Pink Dot: Homonationalism as LGBTQ+ advocacy strategy in Singapore

Every June, tens of thousands of Singaporean citizens and permanent residents gather at Hong Lim Park dressed in pink to celebrate love and light up in the shape of the city-state in an annual pride event called Pink Dot. Pink Dot’s mission is to bring the Singaporean LGBTQ+ community “closer to their family and friends” and “support the freedom to love” (pinkdot.sg n.d.). Until 2022, the light up for Pink Dot called for the repeal of Section 377A of the penal code, a British colonial remnant criminalising gay sex which was deemed non-enforceable by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2007 as a compromise between the conservative and emerging liberal population (National Library Board Singapore n.d.). Section 377A was repealed in 2022, 15 years later, accompanied by a constitutional defence of marriage defined as between a man and a woman, another compromise. In Pink Dot’s statement after the parliamentary vote, they wrote that in MP speeches on LGBTQ+ issues in Singapore, “LGBTQ+ people were often pitted against ‘family values’ and ‘religious freedoms’” to justify continued discrimination in existing policies and social practice (@pinkdotsg n.d.). The family unit, and racial and religious freedoms are two of the five Singaporean national ‘Shared Values’ stressed by former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in the late 1980s, then formalised in 1991 as part of the ‘national ideology’ to be taught in schools in response to rising individualistic Western ideological penetration into Singaporean society. The five shared values are “(1) nation before community and society above self, (2) family as the basic unit of society, (3) community support and respect for the individual, (4) consensus not conflict, and (5) racial and religious harmony” (National Library Board n.d.). This national ideology is key in understanding how Pink Dot has engaged the state in their advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights in Singapore, and how Singapore employs a ‘politics of compromise’ for social issues.

Homonationalism, a term coined by Jasbir Puar, asserts that the state coopts homosexual terminology into a nationalist agenda to create a “national homosexuality,” forming regulations and norms for the homosexual subject which categorises them into norm adhering or not. Writing from the context of American exceptionalism of homosexuality, Puar states “national recognition and inclusion, here signalled as the annexation of homosexual jargon, is contingent upon the segregation and disqualification of racial and sexual others from the national imaginary” (Puar 2007, 2). The homosexual subject is differentiated as being patriotic if they adhere to the homonationalist terms, whereas nonconforming LGBTQ+ subjects are otherised from the national imaginary. However, in the case of Singapore, rather than a state cooptation of queerness, Pink Dot mobilises Singapore’s formalised national ideology, so “the nationalistic imaginary is coopted and indexed to provide ammunition to reinforce LGBTQ projects […] Homonationalism becomes a political discourse strategy borne out of pragmatic necessity” (Lazar 2020). This paper argues that homonationalism as defined by Puar, is a mechanism for strategic advocacy to engage state power in Singapore’s socio-political context of compromise, where LGBTQ+ activists employ nationalist jargon to symbolically formalise their goals to be in line with the shared values of the nation, enabling the formation of strong advocacy coalitions. I identify three ways in which Pink Dot illustrates the employment of homonationalism as a strategy; colour as a visual national re-imaginary, linguistic homonationalism, and forming advocacy coalitions via deploying the nation’s shared values.

The colour pink has a vibrant history of being politicised, from policing women’s purity due to connotations of vulgarity in the 19th century, to being a colour of protest amongst gay activists in the US in the 1970s. Singapore’s national flag is red, representing equality, white representing virtue, and a crescent moon and five stars representing the youth of the nation and the pillars of democracy (National Heritage Board n.d.). When the two colours are mixed, it creates pink, which is the colour of the national identity card (IC) for Singapore citizens. Pink Dot highlights the pink that already exists within the nation-state’s identifiers, calling out the potential of a national re-imagination that is representative of the colour story it holds. A truly equal, virtuous society that upholds all pillars of democracy is a Singapore that is pink. This re-imagination of the nation queers the symbols of the state, aligning the national with the queer as a joint venture rather than two separate entities. The final light up at the end of the event is in the shape of Singapore, again re-imagining the nation as pink. Since only citizens and permanent residents are allowed to participate in Pink Dot as part of Singapore’s rules on public gatherings, the symbolic relevance of the IC and the flag are particularly resonant amongst Pink Dot ambassadors and attendees, which have continuously grown over the last 14 years since the first Pink Dot in 2009.

