Last year same month, Youtube Fanfest granted us a wonderful opportunity to have a meet and greet with our fans and followers. I just graduated. I remember turning up in my graduation gown. Most that turned up were teens between the age of 12 to 17. At the meet and greet, we opened the floor just for a casual chat with the kiddos. What came out of it was surprising. Instead, the kids chose to confide in us, their darkest moments.
A 12 year old boy told me he was a victim of sexual assault in school by a group of boys because he was effeminate.
A 14 year old hijabi girl asked me how can she overcome self-mutiliation. When I asked her why she do it. She said because she does not know how to come to terms with her feelings for girls.
Cameras from the event were rolling. I told them to shut it down. Heart heavy, I didn’t tell them what was right or wrong. We all had our own perception of what values and morals are. But I knew we all know what is human. My answer to them all stemmed from ‘support’. I said to them I won’t be the person today without Munah and she would not be the person she is today without me. I told them, they needed to find ‘their person’. I realise then my channel was more than just two weirdos attempting comedy, it was two comical persons representing weirdos… No, ‘Different people’. Unconventional people. I left that event packing up my bags to leave Singapore for a good 5 months for America.
This year I came back and their voices and faces still etched in my memory. This year I came back and I said, if I told them they needed their person… I’ll gladly use my voice to be their person.
Growing up we had no social media to turn to, to find representation for how different we are. I’m glad that in my lifetime I am able to reach out for every different persons. Gay, Straight, Fat, Weird, Special, Loud.
And to my fellow peers in the industry, if you are afraid to show your support… You must remember these kids are more afraid than you. And for all the support they have showed in our work. Voicing up is the least of our fears and is fearless at the same time too. We all have different ideas of what is right and wrong, but we should all have the same idea of what is human.
What I choose to do this year, is not my glory. It’s for these kids. It’s not to sensationalise that a brown person is standing up for a course as controversial as this. It’s not my moment. Fear is what some voices want me to feel at this point. And fear is the last thing I will show. Because these kids, need my fearlessness. And since I am Beyonce level bad ass… I want you kids to know. I am here for you. For I am your Minah.
Smart people are not afraid of intellectual discussions. They won’t shut you down too quickly.
Yours Sincerely,
Hirzi Zulkiflie.
Sometimes Syasya. Sometimes Corporal Hassan. Sometimes Ang Mo Kio Aunty.
Aku terkilan nampak posting dari NTU Kaleidoscope semalam. Makin baca makan hati aku membuak. Bingit siak.
Diorang repost satu article dari Today yang telah ditulis bersama oleh beberapa orang yang associated dengan Inter-University LGBT Network.
Aku ada satu soalan…kenapa cara hidup komuniti LGBT ni harus digembar-gembur dan diterima mayarakat? Nampak macam diorang ditomah lah selalu, macam hidup mereka tu susah merana. Orang-orang Nepal yang merana takda rumah, keluarga hapus keranan gempa bumi pun takda teruk asyik complain macam diorang. Macam kena victimised sangat ke apa sial…
Kelakar siak dapat tau yang ada banyak support groups untuk komuniti LGBT in our univeristies. As a graduate of one of the uni, aku malu siak nampak ni macam punya support for komuniti LGBT ni.
NUS je dah ada tiga kumpulan yang provide support. Tak rasa ada banyak group untuk budak-budak Melayu yang datang dari keluarga susah. Sedangkan korang tengok…NUS Muslim society agaknya ada satu, society Bahasa Melayu pun ada satu. Apa mereka lebih important daripada kita ke? Apa diorang punya problem lebih teruk dari problem masyarakat kita yang bertahun-tahun, tukar Minister ni Minister tu pun tak boleh solve jugak the problems.
Yang ada aku menyampah dia punya anggek macam dia bagus sangat. Tapi yang ada aku respect diorang as individuals. Yang ada mampus dia punya pandai dan konfiden.
Tapi as a Muslim aku tak boleh bawak diri aku nak accept mereka. Bukan aku je fikir macam ni. Ramai lagi orang dari agama lain pun macam tu juga. Ini agama kita tak accept kenapa ni uni-uni pandai-pandai nak force it down our throats? Kita boleh tolog diorang tapi kalau diorang yang tengok kita macam sial, sala siapa siak? Diorang yang suspicious of us. Kenapa?
