Sunday Times article on Section 377A: Of faith, hope, love and the law

[Guest Roy Tan]

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Archive_of_"Of_faith,_hope,_love_and_the_law",_The_Sunday_Times,_10_July_2022

SUNDAY, JULY 10,2022 THE SUNDAY TIMES

VIEWS A23

Thinking Aloud

Of faith, hope, love and the law

Society’s attitudes are changing. Give-and-take is needed to make Singapore a place for everyone including the LGBTQ community.

Grace Ho

Opinion Editor

"How would you react if I told you I'm gay?" my nine-year-old son asked me one day.

I was tempted to give him a lengthy exposition on the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community in Singapore, the history of Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises sex between men, and the Court of Appeal's upholding earlier this year of a lower court's decision to dismiss challenges to S377A.

But I figured his eyes would glaze over. So I cut to the chase: I'd be fine with him being gay.

"Some people like vanilla ice cream, and some like strawberry ice cream," I said. "There's room for both."

Would I have been as comfortable saying this within earshot of close relatives?

Probably not. I grew up in a religiously conservative family where such conversations with one's parents or grandparents weren't just awkward; they simply didn't exist.

The religion I was born into speaks of faith, hope and love, love being the greatest of them.

The bottom line is that if you identify as LGBTQ, your family should still love you. Yet in their love also lies the faith and hope that this is just a phase and you'll eventually turn to the light - and turn straight.

Between two worlds

Scientists have long posited that same-sex sexual behaviour is a natural part of our diversity as a species. Just because something isn't completely genetic, or has an environmental component such as social influence, doesn't mean that being gay is purely a matter of choice.

In this world, I have straight friends and gay friends. I've had straight bosses and gay bosses.

Their sexual identity in Singapore is a non-issue. Also, the position here is that people engaging in gay sex will not be prosecuted, notwithstanding an old law.

But in another world - one which is just as much a part of my lived reality, even if I may not share all of its views - people don't speak openly of heterosexual couples kissing or having sex, let alone homosexual ones.

That a person's LGBTQ orientation can be innate is simply not a part of their world view or belief system. Pressing my point does little to help us arrive at a mutual understanding or middle ground.

Changing attitudes

Some people are hopeful. They think S377A will be repealed soon because of what they see as two "trial balloons" floated recently. First, this year's Pink Dot, an annual event for members of the LGBTQ community.

The sight of People's Action Party politician Henry Kwek at Pink Dot created a stir, as it was the first time that a ruling party politician had attended the event. Workers' Party MP Jamus Lim was also present.

Second, a survey by market research firm Ipsos, where fewer than half of the 500 people in Singapore that it polled said they support S377A. The proportion of respondents who support the law dropped to 44 per cent, down from the 55 per cent who said so in 2018 when a similar survey was conducted. The segment of people who oppose the law has grown, with one-fifth of respondents against it now, compared with 12 per cent in 2018.

About half of the respondents agree that same-sex couples should be allowed to either marry or gain some legal recognition of their union, while 27 per cent believe same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry here, a sentiment shared especially by young people aged 18 to 29 (43 per cent).

These figures demonstrate changing attitudes towards same-sex relationships. What's not so clear is whether the attitudes have shifted as significantly as this small-scale, online survey conducted in English suggests.

Speaking to the BBC's Stephen Sackur in a wide-ranging interview recently, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said it "seems to us a little bit of an outlier in the context of other surveys, internal and public, that we have".

"At the same time, I did say to you that attitudes are shifting, but I'm not quite sure they are shifting as much as what Ipsos has said," he said.

He added: "So we have arrived at this sort of messy compromise, the last 15 years, and we have taken this path because these issues are difficult."

But Singapore is relooking its laws, and engaging in a wide set of consultations to try and arrive at some sort of landing.

A sin is not a crime

Commentators and parliamentarians have argued at length, both for and against a repeal. I will not repeat these arguments. For me, the moment of clarity was Ambassador-at-Large Tommy Koh's Straits Times commentary in 2018. He wrote how former attorney-general Walter Woon pointed out that there is a fundamental difference between a sin and a crime.

