Let’s Talk about That Walkabout
In January 2025, Minister K Shanmugam was seen on a walkabout in Nee Soon GRC with Deryne Sim, a lawyer and activist. Local media outlets, including Mothership and The Straits Times, ran profiles on Sim in a manner that suggested she was being floated as a potential People’s Action Party (PAP) candidate for the upcoming General Election (GE).
Mothership’s coverage attempted to highlight Sim’s community service, portraying it as her defining quality. Yet, this is hardly unique—many aspiring politicians engage in similar work.
What was truly significant, and yet conspicuously downplayed as mere “feeling strongly about inclusion”, was her extensive history as an LGBT activist—so pronounced that even Vincent Wijeysingha might have suggested she tone it down a notch.
That contrast is what makes her candidacy so striking. It’s not just about her being a new face. It’s about the implications of fielding someone whose activism directly challenges the party’s current traditional stance.
A Shift in Direction?
It’s understandable that some would be shocked by the PAP floating Deryne Sim as a test balloon. The party had previously committed to “unprecedented measures” to safeguard the institution of marriage and all corresponding areas of social life.
Yet in light of Sim’s activist background, it seems like the party may be opening the door to a very different future by considering letting a cat into the henhouse.
Who is Deryne Sim?
Sim has been deeply committed to her cause, even earning an LL.M in Law and Sexuality at UCLA as a Fulbright Scholar. Beyond her work as a lawyer specialising in media and entertainment law, she has been involved in extensive LGBT activism:
- Organising Committee Member & Spokesperson, Pink Dot SG – Managed legal matters, outreach, and media representation for Singapore’s largest LGBTQ+ event.
- Lead, Red Dot for Pink Dot – Secured corporate sponsorship from over 100 local businesses.
- Committee Member, Ready4Repeal – Helped strategise and engage the public on repealing Section 377A.
- Executive Director, Same but Different – Led a legal education initiative for LGBTQ+ individuals in Singapore.
- Contributor, Same but Different Legal Guidebook – Co-authored a 150-page guide detailing legal rights for LGBTQ+ couples and families.
- Q Mentors Program Mentor – Guides young LGBTQ+ professionals in their careers.
- Speaker at corporate diversity and inclusion events – Has spoken at companies like PayPal and General Assembly on workplace inclusivity.
Her activism extended beyond advocacy. She created legal resources that challenged Singapore’s traditional family framework and actively pushed for legal and policy changes. Some of the key initiatives she has championed include:
- Allowing LGBT NGOs to register as societies and charities, significantly enhancing their ability to raise funds and engage in advocacy.
- Lobbying for changes to media regulations, arguing that current restrictions on positive LGBT representation limit outreach, particularly to older demographics.
- Advocating for SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) inclusion in anti-discrimination legislation and amendments to the Employment Act, which would extend spousal benefits to same-sex partners, effectively placing same-sex relationships on equal legal footing with traditional marriages by granting them the same legal recognition and benefits.
Why Floating Deryne Sim Should Not Surprise Anyone
1. Appealing to an Increasingly Liberal Singapore
For a hegemonic party like the PAP, floating a high-profile lesbian candidate like Sim makes political sense.
It signals to younger, more liberal voters that the PAP’s “big tent” includes LGBT persons—even as it maintains a conservative stance on paper.
This is classic pragmatic politics.
It isn’t necessarily an ideological shift—it’s just signalling. By introducing a candidate with a certain background, the PAP can test public reaction without making formal policy commitments. If the response is positive, they proceed. If it backfires, they adjust course.
We’ve seen this before:
- Before repealing s377A, PAP ministers subtly introduced LGBT discussions while allowing greater corporate involvement in Pink Dot (2016-2019).
- Tharman Shanmugaratnam was framed early on as a “unifying figure” before his presidential candidacy, allowing PAP to test acceptance of yet another establishment-backed president.
The approach is calculated. By trialing candidates or policies in the media first, the PAP gauges public reaction before committing.
2. The PAP’s History of Absorbing Dissenting Voices
More than just floating test balloons, the PAP has a history of co-opting opposition voices as part of its talent-acquisition-turned-opposition-management strategy. This allows the party to reinforce its claim of being a big-tent party for all Singaporeans while maintaining top-down control. Consider these cases:
- Tharman Shanmugaratnam – Once an independent-minded academic, he was known for taking critical positions on state policy, particularly in economics and education. However, after joining the PAP, he became one of its strongest defenders, aligning his views with the party’s positions.