Memang bukan tempat kita untuk judge diorang, memang terpulang pada mereka…aku pun tak kisah sebab aku pun ni bukan macam malaikat pun. Tapi kenapa sibuk-sibuk sangat pasal hal diorang? Kau tanya diri kau, apa diorang buat untuk be normal. Diorang yang ostracise diri mereka. adakau nampak orang cakap depan muka diorang…eh bapuk pergi berambus…ada?
Orang Melayu diorang suruh integrate. Apasal nak jadikan LGBT komuniti ni separate and distinct? Kena give diorang special treatment? Aapa counsellors kat NTU, SMU atau NUS tak cukup ke atau tak boleh handle?
Aku hope ni universities ni semua do something about this. Nanti tahun depan apa? 10 LGBT support groups in the unis?
(Trigger warning for homophobia, transphobia and suicide mentions.)
By reading this article, you agree to the following statement, in its entirety:
“Robert Bivouac (alias of the author) does not consent to any part of this article and/or the entirety of it being reproduced in any Mediacorp and/or SPH-owned media outlet or by any journalist or personality affiliated with Mediacorp, SPH and/or the Government of the Republic of Singapore, in any form, as well as on other online or offline platforms, without his express permission, delivered solely via email. You (the reader) may, however, share this article on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, in its unaltered form, provided you do not allow any aforementioned individual or media outlet to circumvent the terms of this agreement using your “share”, and make them aware of this agreement. No attempt to contact Robert about this article via any means besides his Twitter account (@boygainvillea) and the email[email protected] shall be entertained. No attempt by any individual(s), company, religious institution or other organisation not explicitly authorised by a court of law or other suitable institution in the Republic of Singapore to contact Robert’s family, educational institutions (including those he has been accepted into but has not yet commenced studying at), colleagues/employers and/or place(s) of employment shall be made, via any means or for any purpose, about this article, or on the subject of Robert’s sexuality. This agreement may be modified without notice by Robert Bivouac alone.”
With that out of the way (phew),
“I find it totally confounding that Pink Dot is allowed to promote its agenda,” Mr Khong said in a statement issued yesterday. “I find it even more disconcerting that the event is being used as a platform of public persuasion to push its alternative lifestyle.”
— Lawrence Khong, pastor of Faith Community Baptist Church, in response to Singaporean LGBTQ+ event “Pink Dot” announcing in 2014 that it intended to change Singapore’s attitude towards LGBTQ+ people.
Look, I only kind of know who Bertha Henson is. I know she used to write for the nationally-owned paper, the Straits Times. I know she transitioned later on into running the now-defunct Breakfast Network, a site which commented on local political affairs. I know she’s rather famous and respected in the local literary and political scene, but she dropped off the radar after that, or at least my radar.
That is, until today, when I came across this article on Facebook.
What did Bertha have to say? With an at most milquetoast condemnation of Lawrence Khong’s views, she turned almost immediately on the justifiably indignant members of the queer community who raised the outcry about IKEA’s promotion, calling them “as intolerant of other people’s views as they say other people are of theirs”.
Excuse me?
First, some facts.
Fig. 1, preference between rejecting vs accepting “gay lifestyles” in Singapore. Data taken from REACH’s “Our Singapore Conversation Survey”, page 9.
Leaving aside for the moment the points Fikri makes in her essay on why this data doesn’t mean the majority of Singaporeans are homophobic and the criticism of the term “gay lifestyles” itself, 47% of Singaporeans “reject gay lifestyles”, whatever that means. 47% isn’t a majority, but 47%+27% is. 27% of Singaporeans are neutral on the “gay lifestyle”, but that doesn’t mean fuck-all. Being neutral on a human rights issue is as good as being against it; it means you contribute to the silent majority brought out by those against, in this case, acceptance of queer (represented here by gay) people. So yeah, fuck neutrality, a full 74% of Singaporeans are, by the looks of this survey, against queer rights in one way or another.