Language in Pink Dot’s campaigns are another mode through which the nation is queered in a re-imagination. ‘Linguistic homonationalism’ queers the nation by “inflecting LGBTQ interests into the ‘nation’ through discourses carried linguistically, and in doing so queering, more broadly, ‘nationalism’” (Lazar 2020). The ‘dot’ symbolically refers to Singapore being called the “the little red dot” because of how small the country is on the world map. Every year, to promote the event and present that year’s key focus, Pink Dot releases a campaign video, which is one way through which they operationalise linguistic homonationalism. Most blatantly was their 2015 campaign video entitled ‘Majulah Singapura,’ the name of the national anthem. 2015 saw the highest number of attendees in Pink Dot history with 28,000 people, and everyone sang the national anthem together (Pink Dot SG 2015). The national anthem was designed to be short, to the point, and in Malay (i.e. the indigenous language) to honour Singapore’s roots, and is singable by all races. ‘Majulah Singapura’ translates to ‘onward Singapore’ depicting Singapore’s continued dedication in forward progression to happiness together as a united spirit. By making the national anthem the campaign video for the largest Pink Dot, “LGBTQ people are visibilized (and vocalized) as patriotic citizens” and contributes to queering the nation in a pink re-imagination (Lazar 2020).

Additionally, Pink Dot 2019 was particularly interesting for two reasons. The first is that Li Huanwu, the grandson of Singapore’s founding father and first PM Lee Kuan Yew, was in attendance as a newlywed with his husband Heng Yirui. Accompanying them was Li Huanwu’s father Lee Hsien Yang, who is also current PM Lee’s younger brother. The Singaporean audience found Lee Kuan Yew’s family’s presence amongst the LGBTQ community particularly heartwarming because it showed familial and foundational support for LGBTQ people. The theme for Pink Dot 2019 was “Stand Against Discrimination” and Lee Hsien Yang called for anyone against LGBTQ advocacy to attend and see what it is all about just like his family, i.e. Singapore’s founding family, is (O 2019). It was arguably a call out to PM Lee on two levels; on the familial level, hinting at the emphasis on family as part of the shared values, and on the governmental level, where PM Lee’s own nephew was not able to get married in Singapore due to existing policies and tied the knot in South Africa instead. The second reason Pink Dot 2019 was significant was because of the language in its campaign video entitled “Allies Stand Against Discrimination.” The video mobilises the language of Singapore’s national pledge, stating “we the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity” (Pink Dot SG 2019). Employing the language of the national pledge in an act of linguistic homonationalism demonstrates how opening up the values of standing against discrimination to LGBTQ people is in line with Singapore’s commitment toward happiness as a united spirit that values family, community, and harmony. Mobilising the pledge as an advocacy strategy, in combination with the Lee family’s presence was an extremely powerful way of engaging PM Lee and his government with the LGBTQ movement by increasing the moral and social pressure for repealing 377A and other existing policies.

