Fifteen days ago on CNN, Marc Gunther observes how gay movement appears to sweep across Corporate America.
Some of the interesting observations as captured below:
(1) When it comes to the corporations, it makes good business sense to embrace the gay movement.
Raytheon finds the ‘the competition to hire and retain engineers and other skilled workers … so brutal that [it] doesn’t want to overlook anyone’. In order to cast a wide net in its recruitment drive, the corporation needs to adopt an openly pro-gay rights stance so as to ‘attract gay workers … who worry about discrimination’.
Yeah, bet it makes good business sense too to sponsor major gay event such as the Nation Party (see my earlier post).
(2) Sometimes, it takes the ‘coming-out’ of a top executive to ‘pioneer’ the winds of change (particularly in traditionally conservative professions – my own comment).
Mike Syers, an Ernst & Young partner, fast became the corporate spokesperson for gay rights in his firm when he decided to come out of the closet.
According to unofficial sources, corporate Singapore recently witnessed a similar albeit more low key instance, when a Vice President of a local telco (gasp! yes it’s one of the GLCs) openly spoke of his male partner in a formal meeting with his department. And oh, need to add here, he’s an Aussie hired on expatriate terms. So will we see a trickle down effect amongst locals in the same firm? Let’s just wait and see …
(3) While it makes business sense in some districts to embrace gay issues, it doesn’t in some others.
P&G appears to be facing strong resistance in Cincinnati where a conservative Christian majority seems to dominate over the rest of the population. Hence, the adoption of Article 12, “a charter amendment that prohibited the city from passing any law to protect gays against discrimination”.
Alas! As some may proclaim, this is a classic example of the tyranny of the majority. Yet, the voting exercise is – to say the least – a reasonably democratic exercise to ascertain the will of the majority.
Therein lies the difference between the situation in Singapore and America. The present stalmate in Singapore’s gay movement is often attributed to a ‘conservative majority’. Yet, we are left to question the basis of ascertaining such a ‘majority’ since there’s been no formal public poll to do so (see Yawning Bread February 2005 ‘Towards an open and inclusive society’ on further comments on the rhetoric of ‘conservative majority’).
If indeed it is prerogative to rule on the basis of ‘greatest happiness for greatest number of people’, shouldn’t every citizen be encouraged play a role in deciding any changes to public policies?
By this, I would also naturally presume that those most affected by the policy changes be actively engaged in the entire consultative process. A recent development appears to leave some of the key stakeholders in great doubt as to whether the relevant authorities are sincere in their ‘active engagement’.
So this really boils down to my final questions: Is it time now for ‘Corporate Singapore’ to openly embrace the will of majority and decry the myth of an ‘illiberal democracy’? Would gay rights be a good starting point to do so? Or are there some underlying concerns we have to deal with right here? And will private enterprises – as in the case for America – be the forerunners for gay rights issues in Singapore?
Addendum: Yet another blogger debunking the rhetoric of a ‘conservative majority. Mr Wang sums up the situation in Singapore quite well one day ago in his analysis of the outlawing of gay sex.
