Social Harmony and Economic Growth: How Tensions Between the Two Manifest in Singapore’s Attitudes towards LGBT People
When I tell people in the US about Singapore being conservative and unaccepting towards LGBT people, I’m often met with surprise. To most people, it doesn’t match the image in their heads. Singapore is viewed as a hallmark of modernity, so people are surprised to hear it’s as conservative as it is. When it comes to understanding Singapore’s attitudes towards LGBT people, there’s more than meets the eye: it requires understanding the government’s various objectives, how they interact, and how they sometimes conflict with one another.
Social harmony and economic growth are two of the most critical objectives of the government. While they are often focused on separately, there are inevitable tensions between the two. The way queerness operates in Singapore is one such manifestation of these tensions.
The Government’s Stance on Homosexuality
The government has an interesting stance on homosexuality. In the words of Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister of Singapore, gay and lesbian people are “valued members of society.” He declared this at a Tech Forum that promoted Singapore to the tech industry. He argued that it would be “unwise” to push for LGBT rights solely because the society is not ready. “These things shift, but we have to give them time,” he explained. If people push for it now, Singapore will only “end up with polarisation and be in a worse place than [it is] now.”
The logic behind the government’s stance on homosexuality is that the traditional Asian family (involving two married, monogamous, heterosexual and procreative parents) is the ‘basic building block’ of Singapore society. Lee explained this at a parliamentary speech in 2007 where he provided an explanation for why the government was not repealing Section 377A (the law criminalising gay sex between two men). This traditional Asian family model is so foundational to Singapore society that Singapore’s social fabric would risk destruction should this value of the traditional Asian family be weakened. Repealing 377A would be weakening the foundation of the traditional Asian family. Homosexuality threatens that foundation, and thus an advance in LGBT rights threatens Singapore’s social harmony.
For those reasons, the government outlaws LGBT activism and dissent. This includes a ban towards public talks relating to LGBT rights, Singapore’s registrar of Societies banning LGBT organisations from officially registering (meaning that they have no legal status and cannot engage with the government at that official level), and the Section 377A law being upheld (despite a significant move to repeal it in 2020!). There are other examples of LGBT activism being stifled in Singapore, but these are a few of the notable ones.
All this said, it is interesting to note that the rhetoric of gay people being disgusting or abhorrent is not used by the government. In fact, in the same parliamentary speech Lee explicitly declared that Section 377A was upheld not for it to be legally enforced, but to mirror cultural attitudes. Lee even said that the LGBT community includes “people who are responsible and valuable, highly-respected contributing members of society” and that “among them are some of our friends, our relatives, our colleagues, our brothers and sisters, or some of our children.” These words stuck with me: there’s a vulnerability and degree of acceptance that comes with calling LGBT people “some of our children.”
The best way to convey the government’s stance is in a phrase that Lee Hsien Loong’s used in that same speech: “there is space, and there are limits.” There is a paternalist tone to these words — the implication behind them being that LGBT people in Singapore should be grateful for what they have, and not ask for more. They already have enough not being discriminated against in the same outright nature as LGBT people are in other conservative nations. However, being granted the full privileges of citizenship and being accepted (I say accepted, not tolerated) by society — are apparently unrealistic expectations. Lee’s words imply that asking for those things would be like asking too much for your own good.
Singapore’s Global Image
At the same time, Singapore’s government is aware that not all countries are as conservative as Singapore. There are countries in the world that are more progressive and supportive of LGBT rights. Some of these countries also happen to be very wealthy. For example, the Big 5 tech companies (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft) are all American. Due to globalisation and the rise of multinational corporations, this means that the culture and values of many companies are shaped by this progressive American culture. Singapore therefore has to pay attention to this culture given its deeply embedded position in global networks of capital flows. Put simply, Singapore is a country whose wealth relies on its relationships with other countries. In order to maintain its status as a regional economic power house, it has to attract foreign ‘talent’ (labour) and capital. Singapore’s global image must therefore be an appealing one.
