Is It Legal To Have Gay Sex In Singapore?

[orangair]

I know many man have sex with man, the question is, is it legal?

Can you get charged for telling the police you have sex with a man?

If neighbor caught you having sex with another man, and call police, police found you lying on a bed with another man naked, will you be charged?

[raind]

by law, man having sex with man is not allowed under section 377A.

but the key issue here is, so what if it is illegal? are you going to stop doing it?

and while at it, are you going to do it in front of your neighbours?

personally, i think we are just too caught up with this legality issue and all, and sometimes, i think it is we who cannot accept ourselves and that we push the blame to others (such as the government, the family, culture, etc etc etc) as a cover up for our own non-acceptance of ourselves...

no?

[tom88s]

If yr btm call his ass-hole as pussy/cheepei , it is legal, because fxxking a pussy is legal . :clap:

[Guest Guest]

feels so demoralizing to know that making sweet love to the guy you truly love .. is a crime. somehow cheapens your love, totally invalidates your feelings and makes you feel so much less worthy as a human being. It's a legal form of oppression of the minority.

[Guest Cat on a Hot Tin Roof]

I believe it is alright as long as "it is done between two consent adults (above 18), behind closed doors (in private), not to the annoyance (or disturbance) of others". The law does not want to interfere that much, it is a live-and-let-live kind of situation. I remember our former PM, Mr LKY has answered to a question similar to this in one of his press interview.

That means no sex with underage (for both str8s and gays). make the move only when you are sure they are PLUs (and not just touch anyone cute / good looking or simply your cup of tea) along a urinal even if they steal a glimpse of your dick, , not in public places (toilets, swimming pool toilets, bushes, car parks, staircase landings, parks .Even if it is behind closed doors , please use "silencers" or cover your mouth with a sanitary pad before you moan and groan in digital sense-surround sound (louder than a woman , your neighbour's wife or the cat on the roof-top) , to the annoyance of others.

[dazza1201]

Simple straight-forward answer - YES. It is illegal in Singapore, whether in public OR in private, and consent is irrelevant. The law is very clear.

What has also been stated by the PM on the floor of Parliament is that it is the policy of the government not to enforce 377A. In one recent incident where the prosecutor had charged a person under 377A, the AG's department intervened to change the charge.

Do the police know such illegal activities are going on - you bet they do. They raid all the saunas enough to know - but remember those raids are drug raids, not illegal sex raids.

Is this a satisfactory position to be in? No. But until 377A is repealed, or is struck down by the Court of Appeal, this sword of Damocles hangs over us.

[orangair]

If you are having sex in the sauna, the police come to raid, will you get charged then? I seen newspaper reports before that people get charged, may be they get charged for drug, but what about gay sex?

[Guest sushibomb]

Why gay sex is illegal? Is Singapore moslem country?

[Guest GAM]

Got this info from : http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_1998/yax-127.htm

LKY answered this during CNN's Live Interview, not in Parliament

The gay issue : When state bureaucracy fails to live up to fair-minded political leadership

In a CNN interview, a gay Singaporean called in to ask Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew if there was a future for homosexuals in the Republic. Mr Lee's answer was encouraging to gay Singaporeans and all the more refreshing given that local media tend to leave the topic well alone or shy away from the reasonable position taken by SM Lee. Given Singapore's political culture, it would require the SM to say what he said before this issue can be dealt with constructively.

SM's position is that how acceptable homosexuality is is a matter for society rather than the government to decide. He added that his government has been leaving "people to live their own lives so long as they don't impinge on other people."

These are thoughtful words and therefore deserves more than just a blanket acceptance that if the SM said so, let it be so. If we Singaporeans are so intellectually lazy, thoughtful words by political leaders would be wasted on us. It is in that spirit that this column is being written.

I believe there is a need to understand the nexus between societal opinion and state. The two are not completely independent of each other.

The question of whether society considers homosexuality acceptable is complex. If it could be aggregated as an index at all, I suspect that index of acceptability is a shifting one as Singapore society undergoes the changes that come with education and contact with a fast changing world.