The repeal of Section 377A in 2022 is an actionable result of strategic advocacy coalition building by LGBTQ groups by aligning activism carefully with the five national shared values. Advocacy coalition building is defined as advocating for long term approaches to policy changes through engaging a spectrum of actors across the social and political field, adhering to the norms and principles of appropriateness and consequences, and recognising the importance of sustainable coalitions for meaningful political change (Abdullah 2023). For LGBTQ advocates, it is extremely important to adhere to Singapore’s principles of appropriate behaviour to be legitimized in the state’s eyes because Singapore has strict rules regarding demonstrations. Singapore has been very explicit in establishing that shared value 1 means individual rights comes second to the security and stability of the nation as a whole. There have been several small demonstrations in recent years that have led to arrests and warnings by the police due to violations of the Public Order Act. One of these demonstrations was in front of the Ministry of Education to protest the mistreatment of a transgender student in a school, which resulted in everyone involved receiving stern police warnings or even arrested (Low 2021) (Elangovan 2021). Activism cannot undermine the political legitimacy of the state, and therefore “a tacit complicity in legitimacy relations between state and citizen” is constantly at play (Lazar 2020). So, Pink Dot and other advocacy groups have carefully learnt to build coalitions with state actors, civil society, academia, and the general public to advocate appropriately in order to not undermine both the state’s authority, and their own fight for policy change.

One example of LGBTQ groups trying to woo politicians into the movement as potential allies rather than enemies is by the Rainbow Scorecard. Sayoni, a women’s and LGBTQ rights group released the Rainbow Scorecard in 2020, which graded 100 Singaporean politicians on their public stances on LGBTQ issues over a nine-year period. They were graded on how they engaged with LGBTQ groups, whether they were positive in their inclusion of LGBTQ people in policy, the consistency of their beliefs, whether they actively stand against discrimination, and how aware they are of the unique challenges LGBTQ people endure in Singapore (Oh 2020). This scorecard is a strategic deployment of several nationalistic qualities that the state advocates for, especially, merit. Singapore prides itself on being a meritocracy, where the qualifications of its politicians can never be questioned as a means to undermine the legitimacy of the government. By grading influential politicians like K Shanmugan, Minister of Law and Home Affairs who got an A-grade, or Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister of Foreign Affairs who got an F-grade, LGBTQ advocacy groups demonstrated that the ruling government was firstly, not united in their beliefs on LGBTQ rights, and secondly, that the Singaporean public is carefully assessing them holistically. Credibility in making political decisions about LGBTQ issues is put on the forefront. If a politician is not educated about the issue, what merit do they have to maintain discriminatory policies. But the report was written as way to not actively criticise these politicians, but rather invite them to re-think their positionality and engage with LGBTQ groups to learn more about the challenges they face in Singapore to make better informed policy changes. In recognition of the sociopolitical realities of Singapore, LGBTQ groups innovate strategies that coopt such nationalist qualities to add fuel to their advocacy project. A-grade politicians are incentivised to continue what they are doing and encourage their colleagues to also engage, building strong coalitions between LGBTQ groups and individual state actors in a long-term vision for policy reform which support shared values 1, 3, and 4.

Economic prosperity is arguably the most important nationalist value shared across the board for the public and the state, regardless of political beliefs, especially the prosperity of local businesses. As a young country with a headstrong capitalist government, financial stability is synonymous with the nation’s stability, which resonates with shared values 1, 3 and 4 again. LGBTQ groups have found avenues to contribute to the financial prosperity of local businesses as another means of gaining legitimacy in the state’s eyes. Chinatown in Singapore has been the gay business hub despite it being one of the most conservative areas in the country. Ethnically Chinese people form the dominant racial group in Singapore comprising almost 75% of the population, and the government protects any use of the buildings preserved for the Chinese community in this area (C. K. Tan 2015). Manoeuvring the sociopolitical realities of the area which is comprised of strict practicing Christian and Buddhist Chinese, as well as limited economic opportunities for LGBTQ people, gay businesspeople took the state’s protection of the preserved buildings to grow their independent private businesses that supports Singapore’s neoliberal agenda and garners financial legitimacy. By “granting access to privatised consumption without challenging the heteronormative status quo of Singaporean society, gay Chinatown buttresses homonationalism” (C. K. Tan 2015).