Where does IKEA’s support of Lawrence Khong, and our subsequent reaction to it, fit in? I’m not sure how many of the respondents REACH interviewed were actually queer, but assuming the same fraction who support “gay lifestyles” are queer, that puts us in the minority. The minority that’s been legislated against by laws like Section 377A, condemned, and demonised by homophobes with large platforms like Lawrence Khong and his ilk.
The word “platform” is key here. Lawrence Khong, as an individual homophobe, might be pretty vile (as seen here, he firmly believes in a homosexual agenda and likens gay sex to incest and drug-taking). He might have a family, and they might be homophobic. That’s vile too. What makes the difference, then, is “platform”; Lawrence Khong boasts a 10,000 strong church and chairs LoveSingapore, an alliance of 100-odd churches that seeks to “TURN [Singapore] God-ward”.
“Platform”, then, comes from all public activities of Lawrence Khong, be they religious (sermons and other officially church-related events) or secular (magic shows). Wherever Lawrence is in public, he builds his personal brand as a dedicated Christian pastor and cool stage magician; through this, then, he not only profits, materially or otherwise, but he gains the means and the audience for his messages.
And those messages are distinctly harmful; from local LGBTQ counselling organisation Oogachaga’s March 2012 survey, 60.2% of the respondents to that survey reported experiencing homophobic or transphobic abuse and discrimination, leading to an overall higher rate of suicidal thoughts and attempts. What does it mean, then, to assist the people responsible for such abuse in growing their platform?
Sounds a lot like bullying to me; and yet, the way Bertha describes it, you’d think we were the bullies here. According to Bertha, for the understandably offended to ask fellow queer people and their straight and/or cis allies to “vote with their money”, as it were, and register protest against any attempt to help Lawrence Khong or the like increase the reach of their potentially lethal abuse, is now “intolerant” and “bullying tactics”, and puts us at risk of “start[ing] a culture war”.
Bertha Henson has fallen for illusions about free speech that seem to be afflicting much of the liberal Western media today. Hers is an admittedly less virulent version of the stance GamerGate, the terrifyingly racist, sexist, transphobic and homophobic American hate group that has harassed marginalised people in the gaming and media communities, holds; namely, that all views can, should and must be heard, and that it’s censorship to claim otherwise.
Well, fuck you and your illusions, Bertha. Us queer people, even with our 21,000-strong turnout at Pink Dot 2014, can’t muster the same platforms as bigots like Lawrence Khong and his 100-church-strong LoveSingapore network. We can’t “bully” a company with EUR €29,293,000,000 (that’s 29.293 billion euros, or SGD $42,308,747,100.33) in revenue and 351 stores in 46 countries that chooses to “reward” its loyal customers with discounts to watch a homophobe’s magic show.
You know what? I don’t believe Bertha.
I don’t believe it’s censorship to demand a view, backed up by institutional prejudice, be kept from gaining traction, and I don’t believe in any value of “free speech” that allows hate speech and its endorsement to walk free.
I don’t believe it’s “bullying” to organise a boycott, a sit-in, a loud outpouring of fury over the Internet at an act that quite literally threatens to harm us, and I don’t believe it’s “pushing too hard”, as Bertha so ungenerously puts it, to stand up for our rights.
I do believe, though, that she needs to snap out of it. Bertha, wake the fuck up, and smell the coffee. We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re going to do something about this sorry situation.
Robert Bivouac is a queer Chinese man living in Singapore. He is an advocate for social justice and diversity in media, and believes in the right to be free from hate speech. He can be reached on Twitter at @boygainvillea or at [email protected].
I read with concern the reports on IKEA Singapore’s decision to continue its tie-up with a magic show performed by Pastor Lawrence Khong.
I believe IKEA’s explanation that it respects diversity, equality and the right to opinion has not seriously considered the fact that Mr Khong has been vocal against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.
I respect the fact that there are safe platforms in Singapore for people such as Mr Khong to express their opinions. However, I cannot endorse the nature and intention of his views because they are harmful, discriminatory and demeaning to sexual minorities, some among whom I consider my friends.
IKEA’s decision here appears to be different from its global stand that the company welcomes all families and is LGBT affirming, as stated in its sustainability report last year. Also, IKEA Singapore should understand that the right to opinion comes with the responsibility to observe that the expression of that opinion does not come at the expense of the rights and welfare of others.
