HendryTan Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 Adam in a recent BW thread on challenging the constitutionality of section 377a posted a link to a Wikileak-USEmbassy article on the Singapore 2007 377a repeal.I am duplicating that wikileak article here as the link may not be permanent.Sourced from : http://cables.mrkva....e.php?id=135751-----------------------------------------------------------------------------US embassy cable - 07SINGAPORE2254NO BREAKTHROUGH IN 2007 FOR GAY RIGHTS IN SINGAPOREIdentifier: 07SINGAPORE2254Origin: Embassy SingaporeCreated: 2007-12-28 01:49:00Classification: CONFIDENTIALTags: PGOV PREL SOCI SNRedacted: This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks.VZCZCXRO0648RR RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM RUEHNHDE RUEHGP #2254/01 3620149ZNY CCCCC ZZHR 280149Z DEC 07FM AMEMBASSY SINGAPORETO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4648INFO RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVEC O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 SINGAPORE 002254SIPDISSIPDISE.O. 12958: DECL: 12/27/2017TAGS: PGOV, PREL, SOCI, SNSUBJECT: NO BREAKTHROUGH IN 2007 FOR GAY RIGHTS INSINGAPOREREF: A. SINGAPORE 1404 B. SINGAPORE 394Classified By: Ambassador Patricia L. Herbold for reason 1.4(d)1. (C ) Summary: 2007 turned out not to be the breakthroughyear for gay rights in Singapore that advocates had hoped itwould be. After an extended and spirited public debatefueled by founding father Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), Singaporeretained a statute (Section 377A) banning sex between men. Aseries of surprising LKY public statements early this yearhad energized activists, who hoped to take advantage of acomprehensive overhaul of the Penal Code to repeal Section377A. An online repeal petition drew support, especiallyfrom among the professional classes, and then was submittedduring parliamentary debate by a "nominated" (i.e., appointedand nonpartisan) MP. But ruling and opposition party MP'sfought back, saying they were sticking up for theconservative "heartland." In announcing the outcome, PrimeMinister Lee Hsien Loong indicated the law would eventuallybe changed and, meanwhile, not be enforced -- an unusualapproach in legalistic Singapore. LKY had foreshadowed thatprecise approach months earlier. End Summary.Lee Kuan Yew: the Liberalizer?------------------------------2. (C ) 2007 turned out not to be a breakthrough year for gayrights in Singapore, disappointing advocates who had hopedfor a major change. Since Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loongcame to office in 2004, the Government of Singapore (GOS) hasconsciously loosened social controls in an effort to give thecountry a reputation for "buzz," even as the government hasmaintained tight political controls (Ref B.) The governmenthas promoted the arts, licensed casinos, permitted racybillboards, and even allowed topless revues. This could nothave happened without at least the tacit approval of MinisterMentor Lee Kuan Yew, who still towers over Singapore publiclife seventeen years after passing on the premiership.Still, some have wondered how comfortable LKY is with thesechanges, given his reputation for "Victorian" sensibilities.3. (SBU) So it was a bit surprising when LKY helped spark apublic debate through a series of public comments abouthomosexuality, beginning with a meeting early this year withyoung ruling party activists at a popular night club. Asreported in the press, LYK told the group, "You take thisbusiness of homosexuality. If in fact it is true that youare genetically born a homosexual because that's the natureof the genetic random transmission of genes, you can't helpit. So why should we criminalize it? You have to take apractical, pragmatic approach to what I see is an inevitableforce of time and circumstance." In August, LKY told NewYork Times interviewers that liberalized policies toward gaysin Singapore was a "matter of time." But due to thesensitivities of "conservative older" Muslim, Chinese andIndian segments of the population, Singapore would take an"ambiguous" position, he added. "We say, O.K., leave themalone, but let's leave the law as it is for the time being."Petitioning the GOS-------------------4. (C ) Notwithstanding LKY's foreshadowing of the outcome,activists and bloggers quickly took up the cause in an effortto have Article 377A, banning sex between men, repealed aspart of the broader penal code reform. (Note: There is noprovision of law in Singapore that bans sex between women,but the idea that Article 377A involves gender discriminationagainst men did not become a significant issue in the Article377A debate. End Note.) An on-line petition appeared on agay rights group website, Global Voices Online, and waswidely circulated by email, eventually garnering nearly 3,000signatures. While political apathy is the norm in Singapore,many noteworthy citizens signed the petition, includingmultinational company