Evidence of the success of LGBTQ advocacy coalition building through homonationalism as a pragmatic strategy lies in the fact that Singapore allows Pink Dot to continue each year. It is the premise of what LGBTQ groups are advocating for that inherently do not challenge the state’s priorities. Hong Lim Park, where Pink Dot is held annually, is the only public space in Singapore where large-scale public gatherings are allowed, but they require a permit, which the government grants every year because it’s not “counter-hegemonic” to the state’s authority (Abdullah 2023). The core reason, aside from appropriate advocacy, is that LGBTQ rights is not politically significant enough for it to threaten state legitimacy, but it is socially significant and would influence the public’s favour. This is where shared value 5 comes into the picture. Racial and religious harmony is the bedrock for political stability in Singapore. There is a zero-tolerance approach to any explicit racial or religious discrimination. This is evident in proportion-based policies in housing and representation in parliament to name a few. LGBTQ rights do not carry the same political weight in how it would polarize Singaporean society as racial or religious issues, and so “one can expect that a gathering on Malay rights, for instance, akin to Pink Dot, would not be tolerated in the same way” (Abdullah 2023). Since the 2007 announcement, LGBTQ rights are viewed as private matters between those involved, hence a social consideration. The success of LGBTQ advocacy coalitions lies in the fact that there are more political opportunities for LGBTQ rights to navigate as they are deemed a social issue rather than a political one. This is the primary reason the ministers within the ruling party have different opinions on the matter and are emboldened to share those without political consequences. As Puar writes, “the queer agential subject can only be fathomed outside the norming constrictions of religion” when discussing queer secularity (Puar 2007, 13). The queer Singaporean is not affiliated with any religion or race, it does not pose a threat in the pink re-imagination.

When it comes to social liberalisation, compromise is the state strategy to maintain their authority and a stable amount of favour by the wider public. In PM Lee’s national day rally speech in 2022 when he announced the repeal of 377A after years of slow and steady advocacy, he says that “by and large, Singapore is a traditional society, with conservative social values. We believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman […] Most Singaporeans would like to keep our society like this” (Loong 2022). His reason was that as observed in other societies, West and East alike, the next predicted step after decriminalising LGBTQ people or giving them equal rights, was the right to marriage. Therefore, by maintaining this definition of marriage, it is a compromise between what the liberals have been advocating for while protecting what the dominant conservative society wants. A 2022 study by IPSOS on 500 Singaporeans aged 18-75 on their views of same-sex relationships found that 45% of Singaporeans are generally accepting of same-sex relationships, with the number being higher for younger people. Amongst the reasons against, respondents cited that it was mostly because it was “unnatural” or against traditional Asian values. However, respondents have admitted that their attitudes have shifted over time as they’ve been more educated on the matter, seen more positive presentation in the media, and had conversations with LGBTQ people. When it comes to marriage however, only 27% of respondents believe it should be legalised, majority of the supporters being younger people (IPSOS 2022). The 2007 decision was a strategy to appease the dominant conservative society as it was too divisive to repeal, but after 30,000 responses on a government survey on LGBTQ issues in 2022, the highest for any government survey, PM Lee admitted that there is no legal issue with what adults do privately, therefore repealing 377A is now appropriate (Min 2022). Shared value 2, now protected by the constitutional defence of marriage between man and woman, is the foundation for national policies on housing, education, children and adoption, media, immigration, and more. Currently, same-sex partners are not able to register housing or children together as a legally recognised partnership (Quek 2023) (T. Tan 2022). Real estate companies like 99.co have created helpful guides for the increasing number of same-sex couples choosing to settle down in Singapore called the ‘Pink Guide’ to navigate the housing policies (Leung 2024). Pink Dot 2023’s focus is now to celebrate all families, once again beginning the pink re-imagination of what the family unit in shared value 2 can mean for a truly inclusive Singapore.