In the past, opinion on homosexuality was heavily weighted towards the disapproving end, and when virtually no gay persons were out enough to make a stand, there simply wasn't any gay issue to be tackled.

Today, the younger and more cosmopolitan sections of our population, exposed to the thinking and trends from abroad, are increasingly migrating to a more liberal and tolerant viewpoint. They see realistic portrayals of gay persons and get to know that homosexuality is never a choice for anyone. It's a given.

The two ends of the population arrive at such different conclusions simply because they start from very different perceptions. This gap is deepened by the lack of local information and discussion of the subject. One side gets its information from abroad, the other gets its information from the past.

Far from leading to a resolution of the question, present trends may point to it becoming more contentious.

What is needed is for this society to be open to discussion about homosexuality so that at least people can start from a more informed basis. This then begs questions of the role of the media, and access to books, films and other resources in Singapore. Partly, self-censorship may be inhibiting us from addressing homosexuality, or bringing in materials touching on the subject. But quite obviously too, the limits set by the government, real or perceived, play an important part.

The government sets the climate in countless ways. They vary from petty bureaucratic action to longstanding laws in the statute books.

The film 'Happy Together', about a gay couple trying hard to stay in love, was barred from commercial release by the censorship board. It had won the Best Director Prize at Cannes. It wasn't pxxnographic. It had one scene of the two men making love, without frontal nudity and with less explicitness than many other films screened in Singapore showing heterosexual sex. Had it been shown, it would have provoked thought about the ups and downs of gay relationships. Instead, its banning just reinforced gay Singaporeans' view that they have no future in Singapore.

In 1996/7, ten citizens applied to register their society called People Like Us, with the aim of helping gay and lesbian Singaporeans lead more positive lives. This kind of self-help group is what civil society is supposed to be made of. However, registration was denied. No reason was ever given.

One can speculate that because sections 377 and 377(a) of the Penal Code make homosexual acts criminal, it is impossible for the government to condone such a group. However, the logic is difficult to understand. It may be illegal to sell cigarettes to children, but it can't mean that it is illegal to organise a group to discuss the subject, or to work with children who do smoke.

In any case, the law itself is also an issue. The law is highly intrusive into private lives, since it applies even when homosexual sex takes place in the bedroom. To live up to the Senior Minister's assurance that the government will "leave people to live their own lives", this law needs to be repealed.

Remaining on the statute books, the law does more harm than good. A few years ago, there was a case in which a lawyer was charged even when he had consensual sex with another man, in a bedroom. Because the other man was the complainant, he wasn't charged. Ultimately the judge acquitted the defendant, but by then his career had been seriously compromised by the case.

The law also creates a climate in which people feel justified in showing all sorts of petty discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens. It buttresses prejudice and intolerance.

It may be argued that the family is central to our cultural values and that homosexuality is inimical to the family, hence intolerance serves a useful purpose. However, intolerance makes sense only if sexual orientation is a habit or a choice, like drink driving. Then through law and social pressure, people can be persuaded to be heterosexual. But since sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not a choice, but an innate part of one's person, like left-handedness or musical talent, then intolerance has very perverse effects. Sons and daughters who happen to be gay are ostracised, and instead of strengthening families, we fracture them.

Two themes that the SM touched on in his CNN interview, albeit in relation to other questions, are also relevant here. The first is that culture goes very deep. Asian communities do not behave exactly the same way as Western communities. The second is that throughout his career, he has striven to make Singaporeans realistic. Bring these two together, and one can understand his statement that an aggressive gay rights movement would not help. But movements don't always have to be aggressive. Singapore has plenty of examples of movements that are moderate, but still beaver away at their mission. There is AWARE, the women's movement, various religious or cultural groups, and other groups like the Nature Society and the Heritage Society.

Sometimes they are in disagreement with the government, occasionally vocally so, but they don't necessarily emulate the tactics of the greens, feminists or black power movements from the West. Our local movements are coloured by the culture of our country. Likewise, there is no reason to assume the worst of an emerging gay movement in Singapore.