executives, engineers, teachers, localmedia celebrities, as well as civil society activists. AlexAu, co-founder of the gay rights organization "People LikeUs", told us he was pleased with the public response, andnoted that previous on-line petitions had not beenparticularly effective in promoting change.No Repeal---------5. (SBU) However, in the weeks leading up to theparliamentary session, local media began to carry stories onthe conservative views of Singaporeans and their strongsupport for traditional family values. Thegovernment-influenced Straits Times newspaper published asurvey reporting that over two-thirds of Singaporeans heldnegative attitudes toward homosexuality. MP Sin Boon AnnSINGAPORE 00002254 002 OF 003observed in the article that the survey reflected thetraditional values of Singaporeans. After a long period ofpublic comment, the GOS submitted to Parliament in Octoberthe final draft Penal Code revision bill, which retainedSection 377A.Backing Up the GOS Position---------------------------6. (U) When Parliament debated the Penal Code revision billand NMP Siew Kum Hong's petition later the same day, nineruling People's Action Party (PAP) MPs joined the debate tosupport retention of Section 377A. The MPs said the petitionhad prompted residents in their wards to contact them toexpress their support for keeping the ban. MP Dr. MuhammadFaishal claimed the Malay/Muslim community wanted to preservethe traditional family unit at a time when it is threatenedby rising divorce rates, single-parent households and workpressure. MP Ong Kian Min insisted that, "Singaporeanssimply are not ready to change their family values andendorse homosexuality as normal." MP Hri Kumar agreed withkeeping Section 377A, but noted that it was "virtuallyimpossible" to enforce (There were only eight convictionsunder 377A from 1988 to 2003, according to press reports.)Perhaps the most impassioned speech in the parliamentarydebate was given by NMP Thio Li-ann, who made headlines bylikening anal sex to "shoving a straw up your nose to drink."Thio warned that repeal of 377A would be only the beginningof efforts to "subvert social morality" in Singapore. Shewas called names and received hate mail and even a deaththreat (decidedly un-Singaporean behavior), but told themedia that the vast majority of the correspondence shereceived encouraged her to "stand firm" in upholding herconvictions. The revised Penal Code, including 377A, passedwith only one dissenting vote, that of NMP Siew who hadsubmitted the on-line petition to Parliament.Because I Told You So---------------------7. (C ) Alex Au told us that in a meeting of "People Like Us"with several MPs following the parliamentary session, he hadasked how they knew that the majority of their constituentshad a negative view of homosexuality and whether they hadused polling to solicit opinions. The MPs had responded thatsenior ministers in the government had told them it was so."Presumably," Au said, "the senior ministers will also tellthem when the majority of Singaporeans are ready to acceptthe gay community." Even some PAP MPs are not happy with theGOS position. MP Charles Chong told us he backed the repeal.Simply relying on the view of the "majority" of Singaporeanswas faulty as they had also supported some "reprehensible"laws which had allowed rape in marriage, argued MP Chong.Opposition Lines Up with Government-----------------------------------8. (SBU) Singapore's only two opposition MPs joined the GOSin opposing the petition. Non-Constituency MP and Workers'Party Chairman Sylvia Lim voted against it and said inParliament that "...after much deliberation, we are unable toarrive at consensus that it (Section 377A) should berepealed." Workers' Party MP Low Thia Kiang even praised thegovernment for its handling of the debate as a "sign ofgreater openness." He added that people are "more vocal andmore comfortable to air their views in public" and went on tosay that he would never "oppose the government simply for thesake of opposing."Mobilizing the Heartland------------------------9. (C ) MP Cynthia Phua told us she was pleased that thepublic debate took place. The grassroots network kicked inonce the heartland heard about the petition to repeal Section377A and people organized themselves so that their voiceswere heard, she said. Phua thought this boded well for thefuture. The political scene in Singapore, she asserted, is"more transparent and inclusive" than when she enteredParliament more than a decade ago. "Step by step, they arelearning to take an active role in civil society." However,MP Lim Biow Chuan told us that the job of the government inSingapore is "to decide what is best for the people and thenconvince them to go along."Change Will Come, Just Later----------------------------10. (U) After the decision to retain Article 377A, PM Lee,who remained silent during Parliament's first day of debate,told a group of university students that Singapore had tobalance between maintaining traditional, heterosexual