With the approval of same-sex marriage in an ad-hoc session on June 18 in the Senate, the upper house of the Thai parliament, a new chapter opens for LGBTIQA+ rights advocacy in the Southeast Asian region. Although on previous occasions the instruments and institutional bodies of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations-ASEAN, the most important regional entity, have not provided a strong response to the demands made by LGBTIQA+/SOGIESC groups from member countries, the approval of same-sex marriage in Thailand consolidates for the first time in the region the grassroots activism that has been working for decades to address the serious humanitarian situation faced by sexual and gender minorities, as it also represents the opportunity for greater legal capacity and political activism at local, regional and international levels.
Although activism has occurred at different levels, the process of protection and satisfaction of sexual and gender minorities began to take shape from a regional perspective with the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration-AHRD in November 2012 in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, as a response to the growing demands made at the international level within the United Nations regarding the most urgent human rights issues in the region. Even though the drafting of the AHRD principles strategically omits the mention of SOGIESC or 2SLGBTQIA+ rights in the final document, it simultaneously left a space open to interpretation for international advocacy and activists, and a door ajar for the future incorporation of the diversity agenda.
However, other attempts to institutionalise such an agenda have emerged within ASEAN through alternative mechanisms, such as the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus-ASC, founded in 2011 with activists representing 8 out of the 10 member states. While governments in the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam show more openness to incorporating the agenda, cases like Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei stand out for their rejection within the AHRD.
The initial discussions regarding SOGIESC rights held in the years before the organisation of ASC took place under the direct demand from activists against the criminalisation and pathologisation of SOGIESC minorities in the Southeast Asia region, considering the Yogyakarta Principles as a roadmap for future advocacy and activist litigation.
Nevertheless, the limited impact of ASC has occurred within a boomerang activism framework from local organisations, where pressure is sought to be exerted on ASEAN member countries through advocacy at international levels or instances by leveraging the pressure from Global North states and institutions, due to ASEAN's constant disregard for ASC's demands happening in the regional level.
Despite the adversities and limitations within the ASEAN framework regarding SOGIESC, some cases have shown a relatively positive balance, such as in the Philippines.
This is evident in the monitoring of human rights in specific countries by the UN's Univelsal Periodic Review system, which follows a recurring cycle of reporting every four years for all UN member countries. Indonesia and the Philippines have been subject to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) since their first cycle in 2008. Nevertheless, the central government of the Philippines has publicly rejected the report's recommendations directly from President Marcos in 2022.
However, the situation in the Philippines is compounded by the growing tension between the government and grassroots LGBTIQA+ organizations, with ASC being one of them, as its main office is located in Manila. The current hostilities from the government have been constant, continuing to appeal to religious reasons to prohibit the emancipation of SOGIESC rights in the country. In some cases, such as in Singapore and Brunei, the situation is even more critical, as the persecution of LGBTQIA+ organizations and collectives has become a recurring mechanism by the state.
Therefore, the consolidation of one of the demands of LGBTIQA+ activism in Thailand implies not only a local victory but also stands as a beacon in the region. Through boomerang activism and now with clear legal representation through Thai institutions within ASEAN, it could establish institutions for protection, assistance, and political representation.
Another point to highlight is that due to the growing humanitarian crisis in Southeast Asian countries such as Myanmar, Indonesia, and the Philippines, Thailand could become a reception centre for LGBTQIA+ migrants in extreme vulnerability. For this reason, a special fund allocation program from international bodies such as the United Nations is important, enabling the country to be capable of accommodating the arrival of this population.
Thailand thus becomes the third Asian country to accept same-sex marriage, alongside Taiwan and Nepal. In this context, it is also important to promote the exchange of experiences with institutions and collectives that have experience in consolidating public agendas within governmental mechanisms.
However, it is important to remember that the approval of same-sex marriage in the Senate is just the first of many other points on the SOGIESC/LGBTQIA+ agenda, and the challenges for the future are significant.
The laws that are expected to follow in Thailand would address rights to medical assistance for transitioning for transgender individuals, the legal change of name and gender, as well as the incorporation of a third gender. Additionally, they would include a special protection program against homophobia, particularly in regions where cases of violence and intolerance against the community are most prevalent.
Finally, it is likely that in the coming years, Thailand will establish itself as a hub for LGBTIQA+ rights in Southeast Asia, and that this will have a positive impact on grassroots activism in other countries, particularly in the cases of the Philippines and Indonesia, where initiatives already have a history of activism and advocacy both nationally and internationally.
The Philippines is emerging as the ASEAN member state most likely to incorporate part of the LGBTIQA+ agenda into its constitution, where institutions and organisations are better consolidated and functionally operational, with the ASC base located in Manila. However, it is important to emphasize that violence against the LGBTIQA+ population continues to manifest through the civilian population, which holds a strong Catholic view of morality and gender, from the state, which is repressive toward popular expressions of progressivism in general, as well as from the structural violence to which gender and sexual minorities are constantly subjected.
Indonesia is a particular case, as despite being one of the countries where the rights of the LGBTIQA+ population are most vulnerable, it has strong grassroots organisations and a remarkable history of international advocacy. For these grassroots organisations, the focus may be on decentralised bodies or operating under South-South decentralised cooperation models at the municipal or city level.
If national governments cannot provide the necessary legal framework and protection for the LGBTIQA+ population, then progressive local governments could facilitate programs and projects focused on this population through alliances and partnerships between cities or municipalities in Southeast Asia.
An enriching experience of cooperation between cities for Southeast Asia could be that of Latin America, where grassroots activism has a significant history, and strategies that operate transnationally could be used to consolidate the LGBTIQA+ agenda in the region.
By Gustavo Hernández-Calderón