Yes, SM Lee is right to say the key issue is how ready Singapore society is to accept gay persons. But government comes in many layers, and sometimes the lower layers of the state bureaucracy has not lived up to his fair-minded and sensible vision. So, on a day to day level, gay and lesbian Singaporeans can feel very aggrieved.

And that would have been why the caller asked SM Lee, " ... if there is a future at all?"

At the same time as I sent the column to the editor

[Guest GAM]

Another one from Reuters :

(Reuters) - Singapore's powerful former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, acknowledging the view that some people are genetically destined to be homosexual, has questioned the city-state's ban on sex between men.

"If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual -- because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes -- you can't help it. So why should we criminalize it?" Monday's Straits Times, quoted Lee as saying.

Under Singapore law, a man who is found to have committed an act of "gross indecency" with another man can be jailed for up to two years, though prosecutions are rare.

But Lee -- who remains the most powerful minister in the cabinet of his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong -- said Singapore should not actively pursue homosexuals who engage in sex. Lee said that while homosexuality was not widely accepted in Singapore, authorities must take a pragmatic approach.

"Let's not go around like this moral police ... barging into people's rooms. That's not our business," he told a weekend meeting with the youth wing of the People's Action Party, Singapore's ruling political party.

[dazza1201]

The Prime Minister's speech was archived at Yawning Bread too: http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2007/imp-360.htm

The Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong):

Mr Speaker, Sir, this parliamentary debate is on the amendments to the Penal Code, but the hottest debate is on one section which is not being amended - section 377A. Both Mr Siew Kum Hong and Prof. Thio Li-ann quoted me with approval in their speeches yesterday, so I think I should state my position and the Government's position on this matter.

Because of the review of the Penal Code and the amendments, I think the gay community and the activists have staged a push to get the Government to open this subject and to abolish section 377A. They have written an open letter to me as Prime Minister, they have also petitioned Parliament on this issue on the grounds of constitutional validity, and the constitutional argument was made by Mr Siew Kum Hong yesterday in Parliament. I do not have to go into the details. It was rebutted very cogently by Ms Indranee Rajah and very passionately by Prof. Thio Li-ann. They are not my legal advisers. I take my legal advice from the Attorney-General and his advice to the Government is quite clear.

The continued retention of section 377A would not be a contravention of the Constitution.

The Government has not taken this matter lightly. We had a long discussion amongst the Ministers. We had an extensive public consultation on the Penal Code amendments and we decided on this issue - to leave things be.

Let me, today, focus on the policy issue - what we want the law to be, and explain our thinking, our considerations, why we came to this conclusion. I would ask these questions: what is our attitude towards homosexuality? "Our", meaning the Government's attitude and Singaporeans' attitude too. How should these attitudes and these values be reflected in our legislation?

Many Members have said this, but it is true and it is worth saying again. Singapore is basically a conservative society. The family is the basic building block of our society. It has been so and, by policy, we have reinforced this and we want to keep it so. And by "family" in Singapore, we mean one man one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit.

If we look at the way our Housing and Development Board flats are, our neighbourhoods, our new towns, they are, by and large, the way Singaporeans live. It is not so in other countries, particularly in the West, anymore, but it is here.

I acknowledge that not everybody fits into this mould. Some are single, some have more colourful lifestyles, some are gay. But a heterosexual stable family is a social norm. It is what we teach in schools. It is also what parents want their children to see as their children grow up, to set their expectations and encourage them to develop in this direction. I think the vast majority of Singaporeans want to keep it this way. They want to keep our society like this, and so does the Government.

But, at the same time, we should recognise that homosexuals are part of our society. They are our kith and kin. This is not just in Singapore. This is so in every society, in every period of history, back to pre-historic times, or at least as long as there have been records - biblical times and probably before.