valuesSINGAPORE 00002254 003 OF 003and giving homosexuals space to live their lives. Untilthere is a broader consensus on decriminalizing homosexualsex, Singapore will stick to the status quo," he said.However, at the close of theParliamentary debate, PM Lee assured citizens that while thestatute would remain on the books, the law would not beactively enforced.Comment-------11. (C ) The unusually spirited public debate over repeal ofArticle 377A reflects an ongoing "social opening" as the GOStries to recast Singapore as a cutting edge (as well asstable and secure) place to visit and live. Morecharacteristically, it was part of carefully managedpolitical exercise in which senior GOS leaders establishedthe parameters of discourse and then steered the machinery ofgovernment to a preordained outcome. LKY's prominent rolesuggests he remains, even in semi-retirement, the brains andmaster tactician behind Singapore's social engineering.However surprising his nod toward gay rights, his solutionwas vintage LKY; i.e., utterly pragmatic. As he told the NewYork Times in a recent, unrelated interview, Singapore must"go in whatever direction world conditions dictate"; if weare not connected to this modern world" we'll go back to thefishing village we once were." In effect, the GOS message togay activists was "yes, the ban on homosexuality is unfairand will be repealed in time; in the meantime, we'll leaveyou alone."Visit Embassy Singapore's Classified website:http://www.state.sgo...p/singapore/ind ex.cfmHERBOLD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jayy Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 Thanks for this post, Hendry.As reported in the press, LYK told the group, "You take thisbusiness of homosexuality. If in fact it is true that youare genetically born a homosexual because that's the natureof the genetic random transmission of genes, you can't helpit. So why should we criminalize it? You have to take apractical, pragmatic approach to what I see is an inevitableforce of time and circumstance." Actually I've always had beef with this argument about 'oh you shouldn't criminalize homosexuality because we didn't choose to be gay'. Does this mean that it should be a crime if a person chooses to be homosexual? Perhaps the most impassioned speech in the parliamentarydebate was given by NMP Thio Li-ann, who made headlines bylikening anal sex to "shoving a straw up your nose to drink." How did this fxxker get away with comments like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clickclock Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 I can't put my opinion into words, so here's an image i've drawn orca888 1 I draw sexy men, visit http://www.toastwire.tumblr.com click on 'My Artworks'. Willing to take on comissions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suckling_pig Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Love the pic !!! But the way recent events are going looks like 377A is going to be brought down by a different route - struck down by the courts. This is a fuller description: To rule a country, a LEGISLATURE is elected as a parliament which MAKES laws. The legislature can remove a law by REPEAL, but in our case, the PAP doesnt want to do it cos it will cause them votes. But the same law can be rendered inoperable (struck down) by a non elected JUDICIARY. This is exactly what is pending at the Court of Appeal. But whether the PAP government is encouraging the judiciary to do so, i cannot say. We see things not as they are, but as WE are - The TalmudWhen the student is ready, the teacher will appear - The Buddha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmpb Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 can't help but love the pic http://thecolouredpencil.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clickclock Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 thanks =) I draw sexy men, visit http://www.toastwire.tumblr.com click on 'My Artworks'. Willing to take on comissions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gstc82 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 i do not call friends of family 'dumbass' if they vote for the PAP or opposition. to each his choice, respect each others choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orca888 Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 A picture tells a thousand words - well done...even though it is a bit sad Am I falling for a bi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suckling_pig Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Click clock,Lets hope in a few months, if 377A is struck down, you can draw another picture with the wall broken by a judge's gavel !!I will then print it out, frame it and hang it on my living room wall (with your permission of course !)SP We see things not as they are, but as WE are - The TalmudWhen the student is ready, the teacher will appear - The Buddha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts