priority on pushing his agenda for populist government than he does on minority rights.

Fully respectful of his maverick quest for democratic election, I am perplexed, to say the least, and offended by his closing remark that, "if the government does not listen to voices of the community, they will become radical." Who are "they"? The lesbians and gays asking for equal treatment sanctioned by law or the religious bigots spending a fortune publishing anti-gay ads in major newspapers? It appeared that he was warning that either religious bigots or LGBT people for that matter might go radical if their wishes were not fulfilled, despite a clear equality principle lying bare in front of him.

That was appalling. Equality under the law and respect for diversity are controversial and radical? If it means the general public will go radical if their wishes are not met, Leong is still selling his populist point without addressing minority rights.

On his way down the drain, Alan was further assaulted by rival Donald Tsang who said, "You are asked what you will do for sexual orientation legislation if you are elected CE!" The Clinton-coined interjection "Stupid!" almost came out as a Freudian slip. Leong was silent although he and his party officially support equality laws. Tsang then gave his response to the issue.

"With respect to the question of sexual [orientation] discrimination, we have international human rights conventions and the Basic Law. We are within the purview of such legal framework. Discrimination is wrong. Despite my religious persuasion or anybody else's, we must face the reality of our society, listen to the diverse views of the community and legislate under the legal framework. This is the most appropriate way of handling it."

I was stunned by Tsang's remarks. They seemed well thought out and perhaps rehearsed, in contrast to Leong's. Tsang sounded more like a lawyer than Leong on this issue. He grasped the gist of the issue. Discrimination is wrong. Hong Kong is under international legal and constitutional obligations. We must legislate under that legal framework. That was four points in the positive.

+4 to -2. That was a landslide victory for Tsang, on the lesbian and gay scorecard.

Tsang was not a convert from day one. He threw out his (in)famous rhetoric about the "privatisation of morals" in October 2005 to the South China Morning Post in response to the age of consent case.

"Everyone has moral values, especially over the issue of sexual [orientation] discrimination," Tsang said. "I believe the privatisation of morals has become a danger in society. Some people say 'since what I do does not affect others and it has nothing to do with other people, why should I be constrained?' I have reservations about this because a moral is a value shared by the entire society."

In a BBC interview later in November, Tsang remarked, "It takes time to change a law� Every time you change a law, you need community consensus� We are now looking at� what we believe from a Chinese set of mind."

Moving from community consensus and a unified Chinese moral to adherence to international norms, Tsang has gone a long way on the equality issue, if his words and mind are consistent.

I have no idea what kind of "conversion therapy" Tsang received, definitely not the kind offered by the New Creation Association (a Hong Kong-based ex-gay organisation), and yet he did change. My analysis is that it was partly due to the HK Government's defeat in the age of consent case in two courts and his Secretary for Justice's advice to abandon further appeal. It was also due to his secured ticket to the CE post and his growing popularity among HK's citizens. He had nothing to lose by taking a principled approach, rather than a populist approach on gay rights.

On the other hand, his 2005 speech was about sodomy, a practice which directly contradicts his Catholic beliefs. Yet his 2007 speech was about equal access to jobs and services. The Pope has never said that deviant homosexuals should not be hired, except by his church. A hard-line stance on sodomy was fine for Tsang because he could hide behind the court's decision to strike down the discriminatory law and the subsequent legislative reform required by the decision. I have always been curious about why the government counsels did not put up a fierce fight in court. Now it all makes sense to me.

Tsang preached for strong governance and Leong for populist governance. If "strong" means the government will go for a principled approach even against populist views on issues of minority rights and that it will honour its obligations enshrined in international law and our constitution, then Donald, way to go! Let's now hope that Tsang will walk his talk.

Roddy Shaw is a human rights advocate for Civil Rights for Sexual Diversities, working on LGBT rights and HIV/AIDS issues in Hong Kong. He teaches at University of Hong Kong on sexual and gender diversity.