Although Pink Dot has successfully built advocacy coalitions by strategically employing homonationalism, the government’s lethargy in enacting change is a method of regulating LGBTQ expression in the private and public sphere. Puar identifies four mechanics of regulation: (1) distinguishing between the queer subject and the queer population is via discipline; (2) the queer becomes a complicit alibi for other identifiers like the nation or race; (3) this complicity enables legitimacy; and (4) that the queer cannot be many identities at once (Puar 2007, 24). Although homonationalism is a pragmatic strategy for LGBTQ people in Singapore, it does not hold the state back from operationalising these mechanics. By setting out strict rules for protests and solidifying fear of consequences, the LGBTQ subject is disciplined to behave appropriately if they wish to be heard, in a very paternalistic manner which does not steer far from why Singapore is called a ‘nanny state.’ As mentioned before, a tacit complicity between the state and the LGBTQ advocate is necessary to legitimize their advocacy, where LGBTQ activists must tolerate not being a top priority and play the long game if they wish to see success. In order to not politicise the LGBTQ issue, the LGBTQ subject cannot be a racial, class, or religious subject at once as they are separate issues that are either social, or politically defined. This form of regulation is what Abdullah coins “calibrated social liberalization, defined as an opening up of the space on social issues in a controlled manner, but not necessarily so for political contestations,” and is only possible when the state has no ideological position on the issue to make it political, but there is enough evident public regard for it (Abdullah 2023). Therefore, LGBTQ advocacy coalitions succeed under regulated calibrated social liberalization where the government can change policies without surrendering any power.

Puar’s notion of homonationalism works alongside the idea of biopolitics by Foucault which claims that if modern liberal states can enhance your quality of life, their legitimacy is sustained while simultaneously crafting the perfect citizen. While that may look like good education and health policies in some, other liberal states incorporate LGBTQ people into that project to varying degrees. Before the Western versus Eastern ideological differences was cited as an explanation by the state, now neighbouring Asian and Southeast Asian nations like Taiwan, Thailand, Nepal, India and more have either decriminalised or legalised same-sex relationships in the past few years. Singapore has often considered itself to be the perfect mix of conservative Asia and progressive West in many social, political, and economic matters. For example, Singapore has some of the most progressive abortion policies than most Western liberal democracies, but the most stringent LGBTQ policies. This makes navigating the sociopolitical landscape of Singapore more complicated because what factors constitute quality of life is malleable by context. It is worth noting however, that the majority of the discussion around LGBTQ rights in Singapore, particularly with 377A is regarding cis-gendered homosexual men. Women by birth and transgender people are non-existent in legislation, which is a British colonial policy relic that heavily focused on male or penetrative relations to define sexual policies. Repealing 377A was the bare minimum, Singapore has a long way to go to include all people in its national policies for a truly inclusive society.

Disclaimer: This work is original and the property of Aroni Sarkar. It is not authorised for any use, copies or dissemination. 

Works Cited

@pinkdotsg. n.d. Pink Dot SG's Statement on the Repeal of Section 377A. Instagram. Accessed December 02, 2023. https://www.instagram.com/p/Cli8S6EyvXD/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link.

Abdullah, Walid Jumblatt Bin. 2023. "The Politics of Compromise: Analyzing the Repeal of Section 377A in Singapore." Pacific Affairs 96 (1): 105-118. doi:10.5509.2023961105.

Elangovan, Navene. 2021. 6 people aged 19 to 41 given police warnings for protest outside MOE. TODAY Online, November 30. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/6-people-aged-19-41-given-police-warnings-protest-outside-moe.

IPSOS. 2022. ATTITUDES TOWARDS SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS IN SINGAPORE. LGBTQ+ 2022 SG Survey, IPSOS.

Lazar, Michelle M. 2017. "Homonationalist discourse as a politics of pragmatic resistance in Singapore’s Pink Dot movement: Towards a southern praxis." Journal of Sociolinguistics (John Wiley & Sons Ltd) 21 (3): 420-441.