- Vivian Balakrishnan – A former student activist who once challenged government policies but transformed into a disciplined party man after recruitment.
- Tan Cheng Bock – Initially brought into the fold but later left to form the Progress Singapore Party after realising true independence within PAP was impossible.
These cases show a clear pattern: The PAP identifies sharp, independent thinkers—often those with a history of challenging state narratives—brings them into the fold, and integrates them into its structure. This approach makes the party appear inclusive and adaptable while ensuring dissent is absorbed and neutralised before it becomes a threat.
The test-balloon approach with Deryne Sim fits into this playbook—not as a sign of a progressive shift, but as a calculated move to contain and defuse dissenting voices before they gain real political traction.
But Sim is different. Her activism isn’t just a political stance—it’s an assumed identity. The question isn’t just whether the PAP can absorb her, but whether she can truly set aside her core beliefs and years of single-issue advocacy once in Parliament.
Why She’s Unlikely to Be Fielded in 2025
Despite media speculation and conservative concerns, it is unlikely that Deryne Sim will be fielded as a candidate in the 2025 General Election.
Her short two-year association with the PAP is not enough for a strong parliamentary bid. The party typically fields candidates with deeper grassroots engagement or technocratic expertise. Sim, by contrast, has neither.
Beyond that, her candidacy presents an unnecessary political risk. The backlash surrounding her is not trivial, especially in an electoral climate where social conservatism still holds considerable sway. Fielding her could alienate the party’s conservative base at a time when every vote matters.
The Response To Deryne’s Candidacy: Not Good – and for Good Reason
This potential candidacy drew strong reactions from many Singaporeans,
Figures like Jason Wong, founder of Dads for Life and The Yellow Ribbon project expressed concern over what they saw as an ideological shift within PAP, especially in Nee Soon GRC, where multiple MPs have supported LGBT causes.
The video Mr Wong shared was viewed over 55,000 times indicating broad public resonance and concern over the potential candidacy of an LGBT activist.
Protect Singapore later released infographics shared over 210 times, contrasting PAP’s stated pro-family policies with Sim’s activist history, pointing out stark contradictions to the party’s stated pro-family stance.
Netizens voiced skepticism over her supposed altruism, questioning whether her community work was merely a political stepping stone rather than a sincere commitment to service.
Backtracking, Mixed Signals, and Risky Ideological Drift
Many are disappointed, seeing this as backtracking—after assurances on protecting family values, PAP is now introducing an activist with a track record of pushing contrary policies. To them, this contradicts its stated commitments.
Beyond that, it signals ideological drift. Reaffirming pro-family policies while entertaining candidates with opposing views sends mixed signals, making PAP look inconsistent and risking alienation of its traditional voter base.
Some fear this signals a broader shift in candidate selection, where diversity and inclusion take priority to appease younger liberal voters. Left unchecked, it could lead to the kind of institutional drift seen elsewhere—where early concessions to LGBT advocacy paved the way for deeper societal and legal shifts.
“Representation” today could lead to advocacy and policy changes tomorrow affecting deeply held social values and institutions, reshaping governance, and in time, marginalising conservative voices and values—something already observed in multiple Western countries.
Notably though, the concerns raised were not about identity but ideology. It is not her self-professed identity as an open lesbian that raises objections, but her decade-long career in LGBT activism—one focused on driving legislative and societal change. The issue is political, not personal, rooted in her advocacy and the long-term impact of her work.
In light of the latest developments where the PAP led the way to repeal S377A, PAP MPs throwing their weight behind PinkDot, Nee Soon MP Louis Ng advocating for the inclusion of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity as a protected class in the Workplace Fairness Bill, the above mentioned concerns are not unwarranted.
2. The Risk Extends Beyond Nee Soon GRC
This isn’t just about one candidate or one GRC—it’s about trust in the PAP’s long-term direction. Pro-family voters have long backed the PAP for its commitment to foundational values. Fielding a candidate with a strong LGBTQ advocacy record signals a shift that could cost the party their confidence.
This is especially critical given government assurances during the 2022 repeal of 377A that marriage and the social compact would be protected. Fielding Sim contradicts that commitment. This isn’t just a Nee Soon issue—it risks undermining trust in the entire party.