What makes a person gay or homosexual? Well, partly, it could be the social environment. If we look at the ancient Greeks and Romans, it was quite normal for men to have homosexual relationships - an older man with a young boy. It does not mean that that was all they did - they had wives and children. But, socially, that was the practice. So, I think, the social environment has something to do with it. But there is growing scientific evidence that sexual orientation is something which is substantially inborn. I know that some will strongly disagree with this, but the evidence is accumulating. We can read the arguments and the debates on the Internet. Just to take one provocative fact, homosexual behaviour is not observed only amongst human beings but also amongst many species of mammals.

So too in Singapore, there is a small percentage of people, both male and female, who have homosexual orientations. They include people "who are often responsible, invaluable, and highly respected contributing members of society". I quote from the open letter which the petitioners have written to me, and it is true. They include people who are responsible and valuable, highly respected contributing members of society. And I would add that among them are some of our friends, our relatives, our colleagues, our brothers and sisters, or some of our children.

They too must have a place in this society, and they too are entitled to their private lives. We should not make it harder than it already is for them to grow up and to live in a society where they are different from most Singaporeans. And we also do not want them to leave Singapore to go to more congenial places to live. But homosexuals should not set the tone for Singapore society. Nor do we consider homosexuals a minority, in the sense that we consider, say, Malays and Indians as minorities, with minority rights protected under the law - languages taught in schools, cultures celebrated by all races, representation guaranteed in Parliament through GRCs and so on. And this is the point which Ms Indranee Rajah made yesterday in a different way.

This is the way Singapore society is today. This is the way the majority of Singaporeans want it to be. So, we should strive to maintain a balance, to uphold a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values, but with space for homosexuals to live their lives and contribute to the society.

We have gradually been making progress towards achieving a closer approximation to this balance over the years. I do not think we will ever get a perfect balance, but I think we have a better arrangement now than was the case 10 or 20 years ago.

Homosexuals work in all sectors, all over the economy, in the public sector and in the civil service as well. They are free to lead their lives, free to pursue their social activities. But there are restraints and we do not approve of them actively promoting their lifestyles to others, or setting the tone for mainstream society. They live their lives. That is their personal life, it is their space. But the tone of the overall society, I think remains conventional, it remains straight, and we want it to remain so.

So, for example, the recent case of Mr Otto Fong, who is a teacher in Raffles Institution. He is gay and he is a good teacher by all accounts. He put up a blog which described his own sexual inclinations, and explained how he was gay. He circulated to his colleagues and it became public. So MOE looked at this. The school spoke to the teacher. The teacher understood that this was beyond the limit, because how he lives is his own thing. But what he disseminates comes very close to promoting a lifestyle. So, they spoke to him, he took down his blog. He posted an explanation, he apologised for what he had done, and he continues teaching in RI today. So there is space, and there are limits.

De facto, gays have a lot of space in Singapore. Gay groups hold public discussions. They publish websites. I have visited some of them. There are films and plays on gay themes. In fact, sometimes people ask, "Why are there so many? Aren't there other subjects in the world?" But since we have allowed it in the last few years, maybe this is a letting off of pressure. Eventually, we will find a better balance.

There are gay bars and clubs. They exist. We know where they are. Everybody knows where they are. They do not have to go underground. We do not harass gays. The Government does not act as moral policemen. And we do not proactively enforce section 377A on them.

But this d oes not mean that we have reached a broad social consensus, that this is a happy state of affairs, because there are still very different views amongst Singaporeans on whether homosexuality is acceptable or morally right. And we heard these views aired in Parliament over these last two days.

Some are convinced, passionately so, that homosexuality is an abomination, to quote Prof. Thio Li-ann's words yesterday. Others, probably many more, are uncomfortable with homosexuals, more so with public display of homosexual behaviour. Yet others are more tolerant and accepting.