We should especially consider that principle in a case such as this, when we have an influential religious leader with a noted history of publicly discriminatory speech against sexual minorities.
The views advanced by leaders in socio-religious communities have implications on social perceptions and policies, and this, in turn, continues to systematically disadvantage sexual minorities and non-heterocentric families.
The magic show that Mr Khong headlines deserves support only from businesses that share those views. In supporting the magic show, I see IKEA Singapore as supporting not only Mr Khong, but also his views. My family and I hope IKEA Singapore will carefully consider its position on similar matters involving such individuals in the future.
Ho Chi Sam
*Comment was featured in Voices, Today, 23 Apr 2015
I am so glad that IKEA did not change its mind about sponsoring pastor Lawrence Khong’s magic show despite the objections of the LGBT community. I am also pleased that the pastor has NOT said anything. If he did, there would never be an end to the fracas….
I looked at the protests about the show which basically centred on Mr Khong’s uncompromising public attitude towards those of a different sexual orientation. Like many, I wondered what his magic show had to do with his views, unless he chooses to use it as a platform to “convert’’ others to his point of view through some magical brainwashing technique. Or maybe his magic show is so bad that IKEA should be ashamed to support it.
I guess it was not so much Mr Khong’s show as the fact that it was a Swedish store that was involved. Sheesh! The Swedes support Lawrence Khong? How can? Shouldn’t it be more “inclusive’’ and embrace diversity? Aiyoh…this company from a wonderfully advanced country doing this?! How can?
Actually, the LGBT lobby shot itself in the foot by talking about diversity. IKEA made a pointed reference to its support of the Wild Rice production of Public Enemy, helmed by a prominent gay man, Mr Ivan Heng. It looks as though IKEA had been rather even-handed in its choice of activities and organisations to support.
It is normal for consumers to put pressure on corporations because of their perceived failings. Boycotting those who use child labour to produce their products, for example. Here, there was even an abortive attempt to not buy palm oil during the height of the haze to hurt unscrupulous plantation owners who use slash-and-burn techniques to clear land in Indonesia. Whether companies succumb depend on how much they value their reputation and whether they can withstand the effects of a boycott.
In this case, IKEA incorporated Mr Khong’s magic show as part of its loyalty programme of discounted rates for members. That, it seems, is enough to rile the LGBT activists who show themselves to be as intolerant of other people’s views as they say other people are of theirs. Does the community intend to hound Mr Khong’s magic show wherever he goes – and will corporate sponsors pull back because they don’t want any heat from the vocal lobby? Will the lobby claim victory then, never mind that it acquires an image of being strident and, hmmm, intolerant?
There’s another point which the community should consider. If the boot was on the other foot and the pro-traditional family lobby comes out in force to do the same, what would it do for its cause of getting the community recognized as part of the mainstream? What if, for example, the members of the lobby decide to boycott all the organisations who sponsor the annual Pink Dot? Would the LGBT lobby then start denouncing them as intolerant homophobes? Even worse, what if they start petitioning the civil service not to hire gays, because their employment runs contrary to the State’s pro-traditional family stance? In the case of IKEA, what if the pro-Lawrence Khong supporters and traditional family groups decide to boycott the store BECAUSE it sponsors Mr Heng’s play or pulls Mr Khong’s show?
There is some wisdom in the official advice to not to take things too far or to push too hard. The Pink Dot organisers have been superb at keeping its event low-profile; they can’t help it if more and more people converge on Hong Lim Park. Still, the ever-growing crowd has already prompted a backlash with the Wear White campaign last year.
Never mind the LGBT numbers here, no one will say that they are in the majority. Yet there are many people who emphatise with the LGBT community and wish the members well. They are not anti-gay and go about their business quietly. Bullying tactics, however, will make them sit up and take sides. Might it not be better to let things happen naturally than start a culture war?
This is not to say that the LGBT lobby should shut up and sit down. It should not tolerate discriminatory acts against one of its members, such as employment termination because of sexual orientation. It should raise an outcry if, say, a homophobic play is put up for audiences – although I think the censors would get to it first. It will find many supporters if it works for the well-being of its members rather than push its agenda on others who might not be ready for it.
Bullying won’t work – or there will be bullying back. How is this good for anyone?
