In the shifting socio-political climate where anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiments are rising and hard-won progress being rolled back, what does the future hold for queer activism in Asia? The Post’s Aarati Ray sat down with Henry Koh, executive director of ILGA Asia—the regional branch of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association (ILGA), a global federation advocating for LGBTQIA+ rights. Koh shared the challenges of the queer community across Asia.

What do you think are the biggest challenges the queer community in Asia is currently facing?

First, governments are using vague laws like ‘morality’ clauses and ‘national security’ regulations to criminalise activism. In Malaysia and Brunei, sharia laws are used to persecute queer individuals, while in Indonesia, local bylaws target gender and sexual minorities.

Second, anti-gender movements are gaining strength, backed by religious fundamentalists and nationalist groups. These movements spread disinformation and block gender-inclusive policies. In South Korea, they have prevented anti-discrimination laws, and in the Philippines, they oppose SOGIE [sexual orientation and gender identity/expression] equality bills that ensure rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

On top of that, digital surveillance and censorship are increasing. Governments monitor online discussions and suppress queer content. China censors LGBTQIA+ topics on social media, and in Myanmar, activists are targeted under military rule.

In South Asia, communities like hijra [individuals who identify outside the male-female gender binary, forming a non-heteronormative kinship system based on a discipleship lineage], khwaja sira [who identify as third gender or gender non-conforming], and kinnar [a term used mostly in India by individuals who are transgender or intersex] continue to fight for recognition. Meanwhile, queer people in Afghanistan face extreme persecution under the Taliban.

In Southeast Asia, the Philippines, despite its vibrant queer community, has no national legal protections.

All this said, on January 23, the International Criminal Court, for the first time, recognised LGBTQIA+ individuals as victims of gender persecution under international criminal law. This brings us a sense of hope.

Thailand’s historic same-sex marriage legalisation saw over 1,800 registrations, but why do other Asian nations lag? What alternative strategies can protect queer couples in restrictive environments?

The barriers are tied to socio-cultural traditions, with conservative groups using religion to oppose the queer community. There’s a common belief that LGBTQIA+ rights are a ‘western import’. But queer communities have always existed across Asia, from Indonesia to West Asia, throughout our histories, royal courts and cultures. The real issue is colonial-era laws that criminalised queer existence. Many Asian countries are trying to move past colonial-era concepts, but legally and culturally, we’re still bound by laws from that time.

The problem also lies in vague ‘morality’ and ‘national security’ laws in penal codes and constitutions. As the public can’t say no to ‘national security’, these vague laws are used to suppress our rights.

In countries where marriage equality is not possible shortly, protections within the LGBTQIA+ community are important. This includes ending conversion practices [harmful attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity to align them with so-called normal societal and religious norms], better recognition for third genders, hijra and khwaja sira, and improved healthcare and employment rights.

Halt of USAID funding have impacted queer projects in Nepal. Have similar cuts affected queer activism in other Asian countries?

Funding crisis is indeed affecting Asian countries, queer and non-queer groups alike. This challenges us to think if we have relied too much on USAID and global funding.

For example, the Trump administration’s halt of PEPFAR [President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] will affect over 50 million lives across Africa and Asia, risking access to HIV medication.

It’s time to think about building sustainability with our internal resources. As activists, we should push our governments to approve generic medications.

We should engage actively with our internal governments and regional bodies like ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation), and diplomatic allies. ILGA plans to raise voice in international forums like the UN and ASEAN to oppose the rollback of rights.

Given the current political climate and political divisions within the UN, do you think the UN or ASEAN are still effective in holding governments accountable for queer rights violations?

In Southeast Asia, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights often gets called a “toothless tiger” because decisions require consensus. Even if countries like Thailand, Singapore, and Vietnam are open to LGBTQIA+ rights, others like Malaysia and Indonesia are unlikely to agree.

The same is for the UN. Power dynamics can make it challenging to push for queer rights. Though imperfect, working with the UN, we have realised that it’s still necessary for advocacy. Mechanisms like the Human Rights Council and Universal Periodic Review allow us to raise our voices globally.

However, the mechanisms for amplifying our voices are weak, and this crisis calls for us to rethink how Asia can build stronger institutions, mechanisms, and representation within the UN.

We need a broader commitment to accountability, both within these institutions and at the national level, for progress to be made in addressing queer rights violations. They should not see LGBTQIA+ rights as a secondary issue.

Homophobia is not merely a moral issue, it’s an economic catastrophe. When any marginalised communities, including LGBTQIA+ people are pushed aside, the entire economy suffers. Sidelining these groups leads to a shrinking business environment, market shifts, and overall economic decline.

Representing over 100 queer organisations across Asia, does ILGA Asia face challenges like repression or security threats?

Over the years, we have dealt with it often. For example, when we highlight the struggles of queer people in countries like Bangladesh, after some time, we often receive requests from local activists to take down the post. This is due to the threats and restrictions they face in their own countries.

Visibility is our power. However, we also have to consider the consequences of the said visibility for those who cannot speak freely in their countries. There is the risk of exacerbating the paranoia of right-wing governments. It can trigger harsher crackdowns from governments. We have to be careful, as our work can be misinterpreted or used as an excuse for further repression.

Currently, we are based in Thailand but it may not be forever. As a queer coalition, we must continuously assess the safety of the environment in which we operate.

As much as LGBTQIA+ rights face external threats, do the internal divisions and diversity within the community bring challenges, including in Nepal?

Without doubt, intersectionality is imperative in our movement. We must acknowledge the diversity within our community and how it shapes the experiences and discrimination faced by individuals.

Honestly, while our community is diverse, there is also divisiveness in how we work, which creates some obstacles.

At a time where we are witnessing a coordinated attack from anti-rights and anti-gender movements, we have to pick up our slack. Our opposition has trillions of dollars at their disposal, and we don’t have that kind of resource. In the past, we believed our strength lay in our diversity, but now, unity is the key to fighting for what we need and who we represent. Unity should be our strongest weapon against anti queer and anti rights forces.

With global LGBTQIA+ funding shrinking, the hosting the 10th ILGA Asia Conference in Nepal (Feb 24-28) had raised questions. How do you address concerns that funding smaller organisations should come before such big events?

At a time when LGBTQIA+ funding is shrinking and authoritarian forces are rising, bringing 600+ activists together is a bold act of resistance. It shows our movement will not be silenced or divided.

As for prioritising funding for smaller organisations over hosting a large conference, it’s not an either-or situation. It’s about strengthening the whole ecosystem. Conferences like this are catalysts for long-term collaboration, funding, and knowledge-sharing.

Many smaller queer groups struggle with visibility and access to international funding. Through the conference, ILGA Asia has given grassroots organisations a platform to connect, form coalitions, and amplify their impact. And holding it in Nepal adds meaning to our movement as Nepal has a special place in queer history.