One way Singapore creates this appealing image is through projecting an image of modernity and luxury (think Marina Bay Sands and Changi airport). However, aside from impressive hotels and luxurious tourist attractions, Singapore must also not have an overly-authoritarian image that could deter foreigners from working in Singapore or investing in its economy. Understanding this, Lee Hsien Loong’s words at the Tech Forum about gay and lesbian people being “valued members of society” makes a lot more sense. Even though the government has homophobic policies and laws (in order to maintain social harmony), Singapore’s image to the global tech industry must not be a homophobic one so that foreign entities are not deterred from involvement (ensuring economic growth).
How these Objectives Clash in Reality: Pink Dot 2017
One example of how the tensions and contradictions of trying to maintain these two objectives (social harmony and economic growth) have manifested in reality is the events of Pink Dot 2017. Pink Dot is an event held every year celebrating Singapore’s LGBT community. It was started in 2009 (the first of its kind), and was a milestone for the LGBT community. To this day, it is Singapore’s most successful pro-LGBT event.
Returning to globalisation and the rise of multinational corporations, a significant reason behind Pink Dot’s success is due to the financial support and endorsement it received from various multinational companies. In 2011, Google decided to be its first major corporate sponsor (the number of ‘Pink Dot’ attendees jumped from 4,000 to 10,000 that year). The following years, multinational banks like Barclays, JPMorgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs and several other multinational companies also joined as sponsors. In 2016, the festival’s list of corporate sponsors grew to 18 companies, including the likes of Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Bloomberg. At the same time, the average number of participants of the festival rose to 25,000 and above.
While there are probably employees at these companies who genuinely care about the cause of Pink Dot, it is also undeniable that sponsoring Pink Dot is a way for these companies to generate positive PR internationally and gain social capital. In the words of the Regional Head of Barclays’ global LGBT employee network, “Pink Dot’s message of diversity, inclusiveness and acceptance is a mission that resonates with the values and culture within [Barclays].” Other companies gave similar press releases on why they are sponsoring Pink Dot. These companies are boosting their progressive image through supporting Pink Dot, demonstrating to the public (potential customers and employees) that they value diversity, inclusiveness, and acceptance. Like anything else, these companies are making an investment. The positive PR they hope to gain comes with the expectation that it will generate greater economic capital for them in the future (e.g. through customers or employees viewing the company favourably and buying from or working for them).
However, this all changed in 2017. That year, the government banned foreign multinational companies from supporting Pink Dot. This was specifically done by the government’ Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), tying back to the importance of the traditional Asian family to Singapore domestic life. Not only did the MHA decide to ban foreign companies from sponsoring the event, but they also restricted foreign residents from participating in (or organising) it. Police checkpoints were set up to verify identity cards to participants before entering, ensuring that only citizens and PRs could go through. As a result, the event dropped to 20,000 participants from its previous average (25,000 and above).
Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs issued a statement a few days later delcaring that “foreign entities should not interfere in [Singapore’s] domestic issues.” It should be up to permanent residents and citizens to make these “political, social or moral choices” for themselves. This returns to the issue of maintaining social harmony. If foreign entities were to interfere with these issues, it could potentially lead to social unrest in Singapore due to their progressive values clashing with the nation’s dominantly conservative ones. But at the same time, there’s a reason that multinational companies were able to fund and support Pink Dot for so many years prior to the ban. Having these multinational companies operating in Singapore is of significant economic benefit.
An important question to ask is how much power these multinational companies should have in Singapore and on its policies. Determining this boundary requires the government making a decision between the two critical objectives of social harmony and economic growth. Where is the trade-off?
To quote author and political science professor Meredith Weiss, “Singapore’s government may increasingly find that maintaining the discourses, norms and policies apropos an attachment to the cultural relativism of “Asian Values” appears increasingly incompatible with the nation-state’s cosmopolitan economic dreams.” As LGBT activism increases and the LGBT movement advances in many places in the world, which way will Singapore shift towards? It all comes down to what the government chooses is more important: will they maintain the nation’s conservative values to keep social harmony, or will they allow these values to slowly erode to make way for economic growth? Only time will tell.