Given that some religions consider many other things to be sins - from envy, drunkenness and being haughty, to lying and adultery - I continue to struggle with the question of consistency: why some sins, and not others, should form part of national laws that also apply to non-believers.

Professor Koh went on to remind readers that Singapore is a secular state, not a Christian country or a Muslim country: "It is not the business of the State to enforce the dogmas of those religions. In Singapore, there is a separation between religion and the State. Church leaders and Islamic leaders should respect that separation."

So why are some people still so against repealing S377A? One point keeps coming up in our conversations: the fear of downstream consequences. Specifically, they worry about the erosion of heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman - as provided for in the Women's Charter - as the fundamental building block of society. They are also concerned about what this means for the welfare of children both within and outside marriage.

Even if they accept the common sense of repealing a law which isn't enforced, they do not believe that the LGBTQ community will stop at the repeal of S377A once Singapore crosses the Rubicon.

Possible workarounds

I asked Singapore Management University associate professor of law Eugene Tan if there are any workarounds. He gave me two, albeit unsatisfactory ones.

One, amend S377A so that it applies to both men and women. This is one way to deal with any constitutional challenge premised on discrimination as per Article 12 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

A more precise cut is to remove the word "private" from S377A so it applies only to acts of gross indecency in public.

Currently under S377A, any man who commits an act of gross indecency with another man in public or in private can be jailed for up to two years. This extends to any man who abets such an act, procures or attempts to procure such an act.

These workarounds will probably not pass constitutional muster. The point is that there may be no legal compromises on S377A that would be acceptable to all stakeholders. This being the case, repealing S377A is still the "cleanest" option.

But the challenge is how to assure people that longstanding family policies will not be upended. This may mean preserving or strengthening the status quo on the institution of marriage and formation of family units.

For now, a detente has been provided by the apex court's ruling earlier this year, which Prof Tan considers an improvement on the earlier "live and let live" policy.

The Court of Appeal had ruled that S377A stays on the books but cannot be used to prosecute men for having gay sex. It held that S377A was "unenforceable in its entirety" until the Attorney-General of the day signals a change in the prosecutorial policy.

Ultimately, the real issue with S377A is not legal in nature, said Prof Tan.

"Any lasting solution will have to be extra-legal in essence, whereby the various concerns have to be addressed, enabling a societal consensus to be reached on how best to untie a proverbial Gordian knot."

Fairness and inclusion

Last month, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong launched a national engagement exercise called Forward Singapore, which will shed light on how different parts of society can better contribute to the country's shared goals, based on its values of a united people and a society that is just and equal.

Forward Singapore continues the theme of fairness and inclusion that is a hallmark of this country's transition to its fourth generation of leaders.

I hope that fairness and inclusion are also shown in Singaporeans' attitudes towards the LGBTQ community. I am curious to see what kind of landing point will emerge from the stakeholder consultations.

Each side has legitimate concerns, but life isn't about putting people in neat boxes. It is sprawling and messy, and we must listen to one another with good grace.

If we truly believe that faith, hope and love will prevail, surely, there can be room for give-and-take. Surely, we can arrive at a thoughtful and nuanced arrangement that makes Singapore a place for everyone.

graceho@sph com sg

Links:

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_(Singapore)

[Guest Try and see]

I think Grace Ho's son is indeed gay.

He'll probably come out "officially" to her later on.

Now he's just testing the water.

[Guest Try and see]

Sometimes, the people who profess to worship a God of love and mercy are the very ones who never show these attributes in their daily lives.

[Guest Try and see]

On 7/10/2022 at 1:39 PM, Since u r here said:

so young knew? test water?

 

Her son is nine.

I knew when I was seven 😜

[StockBottom]

Every few years msm will assign someone to write a sympathetic article like this, after some mild hooha, probably to let out some steam from both sides, everything will be forgotten again.

 

Nothing will change. Dun get your hopes up.

[Why?]

On 7/10/2022 at 1:29 PM, Guest Try and see said:

Sometimes, the people who profess to worship a God of love and mercy are the very ones who never show these attributes in their daily lives.

Our government is also not exempt from this kind of guilt.