Lazar, Michelle M. 2020. "Linguistic (homo)nationalism, legitimacies, and authenticities in Singapore’s Pink Dot discourse." World Englishes (John Wiley & Sons Ltd) 39: 653-666. doi:10.1111/weng.12497.

Leung, Kyle. 2024. The LGBTQIA+ guide to renting (and buying) property in Singapore [2024 update]. 99.co, January 09. Accessed January 05, 2024. https://www.99.co/singapore/insider/pink-guide-renting-property-singapore/.

Loong, PM Lee Hsien. 2022. National Day Rally 2022. Prime Minister's Office Singapore, August 21. Accessed December 15, 2023. https://www.pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/National-Day-Rally-2022-English.

Low, Dominic. 2021. Three people arrested for protesting outside Ministry of Education headquarters. The Straits Times, January 27. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/three-people-arrested-for-protesting-outside-ministry-of-education.

Min, Ang Hwee. 2022. Government survey on LGBT+ issues gets more than 30,000 responses: REACH. Channel News Asia, March 23. Accessed December 10, 2023. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/reach-lgbtq-survey-section-377a-gay-rights-2581181.

National Heritage Board. n.d. National Flag. Accessed December 08, 2023. https://www.nhb.gov.sg/what-we-do/our-work/community-engagement/education/resources/national-symbols/national-flag#:~:text=Red%20stands%20for%20universal%20brotherhood,%2C%20progress%2C%20justice%20and%20equality.

National Library Board. n.d. Shared Values. Edited by Singapore Infopedia. Accessed December 05, 2023. https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=194d7f99-c8b6-408e-86cf-8ebfb8547d28.

National Library Board Singapore. n.d. Penal Code Section 377A. Edited by Singapore Infopedia. Accessed December 05, 2023. https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=13635c75-128d-4563-bcf0-bafde8fece6e#:~:text=Speaking%20on%20the%20issue%2C%20Prime,not%20actively%20enforce%20Section%20377A.

O, Hana. 2019. Newlyweds Li Huanwu and Heng Yirui attend Pink Dot with first-timer Lee Hsien Yang. June 30. Accessed December 12, 2023. https://theindependent.sg/newlyweds-li-huanwu-and-heng-yirui-attend-pink-dot-with-first-timer-lee-hsien-yang/.

Oh, Tessa. 2020. Gay rights group releases scorecard grading S’pore politicians based on their views on LGBTQ issues. TODAY Online, June 24. Accessed December 05, 2023. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/gay-rights-group-releases-scorecard-grading-spore-politicians-based-their-views-lgbt.

2019. PINK DOT 11: Allies Stand Against Discrimination. Directed by Pink Dot SG. Performed by Pink Dot SG. Youtube. Accessed December 10, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RE4aYWGW4A&ab_channel=PinkDotSG.

2015. Pink Dot 2015 - Majulah Singapura. Directed by Pink Dot SG. Performed by Pink Dot SG. Youtube. Accessed December 08, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZOQD5cgVYk&ab_channel=PinkDotSG.

pinkdot.sg. n.d. About Pink Dot SG. Accessed December 02, 2023. https://pinkdot.sg/about-pink-dot-sg/.

Puar, Jasbir. 2007. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Duke University Press.

Quek, Hykel. 2023. The Realtor Fighting for Public Housing for Singapore’s LGBTQ+ Community. Rice Media, January 17. Accessed December 12, 2023. https://www.ricemedia.co/public-housing-for-the-fringes-lgbtq/.

Tan, Chris KK. 2015. "Rainbow belt: Singapore’s gay Chinatown as a Lefebvrian space." Urban Studies (Sage Publications, Ltd) 52 (12): 2203-2218. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26146129.

Tan, Theresa. 2022. New adoption laws aimed at curbing undesirable practices in increasingly complex landscape. The Straits Times, April 08. Accessed December 08, 2023. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/community/new-adoption-laws-aimed-at-curbing-undesirable-practices-in-increasingly-complex-landscape.