LGBT trapped in the political game of two political coalition in Malaysia. Now what?

What is diversity? Diversity means inclusiveness of multi races and multi religions only? Gender and sexual diversity is not “diversity”?

Our Deputy Prime Minister, Muhyiddin Yassin was reported to say that the rise of LGBTs threat could be curbed through effective counselling. Dr. Mashitah, Deputy Minister in PM’s department claimed that several NGOs are curbing the “spread” of LGBT “social problems”. UMNO MP, Baharum Mohamad said rehabilitation centre must be set up to cure the same-sex relationship from spreading the country and the  law minister in PM’s Department, Nazri Abdul Aziz claimed LGBTs are unconstitutional as their identities are against the teachings of Islam. Bayan Baru MP Zahrain Mohamad Hashim has proposed to pass a motion in Parliament to bar LGBT individuals from becoming MPs and senators.

Are all these claims are correct in the face of latest scientific literature? Why must LGBTs identities be subjected to the teachings of Islam?

Besides that, Prime Minister Najib Razak has also expressed his disappointment towards Obama’s stance on same sex marriage. In today’s Malaysian Insider’s news dated 19 July 2012, Najib Razak has just again stressed that LGBT, pluralism, and liberalism must be fought and it’s compulsory to do so in the name of Islam as they are against Islam. On the other hand, the opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim agreed that gays should be discriminated against to protect the marriage sanctity when he was questioned by Utusan Malaysia’s counsel yesterday. However, it must be noted that Anwar Ibrahim also said before, it is timely to review the laws on sodomy, which are ss.377A and B of Penal Code during the interview with BBC.

Pict from

It appears that Anwar Ibrahim agrees with Najib Razak in the sense that they both think same sex marriage is not allowed in Malaysia, where the former is disappointed the public endorsement on gay marriage by US President, Barack Obama and the latter opines gays qualify to be discriminated against for the sake of sanctity of marriage. Now, both big guns are agreeable to each other.

Is same sex marriage a possibility in Malaysia? Is the love between same sex is to be prohibited against in the name of Islam or sanctity of marriage? Another bigger question is whether our leaders have really given deep thoughts on the happiness of two loving human beings of the same sex.

Obviously, they have not. There are several models of institutions which have been introduced in other countries, namely, domestic partnership, civil partnership, registered partnership, civil union and reciprocal beneficiary. Generally, these forms of institution would exist as ways to afford the legal benefits of a couple of same sex or even two cohabiting partners of different gender.

I would recommend the government to look into the plausibility of such models of institutions if marriage is not a possible choice to same sex partners. However, the idea of getting two men into a marriage or union without affording them to enjoy sexual pleasure, of which is an offence under 377 of penal code, would just defy the meaning of any mentioned possible union of two. It is like giving the happiness without satisfaction, and depriving them of having sex while the heterosexual partners are qualified to have both.

Pict from

Another observation that arises is the lackadaisical attitude of the general public against the constant rejection of LGBT identity by ministers. It is an alarming phenomenon because the silence would condone the deprivation of dignity of a LGBT as being who he or she is, when he or she could be, or is, one of your family members. Furthermore, the clumping up of other LGBT’s related issues, for examples, sexual acts, same sex marriage, gay rehabilitation centre, issues relating to transgenders, have just shown that our leaders are not capable of understanding LGBT in the face of plurality of realism, simple logic, social jurisprudence and universal values that enshrined through different faiths.

Instead, “LGBT identities” has been used as a proven political tool, just like sex scandals, to sabotage one’s political journey by stripping off the private morality of his opponents. The general public should condemn on the manipulation of such imperative matters of others, where it is a form of indirect discrimination against the minority. In fact, LGBT identities should be recognized and acknowledged as well as their happiness of being able to cohabit together as two loving men or women.

I would urge the political parties to take a public stand on the issues of LGBT provided with a reasonable justification, after having dialogue with local LGBT’s supporting groups. In fact, Parti Sosialis Malaysia has expressed its disappointment over the ban on Sexualiti Merdeka events. However, most of them have not, except for UMNO. Of all the issues played along by both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional, LGBT has been trapped in the ball game. LGBT identities should not be a political game.

It’s a matter of life to those who have endured the pains of being ostracized, physical and mental assaults.  It must be reminded that LGBT are also the phantom-ed tax payers. Their votes could also make a big change in a tight political game in the coming general election.

Read also:


Critics’ views on the matter:


Jackson Yee the chambeeeeee. Interested in advancing LGBT rights in Malaysia.

7 replies on “LGBT trapped!”

  1. I am a Malaysian, and I'm agree that from the perspective of? human rights and social justice, your views are very accurate and can't be disputed. However, please not be mistaken, Malaysia government have never oppress LGBTs, but we try to save them. In the name of Islam and Malaysia as a Muslim country, this is our responsible to fought all LGBT, pluralism, and liberalism influence, and it’s compulsory to do so as they are against Islam and Quran.

  2. I do agree to the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in our constitution as part of our diversity, however same-sex marriage is a totally different argument, as the conceptualization of marriage in itself is flawed and needed much reviewed, looking at the driver of marriage institutions as well as other related sectors. An inclusion of SOGi should not fight for heteronormative arrangement like marriage, it should cover more crucial element that criss-cross in all areas, like discrimination and stigma.

  3. Although I am not against LGBTs' right to live their lives as they wish, I personally feel that they should not call their union a marriage as from time immemorial, a marriage is between a man and a woman. What I would suggest is for same sex unions to be drawn up as contracts between 2 or more individuals with agreeable terms and conditions.
    I believe this would be acceptable to most folks.

    1. Actually, no, the definition of marriage has never always been ONE man ONE woman– polygamy was common, and in fact the groom is considered by many as a stud if he has 4 wives. Also, I believe marriage used to be for life– meaning even if your husband is an abusive alcoholic good-for-nothing bank- (or I suppose, back in the days, cave-) robber, you have to stay with him.

      So, the way I see it, the definition of marriage has changed, mostly to reflect societal changes.

Comments are closed.