There is a range of views. There is also a range of degrees to which people are seized with this issue. Many people are not that seized with this issue. And speaking candidly, I think the people who are very seized with this issue are a minority. For the majority of Singaporeans - this is something that they are aware of but it is not the top of their consciousness - including, I would say, amongst them a significant number of gays themselves. But, also, I would say amongst the Chinese speaking community in Singapore. The Chinese speaking Singaporeans are not strongly engaged, either for removing section 377A or against removing section 377A. Their attitude is: live and let live. So, even in this debate in these two days, Members would have noticed that there have been very few speeches made in Parliament in Mandarin on this subject. I know Mr Baey Yam Keng made one this afternoon, but Mr Low Thia Khiang did not. It reflects the focus of the Chinese speaking ground and their mindsets. So, for the majority of Singaporeans, their attitude is a pragmatic one. We live and let live.

The current legal position in Singapore reflects these social norms and attitudes, as Ms Indranee Rajah and Mr Hri Kumar explained yesterday. It is not legally neat and tidy. Mr Hri Kumar gave a very professional explanation of how untidy it is, but it is a practical arrangement that has evolved out of our historical circumstances. We are not starting from a blank slate, trying to design an ideal arrangement; neither are we proposing new laws against homosexuality. We have what we have inherited and what we have adapted to our circumstances. And as Mr Hri Kumar pointed out, we inherited section 377A from the British, imported from English Victorian law - Victorian from the period of Queen Victoria in the 19th century - via the Indian Penal Code, via the Straits Settlements Penal Code, into Singapore law.

Asian societies do not have such laws, not in Japan, China and Taiwan. But it is part of our landscape. We have retained it over the years. So, the question is: what do we want to do about it now? Do we want to do anything about it now? If we retain it, we are not enforcing it proactively. Nobody has argued for it to be enforced very vigorously in this House. If we abolish it, we may be sending the wrong signal that our stance has changed, and the rules have shifted.

But because of the Penal Code amendments, section 337A has become a symbolic issue, a point for both opponents and proponents to tussle around. The gayactivists want it removed. Those who are against gay values and lifestyle argue strongly to retain it. And both sides have mobilised to campaign for their causes. There was a Petition to remove section 377A. It accumulated a couple of thousand signatures which was presented to this House. Therefore, there was a counter-petition to retain it, which collected 15,000 signatures - at least, according to the newspapers. I have not counted the signatures - 16,000.

An hon. Member: 15,560.

The Prime Minister: 15,560 signatures. It has probably gone up since we last started speaking. There was also an open letter to me. The Ministers and I have received many emails and letters on this subject. I have received emails too in my mail box, very well written, all following a certain model answer style.

So it is a very well organised campaign. And not only writing letters, but constituents have visited MPs at meet-the-people sessions to see the MP, not because there is anything they want done, but to congratulate the MP on what a good Government this is, that we are keeping section 377A, and please stay a good Government, and please do not change it.

I do not doubt the depth of the sentiments and the breadth of the support but it is also a very well organised pressure campaign. But I am not surprised that this issue is still contentious, because even in the West, even where they have liberalised, homosexuality still remains a very contentious issue. They decriminalised homosexual acts decades ago, in the 1960s, 1970s, and they have gone a long way towards accepting gays in society. They not only have gays in prominent places, but if you want to have a complete Cabinet or a complete line-up when you go for elections, you must have some on your list so that you are seen to have been inclusive. This is certainly so in Europe, also true in America.

But still the issue is bitterly disputed. So in America, there are fierce debates over gay rights and same- sex marriages. And the conservatives in America are pushing back. President George Bush has been calling for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and not between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. This is in America. So the issue is still joined. Even within the churches, it is a hot subject. The Anglican Church, Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, had liberal views on gay issues. He became the Archbishop. He has moderated his views, because he has to reflect the Church as a whole. And even within the church, the Church in England, and the Church in America have a very serious disagreement with the Anglican churches in Asia and in Africa, who almost split away on this issue of ordination of gay people as bishops. And they have patched up in a compromise recently in America and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is head of the church, had to plead with his community to come to some understanding so that they maintain the Anglican communion.

