Top image: People’s Power Party / Facebook
GE2025 hasn’t officially kicked off, but campaign rhetoric aimed at splitting Singaporeans along ideological lines is already in full force.
It all started, really, on March 3rd, when Goh Meng Seng, leader of the People’s Power Party (PPP), announced PPP would contest Nee Soon GRC to take a “principled stance” against the “LGBTQ agenda”.
What LGBTQ agenda? Back in January, LGBTQ activist and lawyer Deryne Sim was spotted on a walkabout in Nee Soon alongside People’s Action Party (PAP) MP K Shanmugam. The perception was that she would be a new PAP candidate.
Neither the PAP nor Minister Shanmugam has officially addressed the issue, but Goh now seems convinced they are unlikely to be fielding Sim. As a result, he’s made way for fellow opposition party Red Dot United (RDU) to contest Nee Soon GRC instead.
In a recent Facebook Live session, he said: “I think my mission is accomplished. I think Minister Shanmugam would not even dare to talk about this intention [to field an LGBTQ activist] anymore.”
It may seem that the issue is settled (for now, at least), but Goh’s rhetoric, echoing far-right movements abroad, offers a troubling glimpse of where this leads.
With a narrative centred around fighting supposed agendas, we must ask: What kind of Singapore are we building beyond this election?
A nation that champions diversity and inclusivity? Or one where an aspiring leader feels emboldened to launch an entire campaign against another simply for her association with a minority community?
Culture Wars
The irony of an opposition party harping on an “LGBTQ Agenda” isn’t lost on Dr Elvin Ong, Assistant Professor at the NUS Department of Political Science.
“It was not too long ago, back in the 2011 General Elections, that the PAP team for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC led by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan asked the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) to clarify its position on the ‘gay cause’ in the political arena, citing SDP’s candidate Vincent Wijeysingha views in a video,” Dr Ong muses.
“It is therefore ironic that when the PAP now seemingly intends to field a candidate linked to LGBTQ activism that an opposition party now apparently wants to make a meal out of it.”
And make a meal out of it, Goh did. It’s important to note that Sim hasn’t even officially been fielded. The very idea that she just might was enough to spur Goh to launch a campaign singling her out.
Let’s be real. This furore over Sim isn’t really about her. She’s simply a convenient scapegoat. All she’s done so far is give out oranges to Nee Soon residents and provide them with pro-bono legal advice.
Besides being the executive director of Same But Different—which offers legal resources for the LGBTQ community—she was also previously a Pink Dot committee member. She’s volunteered for LGBTQ causes, sure.
But what’s with the moral panic?
What Goh claims to be afraid of is the potential erosion of the “pro-family core values” he espouses. As far as I can tell, by ‘family’, he really just means the heteronormative nuclear family unit. The man also seems to believe same-sex marriage and LGBTQ lifestyles are detrimental to family units.
He says this, even as he insists that PPP as a party “do not discriminate any individual LGBTQ in jobs and such”.
It’s a confusing development, considering Goh’s focus on housing and retirement issues, the elderly, and the poor in GE2020. The shift to pushing against the so-called “LGBT agenda” and mandatory vaccines seems out of pocket.
He also seems to be against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and wants to Make Singapore our Home Again. Sound familiar?
Dr Ong, whose research interests lie in opposition parties, offers his take.
“His use of particular terms such as DEI and references to the ‘US and the Western world’ certainly suggests that he may indeed have been inspired by anti-left wing narratives emerging from the United States and Germany.”
He’s referring, of course, to the Make America Great Again crowd in the US and the rising influence of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in, well, Germany.
I know I’m not buying what he’s selling. But is this a hail mary to garner the support of more conservative Singaporeans?
Opposition parties have long appealed to voters by positioning themselves as a check and balance to the ruling party. But what Goh’s doing is essentially appealing directly to the socially conservative crowd—and purely to them.
Dr Ong surmises that Goh might have several motivations. “Mr Goh may be interested in increasing the salience of LGBTQ issues among Yishun voters for a variety of reasons. For instance, he may be sincere about his views and hope to persuade Singaporeans to back them.”
Of course, the PPP leader may be doing so for tactical reasons—he believes there are enough conservative voters who care more about this particular social issue than economic issues.
Dr Felix Tan, a lecturer at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and regular political commentator, has a blunt response.
“He doesn’t know what he and his party represent.”
“These things [he’s saying] are very populist,” Dr Tan continues.
“It’s a very current thing in the US, at the very least. Will it cost him votes? For sure. But there will always be supporters of Goh Meng Seng.”
Ultimately, it’s for voters to consider whether Goh’s rhetoric and values are something we can endorse. But the way he’s campaigning raises important questions about what we’re willing to validate beyond this election.
The Art of Misdirection
At the heart of this issue is a fundamental question: What kind of Singapore is Goh truly advocating for?
Goh’s argument hinges on the idea that a “pro-family” agenda—defined in narrow, heteronormative terms—is the key to reversing Singapore’s low fertility rate. He suggests that normalising the “LGBTQ lifestyle” undermines family structures and threatens national sustainability.
In reality, he’s scapegoating queer people while conveniently downplaying the very real reasons why straight couples aren’t having kids.
As a 30-year-old, I’ve had numerous conversations with my peers about kids. Not once have same-sex marriage or LGBTQ issues ever come up. According to numerous studies and polls out there, the real reasons people aren’t procreating are (1) because it’s too expensive and (2) we’d rather focus on our careers and lifestyles.
Unfortunately for Goh Meng Seng and his narrative, the LGBTQ community hasn’t been a factor in this conversation.
Dr Tan pokes further holes in Goh’s logic: “Is he then saying that the LGBTQ community are not Singaporeans? Number one, do they not deserve to be Singaporeans? Number two, what defines the values of being a Singaporean?”
“I don’t think he’s necessarily a bad character or a bad person—but I think his arguments are not logical and not rational.”
At this point, I’ve heard Goh talking more about Deryne Sim than his actual direction for the upcoming election.
It’s safe to conclude that his vision for Singapore is a pro-family but exclusionary country. But will his vision ever address real issues of affordability, security, and opportunity?
If Singapore’s leaders—whether from the ruling party or the opposition—truly want to build a resilient, inclusive nation, the conversation should focus on real solutions to economic challenges. Not some assumed threat to family values.
What Kind of Country Do We Want To Build?
We all want to vote for a better future. We all have diverse ideas of what that’s going to look like.
I’m sure Goh and his supporters are genuinely convinced that a “pro-family” Singapore is what we need for the nation to survive. He wouldn’t have chosen this hill to die on otherwise.
The thing is, it’s not even clear yet if Goh’s “mission” has been accomplished—the PAP might very well still field Sim for all we know.
But what has been accomplished is the vilification of an LGBTQ activist and an attempt to take away her chance at standing for election simply because of her affiliation with the community.
Singapore’s future cannot be built on exclusionary politics. While we’re far from perfect, our potential lies in striving for policies that support diverse families, respond to the realities of our economy and ensure that every Singaporean—no matter their background—plays a role in shaping our success.
Voters must now ask themselves: Do we want leaders who thrive on division or those who envision a Singapore where everyone belongs?
