Miak's idea was for people to come to the National Day picnic wearing something pink. It was both a colour representing sexual orientation as well as a combination of Singapore's red and white.

 
Another inside source had earlier also told Miak a similar story behind the ban on the Pink Picnic. The two sources corroborate each other. We know who these persons are and can therefore trust the information they gave us but I will not divulge their names.

The complaint went to the police and even up to the Deputy Prime Minister's office. The upshot was that the Botanic Gardens was told in no uncertain terms by the police (or DPM?) to look out for anyone wearing pink, and if 5 or more persons gather, the Gardens should call the police immediately. Unlawful assemblies must be stopped.

It wouldn't surprise me if extra police and Internal Security Department personnel are diverted from the National Day parade at Marina Bay to patrol the Botanic Gardens to stop and question imaginary "subversives".

The National Parks Board apparently had no idea who Miak Siew was, and so wrote a letter to me instead at my office address [2]. The letter, dated 3 August 2007, said,

It has come to our attention that People Like Us is planning to hold a series of events under the banner of Indignation 2007. Two of the events - a picnic on 9 August 2007 and a 5 km-run on 11 August 2007 - will be held in the Singapore Botanic Gardens.

As the events are advertised, they are considered organised gatherings. Permission from the National Parks Board will be required to hold them in our parks and gardens.

We have considered the matter carefully, and regret to inform you that the Board cannot allow you to hold your events at  the Singapore Botanic Gardens. The Singapore Botanic Gardens is a premier botanical institution. We do not want it to be used as a venue for interest groups to politicise their cause. For that matter, it is our policy to keep such activities out of our parks and gardens.

We seek your cooperation in this matter.

It was signed by Chin See Chung, the director of the Singapore Botanic Gardens, and delivered by hand to my office just before the weekend. I didn't see it until Monday evening, at which time, I promptly forwarded it to Miak.

You'll see from the Straits Times' report that Chin told the newspaper it was a "member of the public" who first alerted them to the event. This is consistent with what our contacts told us, except that they were more specific.

Miak has officially cancelled the Pink Picnic. In his statement to the gay community, he said,

The organiser received a letter from the National Parks Board over the weekend denying permission for the use of the Botanic Gardens for what it called "organised gatherings... by interest groups to politicse their cause".

The Board is clearly misinformed about the intention of "In the Pink"; it was meant as no more than a social event for friends from the community. But their misapprehension is not surprising, since anti-gay elements are constantly painting every gay activity as dangerous and subversive. We have reason to believe that the Board had been pushed to issuing their letter by such elements.

Never intending to make the picnic a politicised event in the first place, the organiser does not really want to do so now, even in the face of such provocation by the authorities. Thus, it is deemed wiser to cancel the event and issue this statement instead.

However, this does not mean individuals aren't free to go with their friends and families to the Botanic Gardens on 9 August for their own private picnics. After all, it would be a sad day if the Botanic Garrdens were to say that gay people can't stroll or picnic on their grounds simply because they are gay. Or is that what they are saying?

He told me that prior to the cancellation, there wasn't much enthusiasm for the picnic, but now that the authorities have stepped in, "lots of people want to go". [3]

Meanwhile, radio DJs have new fodder for their glib talk. Hossan Leong on the Radio-SAF channel asked people what they wanted for Singapore's 42nd birthday. From callers, he got answers like 'lower prices' etc. Then he added, "I just want a picnic but don't think I'll get it" (or something to that effect).

* * * * *

All communities have social events. Just as the American community in Singapore would celebrate their 4th of July, so does the gay and lesbian community. But a social event within the Gay Pride Season? Why not? Were all events during the World Bank/IMF conference related to business? Weren't there organised dinners for participants, or a cruise around the Singapore harbour?

We have no money -- few sponsors would dare help out lest they too be branded as funding a subversive campaign against the PAP government -- so we can't afford to organise a 10-course dinner at the Suntec Convention Centre. A picnic is the best we can do.

Who would have thought that as a public park, one couldn't have a social picnic in the Botanic Gardens? Don't plenty of others do that?

What this episode reveals quite starkly are two things: the campaign by the Christian anti-gay lobby to increase intolerance in Singapore, by appealing to officialdom if necessary, and the thought processes within officialdom, that make them so easily influenced by such a campaign.

There seems to be an automatic association between anything labelled as "gay" or "pro-gay" and three kinds of fears:

• It spreads Aids 
• It converts straight people to become gay 
• It is a threat to internal security.

In this Botanic Gardens case, it is the third association that is evident. Must a gay group's picnic necessarily be something used by "interest groups to politicise their cause"?

Imagine an NGO that is concerned about domestic maids, organising a barbecue at the East Cost Park for maids. At other times, the NGO may speak out for better treatment of maids, but would this mean that the barbecue itself must be banned because it would "politicise their cause"?

How absurd must things get in Singapore before we grow up? Why do we see goblins and witches under every bed? Or, for that matter, every bush?

© Yawning Bread