The fallout won’t be localised. If discontented voters in other constituencies, such as West Coast, abstain or cast protest votes, the impact could be national.
More importantly, this could be a politically costly gamble with little upside. The PAP risks losing previously loyal voters while gaining little in return. And because Singaporeans rarely disclose their voting intentions before heading to the polls, the true extent of the risk remains uncertain.
A Strategic Test or a Costly Gamble?
The PAP may be using Sim’s case as a test to gauge public sentiment rather than a firm commitment to field her. But if this was a quiet trial balloon, it may have floated too high.
Did an overzealous journalist raise her profile too soon? Did the PAP miscalculate by letting this play out publicly?
If they never intended to field her, the heightened scrutiny has now backed them into a corner. If Sim is dropped, the LGBT lobby will elevate her as a martyr and accuse The PAP of caving to conservatives. If she is fielded, the party risks losing conservative trust, contradicting past assurances on family values, and alienating a key voter base.
At this point, the PAP has two options:
- Field Sim and risk the backlash. Conservative voters could see this as a betrayal, costing the party crucial support in tight contests. To limit the fallout, PAP would likely place strict boundaries on her ability to push LGBT issues. But would she comply, or would she push the boundaries once in Parliament after some time?
- Drop the idea and move on (for now). Without an official announcement, the PAP could simply avoid fielding her and let public attention shift elsewhere.
Beyond Sim herself, this may be a test of how much resistance the PAP can withstand before making similar moves in the future. Given the stakes, the safer bet would be to avoid fielding her altogether—at least for now.
In closing, let’s explore the former possibility
Even If Fielded, Her Advocacy Will Probably Be Curbed
To its credit, PAP has had a track record of keeping its word—at least in letter, if not always in spirit—since its credibility depends on it. While PAP has a track record of staying true to its word, it has never explicitly ruled out fielding LGBT candidates. The test is whether it will balance inclusivity while maintaining its commitments to traditional voters.
Should Sim be selected and elected on the coattails of a senior politician, PAP leadership would almost certainly impose limits on her advocacy to protect its reputation and avoid alienating its conservative voter base. So while Sim’s presence in Parliament might serve as a symbolic gesture of inclusivity, she would have little influence in driving major policy changes.
Once inside, like her co-opted predecessors, her ability to publicly push alternative viewpoints will be sharply curtailed. Consider how the whip was not lifted during the repeal of s377A for instance, preventing MPs from voting according to their own conscience.
The PAP’s whip is not just symbolic. It is firm. Those who are brought in to represent a certain demographic or ideological segment are expected to fall in line, avoid pushing their hobby-horses, and prioritise party unity over personal convictions. If they push too hard, they are sidelined, or they leave, like Tan Cheng Bock, Chiam See Tong and Francis Seow did.
But for how long does one expect her to keep mum?
A Leopard in White?
Governments cannot bind future governments, and such restraints on advocacy would not be enforceable in the long run, especially when the Government changes or if party discipline relaxes on key social issues.
The greater question, however, is whether a leopard can change its spots.
Can a consummate activist truly set aside their core beliefs upon entering Parliament?If elected, would she remain silent on the very causes she has championed for years?
Such a shift would be profoundly inauthentic.
What we know is this: Ideological commitments do not end at election; they simply move to a more strategic platform.
Even if her direct advocacy in Parliament were limited, influence doesn’t require public speeches. MPs shape policies behind closed doors—within party discussions, ministry deliberations, and grassroots engagement. Her activist base would expect no less. Over time, she could rise through the ranks, potentially shaping policies at key ministries like the Ministry of Social and Family Development, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Manpower or even the Prime Minister’s Office.
It would be naïve to assume that an activist with an explicitly stated legislative agenda would adopt permanent silence on these issues across a decades-long political career.
What’s Ultimately at Stake?
Sim’s case exemplifies a broader pattern—how political parties manage dissent, absorb opposing voices, and shift Overton windows without alarming their base. But this isn’t just about one candidate or even one election cycle. It’s about the PAP’s long-term trajectory.
The PAP has historically positioned itself as the party of pragmatism—adapting to shifting societal norms while maintaining continuity with foundational values. Every test balloon, every small shift, sets a precedent.
If this is a test balloon, the real question isn’t whether it floats—but how many more will follow.
