CLOUDS OVER THE RAINBOW
Pushback against LGBT rights
It was a hot and muggy Saturday in midJuly, and Singapore’s oasis of green was turning pink. Men and women gathered in Hong Lim Park in the middle of the business district, to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Pink Dot, a local movement in support of LGBT rights.
Among the mostly young crowd decked out in pink clothing was Chong Juu Hoe, a 20-year-old who was taking photos with his boyfriend and friends. “Legalising gay marriage in other parts of the world will definitely help Singaporeans to notice us,” he said.
“We are not invisible,” he added, stressing that legal progress elsewhere would slowly “break down stereotypes against different sexual orientations”.
To an extent, this is already happening in the Asia Pacific region. Catching the wave of legalisation that began in Western Europe in the early 2000s, Taiwan’s constitutional court in May 2017 ruled in favour of same-sex marriage. New Zealand had legalised it in 2013, while Australia’s parliament voted for it later in 2017.
In Hong Kong, the top court ruled in July that immigration authorities must grant spousal visas, previously available only to heterosexual couples, to samesex partners.
But as the tide swells, conservative forces are rushing to put up barriers. The clash could open deep rifts in some societies and, from a business perspective, make it difficult to recruit and retain talent in LGBT-unfriendly markets.
The Hong Kong visa lawsuit was filed by a British lesbian, who sued the director of immigration in 2014 after she was denied a spousal visa. “Although I cannot be [there] in person today, that does not diminish the joy I feel, knowing that Hong Kong’s highest court has upheld my right to be treated equally,” the woman, identified only as QT, said in a statement released by her lawyer.
The Court of Final Appeal said immigration policy is meant to attract foreign talent, and rejecting a same-sex partner runs counter to that goal.
More than 30 global banks and law firms hailed the ruling, including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which had long urged the Hong Kong government to grant visas for the partners of their expatriate gay employees. Discrimination, they argued, hindered their recruiting efforts.
Yet, court battles do not always go the way of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in Hong Kong.
In June, a gay senior immigration officer lost a judicial appeal against the Civil Service Bureau, which refused to grant his husband spousal benefits as a government employee. The couple were legally married in New Zealand, but the Hong Kong court said the government should protect the institution of traditional marriage, and that allowing spousal benefits could give the impression that same-sex marriage was being legalised implicitly.
Encouraged by the immigration case, the officer plans to take the case to the Court of Final Appeal.
“Hong Kong has not seen much progress in terms of the legislation against sexual discrimination since 1997,” said Raymond Chan Chi-chuen, the city’s only openly gay lawmaker. “We need more court cases to pressure the government.”
Back in Singapore, the LGBT movement continues to encounter strong pushback.
Partly due to pressure from conservative forces, foreign individuals have been barred from participating in Pink Dot, and international companies cannot sponsor the event. Legal restrictions meant to curb outside influence over domestic political issues have been applied to the movement, forcing organisers to turn down support from multinationals including Google.
Christianity and Islam, which account for more than a third of religious affiliation in Singapore, see homosexuality as a sin. The National Council of Churches of Singapore states on its website that “homosexual or bisexual practices are contrary to the teaching of the Bible” and that the only appropriate sexual relationship is “between a male and a female within the bounds of a monogamous marriage”.
“Children should not be indoctrinated with the idea that homosexuality is okay,” said David Tan, 42, a Christian businessman. “It is damaging to the core of society, which is the family.”
In Japan, lawmakers from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party sparked an uproar recently with disparaging comments about same-sex marriage and the value of LGBT people to society. Tomu Tanigawa, a lower house member, suggested on a TV show that LGBT relationships are like a “hobby”. Lawmaker Mio Sugita wrote an article in which she argued that same-sex couples are “unproductive” because they do not have children.
“LGBT acquaintances of mine are increasingly migrating to Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark,” said Kazuhiro Terada, founder and president of the Equal Marriage Alliance. He warned that talented LGBT workers may shun Japan without at least “civil union” legislation.
Even in Taiwan, the fight is far from over, even though the highest court in May 2017 ruled that the civil code defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman violates equality provisions in the constitution. It called on the government to pass legislation to address same-sex unions within two years.
Rights groups are now pushing the government to follow through.
A group called the Coalition for the Happiness of our Next Generation, however, has proposed a referendum on samesex marriage to prevent its legalisation. The Central Election Commission in April recognised the legality of the referendum, which could be held in November if more than 280,000 signatures are collected.
Stressing that both a father and mother are indispensable for a family, the coalition calls for a “special law” that offers same-sex couples’ rights similar to marriage, instead of amending the civil code to change the definition of marriage.
Victoria Hsu, a lawyer and head of the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights, said opponents are disseminating biased information to incite fear and prejudice.
A far more aggressive campaign has been waged in Indonesia, where conservative Muslims have become more outspoken in recent years.
The anti-LGBT campaign gained traction in 2016, after news that a student group at the University of Indonesia was openly offering peer support for LGBT students sparked a “moral panic”. The controversy snowballed, with public officials denouncing homosexuality and police ramping up raids on establishments such as saunas, nightclubs and hair salons. A judicial review filed with the Constitutional Court sought to outlaw gay sex.
Although the court rejected the lawsuit in December, the campaign did not stop. Two months later, lawmakers from all 10 factions in the House of Representatives — Islamic-leaning or secular — agreed that gay sex, along with sex out of wedlock, should be outlawed through an ongoing revision of the criminal code.
Politicians, including members of President Joko Widodo’s Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, are clearly wary of alienating conservative Muslims ahead of the general election in April next year.
Increasingly, the friction between Asian social liberals and conservatives resembles the “culture war” in the United States, where the left is at odds with the Christian right, many of whom feel left behind by globalisation.
India is shaping up to be the next battleground.
On July 10, the Supreme Court began hearing petitions challenging Section 377, a British colonial-era law that criminalises homosexuality. Dating back to 1861, the law prohibits “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”, including consensual same-sex relations, and imposes punishment up to life in prison.
The court agreed earlier this year to re-examine its 2013 decision to set aside a Delhi High Court judgement from 2009, which legalised homosexual acts among consenting adults. “A section of people or individuals who exercise their choice should never remain in a state of fear,” the Supreme Court observed.
The gay community is hoping for a favourable ruling this time. “The 2013 judgement was a travesty of justice,” screenwriter Apurva Asrani told the Times of India newspaper. “If the Supreme Court overturns its decision, and we have a good feeling they will, then a wrong would have been undone.”
But as has been seen in the US — a leader in legalising same-sex marriage but where fierce opposition persists — the law is not everything.
“It would be a very good beginning” if India’s Supreme Court changes its position, said Duru Arun Kumar, an associate professor of sociology at the Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology in New Delhi. “But the mindset of the society as a whole won’t change overnight.”
Nikkei staff writers Kiran Sharma in New Delhi, Mayuko Tani in Singapore, Erwida Maulia in Jakarta and Nikki Sun in Hong Kong contributed to this report.
“Children should not be indoctrinated with the idea that homosexuality is okay. It is damaging to the core of society, which is the family” DAVID TAN Singapore businessman