4 June 2016:
Once again, Hong Lim Park turned pink.
Since 2009, Pink Dot has been organising its eponymous event at Hong Lim Park, the designated ‘Speakers’ Corner’ in Singapore. This is its eighth year now, and I will not be surprised if news reports show yet another increase in attendance.However, unlike previous years, I am not as supportive of Pink Dot as I used to be. To put it simply, I find that it has not evolved accordingly in response towards the current reality of LGBT rights and environment in Singapore.
From its beginning, Pink Dot has been using the slogan of ‘Freedom to Love’. Indeed that resonated with many LGBTs, who feel that they are being discriminated against due to their sexual orientation. Yet now, in my opinion, this slogan is nothing but fluff.
Back in 2009 when PD first started, it was very ‘taboo’ and unheard of. Hence, I understand and support their choice of a non-violent, non-hedonistic gathering to raise awareness of LGBTs and their ‘Freedom to Love’.
That much hasn’t really changed. Of course, along the way, they’ve managed to get prominent international sponsors like Apple and Twitter, which obviously helps with the scale of events. And, they’ve now incorporated a concert featuring local acts.
But, I feel that this is no longer enough or effectively addressing the rights of Singaporean LGBTs. In the eight years since, changes have occurred, although with opposing effects. And PD should, instead, evolve to respond to these changes.
For one, support and acceptance of LGBTs have grown, especially amongst the young. I don’t have a survey or statistic to prove this, but you can see it on social media through people’s responses and all. That’s a good thing, right ...?
Imagine the above bar represents all Singaporeans and their attitudes towards LGBTs. The white region is extremely unsupportive and red is extremely supportive. This is regardless of their own sexual orientation*.
* At first glance, one may assume that LGBTs would therefore be congregated at the red region with none in white. However, there are still some who are deeply ‘closeted’ and in denial / doubt over their orientation, and channel this into a phobia of LGBTs – themselves.
In the middle, the pink region, lies people who are sitting on the fence. I have to give credit to PD, over the years, for successfully enabling people in pink to dispel their fears and myths of LGBTs and move to the red region.
(I know white, red and pink are not the best colours to use as they may have other connotations. However, I chose them simply because this fits my blog’s colour scheme. Hence, when I say ‘white’, I am not referring to Wear White, ‘pink’ does not refer to Pink Dot, etc.)
What then, happens, to the spectrum? It actually becomes more polarised and extreme. Previously ‘whites’ will see PD’s efforts as indoctrination, ‘spreading the gay agenda’ etc. Thus, it is no surprise that in the previous years, Wear White was born.
I am not here to debate and judge on whether Wear White is correct or wrong. I can, however, understand where WW is coming from: to them, it does seem that LGBTs are ‘advancing’ with their ‘gay agenda’. No wonder they’re worried.
Here’s where I feel PD is not doing enough. Instead of coming out (pun intended) to dispel certain myths / untruths that WW propagates, so far they have not done anything of the sort, only occasionally issuing feel-good, vague statements.
This brings me back to my claim that it is ‘nothing but fluff’. Yes that may be a little harsh, but I certainly feel that PD does need to get ‘serious’ if it wants to remain relevant to LGBTs. Feel-good, ‘Freedom to Love’-ish statements do little.
From what I read in Wear White circles online, the one misconception that unsupportive people have is that LGBTs are attempting to convert straight people. That is, they are planning to turn straight people into non-straight.
This, of course, is highly inaccurate. For even if LGBTs wish to do so, it is not possible to turn someone that is very much heterosexual into any other orientation. The only way ‘possible’ is if the person is bisexual or confused.
But from this misconception alone spurs many more myths, which WW then uses as truth. Disappointingly, PD doesn’t seem to be doing anything to clarify and dispel such untruths. No wonder, then, that it gets to be perpetuated.
I’m not suggesting that PD becomes an LGBT think-tank or some serious research institute. What I’m suggesting though, is that perhaps PD could perhaps have more outreach efforts to those who are white-pink.
Instead of hiding behind feel-good statements, they should be willing, at least during controversies, to categorically knock down certain untruths. This way, I feel, is how PD should respond and react to the current situation regarding LGBT rights.
Another point: what exactly is PD’s aim? Again, ‘Freedom to Love’ is terribly vague. Does it stop when the government repeals Section 377A of the penal code? Or, is PD pushing for marriage equality? This vagueness leaves space for WW to assign all sorts of supposed roles and aims.
Once again, I must give credit to PD for doing what it has thus far. It is by no means easy, and they have become the representative for LGBTs. (Whether or not all LGBTs appreciate, that’s another story.) But, they risk losing relevance.
I once heard the following: ‘Eh, you are Pink Dot ah?’ No, the person wasn’t trying to mean ‘Eh, you are going for Pink Dot ah?’ The speaker was using PD to denote someone who is LGBT, and in a negative manner. Which, to me, is yet another failure of PD.
Going with ‘Freedom to Love’, PD was never constructed as a gay pride event, unlike other countries. Although a majority of attendees are LGBT, PD was meant to be for people for all sexual orientations, including heterosexuals.
In fact, to me, that is the key to greater acceptance of LGBTs. Heterosexuals who are open-minded enough should be invited to PD, and thereby learn about LGBTs from LGBTs themselves. They will then take home the message of acceptance.
However, from what I observe, not much has been done to attract heterosexuals. Of course, you may call me hypocritical, since I’m now suggesting a ‘heterosexual outreach’, which means I’m focusing on one sexual orientation, instead of all.
Yet, at least for the time being, I think that this may be what is lacking. Then only will PD cease to be interpreted as an ‘LGBT party’, or even used as a derogatory label for non-heterosexuals.
TTFN.
P.S. I hope that PD does not need to celebrate its 30th anniversary.
P.P.S. This was never meant to be a sociological or academic research or analysis into Pink Dot and its effectiveness. Most instances cited are my own observations and opinions, and I very much recognise its weakness to sustain an actual argument. Which, as mentioned, this was meant to be an off-the-cuff, impromptu rambling of what I think about the current state of Pink Dot. The real effectiveness and significance of Pink Dot may well be analysed in future, by people much more qualified and justified than me in their endeavours.