Fridae

“Is Singapore ready for gay MP?” screamed the mid-day edition of The New Paper tabloid. The front page of the Straits Times carried a graphic showing Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister and People's Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament Dr Vivian Balakrishnan in a face-off against opposition party Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) candidate Dr Vincent Wijeysingha (see top of page).

Both men are at the helm of their respective teams contesting the Holland-Bukit Timah Group representation constituency (GRC) in the upcoming general elections slated for May 7.

On Saturday 23 April 2011, the Straits Times reported that Dr Balakrishnan had accused the SDP of "suppressing a certain YouTube video, which raises some very awkward questions about the agenda and motivations of the SDP and its candidates" but stopped short of specifying the agenda or the video.

On Monday, Dr Balakrishnan and members of his incumbent PAP team jointly contesting in the same district issued a statement providing the details of the video in question.

The statement issued by Dr Balakrishnan and his team claimed that the forum “discussed the promotion of the gay cause in Singapore” and “touched on sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age.”

Prominent human rights lawyer M Ravi was one of several speakers at the forum – held in November last year – where he spoke about his ongoing case in which he is seeking to challenge section 377A on constitutional grounds. In the video, Ravi was seen referring to Dr Wijeysingha as a candidate from the SDP and possibly Singapore’s first gay MP.

Ravi was asked by a member of the audience how he intends to rally the gay community when Dr Wijeysingha responded: “I think the gay community has to rally ourselves. Perhaps one outcome of today’s forum would be, for those of us who are interested, to come together to further consider how we can address the 377 issue as well as further rights issues in relation to gays and lesbians.”

At no time did Dr Wijeysingha, a civil society activist, discuss lowering the age of consent. M Ravi in the Straits Times today clarified that he brought up age of consent issues to contrast how the law in Singapore continues to criminalise consensual sexual relations between adult gay men.

Although the “original” video recording of the forum was uploaded and publicly accessible shortly after the event, it was only made ‘private’ less than two weeks ago after the socio-political website Temasek Review published an anonymously written article that referred to Dr Wijeysingha being gay. A 'copy' of the Youtube video was uploaded on 14 April with the title “Vincent Wijeysingha - Gay Agenda” and with the description: “This is the video the Singapore Democratic Party is trying to hide. Vincent Wijeysingha and M Ravi - lowering age of consent for sex with boys aged 14 and repeal of 377A.”

When contacted by Fridae at the time, Dr Wijeysingha declined to comment on the article and has not publicly commented on the matter to date. 

SDP is not pursuing the ‘gay agenda’

“PAP: Will Wijeysingha pursue gay agenda? SDP: No, we will not”, reads a headline in Today newspaper which went on to quote SDP secretary-general Dr Chee Soon Juan on his party’s position on the matter. 

"Let me state categorically, we are not pursuing the gay agenda and none of our Members of Parliament will," said Dr Chee in a video posted on Monday night in response to the PAP’s query about whether Dr Wijeysingha will now pursue the “gay cause” in the political arena.

He added that SDP candidates have been “selected because of their ability to serve you, the people of Singapore, as your representative in Parliament.” 

“When we speak up, we do so for all Singaporeans, because we serve all Singaporeans, not just a segment of Singaporeans. At the very core of our country and national pledge is the creed that we do not discriminate against anyone, be it on the basis of the colour of their skin, the faiths in their hearts, whether they are young or old, or what their sexual orientation is.” 

He added the party was "disappointed" that Dr Balakrishnan has "raised the issue in such a manner". “He didn't have the courage to say what he really wanted to say first, and he was beating around the bush.” Dr Chee further urged the former ophthalmologist to “not adopt smear tactics in this campaign and we ask him not to go down this road.”

The SDP has clearly stated that supports the repeal of section 377A on its website as early as in 2007 and more recently in response to a joint letter sent by seven members of the LGBT community in Singapore to political parties requesting a clarification of their position on selected issues of interest to LGBT Singaporeans.

While the term “gay agenda” often appears in the media, gay activist and highly respected socio-political commentator Alex Au says the term should not be used. 

“Almost no LGBT person uses the term ‘gay agenda’; instead it is most often used by those who have absorbed or who subscribe to the rhetoric of fundamentalist Christian Churches, stepping out of religion and waging a political campaign against gay people." Said Au who provides incisive commentaries on his Yawning Bread blog.

“Like all political rhetoric, it is designed to be vague. But generally it is intended to cover under its umbrella any demand by LGBT people to be given equal treatment, from the most basic (e.g. decriminalisation) to the most imaginatively outrageous (as imagined by the Religious Rightwing) such as having sex while lathered with tomato puree.” 

Dr Balakrishnan’s remarks roundly slammed

Dr Balakrishnan’s remarks have since been widely condemned as being “smear tactics” and “gutter politics” by bloggers and social commentators.

In a letter to the press published by Today newspaper on April 26, concerned citizen Lisa Li Shi-En wrote: “I am saddened by the appearance of such gutter politics from one of our Ministers and his PAP teammates, Mr Christopher De Souza, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Sim Ann, who signed off on this misleading statement. Instead of showing us why they are better leaders for Singapore or engaging the opposition on policy differences, they have resorted to a smear campaign based on a Youtube video posted by an anonymous netizen.”

Former Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong who presented a parliamentary petition on behalf of the gay community during the debate to repeal section 377A in 2007 wrote in his blog: “The PAP can try all it wants, but the objective here is transparently clear to everyone: to tell the world that Vincent Wijeysingha is gay, and thereby win the votes of that part of the population that will vote based on just this single wedge issue, regardless of any other issue.” 

He further called on all Singaporeans to speak out against Dr Balakrishnan’s tactics. “Well, we can all let the PAP know exactly what we think of this. Speak up, whether online or in the papers. Ask your grassroots leaders what they think about it, and whether they agree with the tactics apologised. Ask the next PAP candidate who asks for your vote, what he/she thinks about this and when the PAP will apologise. Ask the PM if the Government’s stand on all this has changed, since he presumably had the last word on this during the Section 377A debate in 2007.” 

Social commentator Sam Ho wrote on his blog on Monday: “It is obvious the above release is aimed at smearing Dr Vincent Wijeysingha and the SDP team.”

Referring to Dr Balakrishnan’s “sex with boys” remarks in this statement, Ho said: “This statement best exemplifies the hate-mongering tactic of conflating homosexuals with sex with minors, building on misinformation and irrational and ill-informed fears, to perpetuate continual social and institutional discrimination of sexual minorities in Singapore.”

Poll: 76 of 100 Singaporeans would not object if MP is gay

While some might write off the expressions of disgust and condemnation of Dr Balakrishnan’s remarks as only being representative of the liberal quarter, a poll of 100 Singaporeans of various ages, religions and races randomly polled by The New Paper revealed that 76 respondents said they would not object if his/her MP is gay, with the rest being “uncomfortable” with the idea.