So, this is not an issue where we can reach happy consensus and abolishing section 377A, were we to do this, is not going to end the argument in Singapore. Among the conservative Singaporeans, the deep concerns over the moral values of society will remain and among the gay rights' activists, abolition is not going to give them what they want because what they want is not just to be freed from section 377A, but more space and full acceptance by other Singaporeans. And they have said so. So, supposing we move on 377A, I think the gay activists would push for more, following the example of other avant garde countries in Europe and America, to change what is taught in the schools, to advocate same-sex marriages and parenting, to ask for, to quote from their letter, "...exactly the same rights as a straight man or woman." This is quoting from the open letter which the petitioners wrote to me. And when it comes to these issues, the majority of Singaporeans will strenuously oppose these follow-up moves by the gay campaigners and many who are not anti-gay will be against this agenda, and I think for good reason.

Therefore, we have decided to keep the status quo on section 377A. It is better to accept the legal untidiness and the ambiguity. It works, do not disturb it. Mr Stewart Koe, who is one of the petitioners, was interviewed yesterday and he said he wanted the Government to remove the ambiguity and clarify matters. He said the current situation is like, I quote him, "Having a gun put to your head and not pulling the trigger. Either put the gun down or pull the trigger." First of all, I do not think it is like that, and secondly, I do not think it is wise to try to force the issue. If you try and force the issue and settle the matter definitively, one way or the other, we are never going to reach an agreement within Singapore society. People on both sides hold strong views. People who are presently willing to live and let live will get polarised and no views will change, because many of the people who oppose it do so on very deeply held religious convictions, particularly the Christians and the Muslims and those who propose it on the other side, they also want this as a matter of deeply felt fundamental principles. So, discussion and debate is not going to bring them closer together. And instead of forging a consensus we will divide and polarise our society.

I should therefore say that as a matter of reality, that the more the gay activists push this agenda, the stronger will be the push back from conservative forces in our society, as we are beginning to see already in this debate and over the last few weeks and months. And the result will be counter productive because it is going to lead to less space for the gay community in Singapore. So it is better to let the situation evolve gradually. We are a completely open society. Members have talked about it - the Internet, travel, full exposure. We cannot be impervious to what is happening elsewhere. As attitudes around the world change, this will influence the attitude of Singaporean. As developments around the world happen, we must watch carefully and decide what we do about it. When it comes to issues like the economy, technology, education, we better stay ahead of the game, watch where people are moving and adapt faster than others, ahead of the curve, leading the pack. And when necessary in such issues, we will move even if the issue is unpopular or controversial. So we are moving on CPF changes, we are moving on so many economic restructuring changes. We moved on IRs - it is a difficult subject, not everybody supports the Government, but we decide this is right, we move.

On issues of moral values with consequences to the wider society, first we should also decide what is right for ourselves, but secondly, before we are carried away by what other societies do, I think it is wiser for us to observe the impact of radical departures from the traditional norms on early movers. These are changes which have very long lead times before the impact works through, before you see whether it is wise or unwise. Is this positive? Does it help you to adapt better? Does it lead to a more successful, happier, more harmonious society?

So, we will let others take the lead, we will stay one step behind the front line of change; watch how things work out elsewhere before we make any irrevocable moves. We were right to uphold the family unit when western countries went for experimental lifestyles in the 1960s - the hippies, free love, all the rage, we tried to keep it out. It was easier then, all you had were LPs and 45 RPM records, not this cable vision, the Internet and travel today. But I am glad we did that, because today if you look at Western Europe, the marriage as an institution is dead. Families have broken down, the majority of children are born out of wedlock and live in families where the father and the mother are not the husband and wife living together and bringing them up. And we have kept the way we are. I think that has been right.

I think we have also been right to adapt, to accommodate homosexuals in our society, but not to allow or encourage activists to champion gay rights as they do in the West. So I suggest, Mr Speaker, and I suggest to the Members of the House, we keep this balance, leave section 377A alone. I think there is space in Singapore and room for us to live harmoniously and practically, all as Singapore citizens together. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

[Anonymously]

If it's illegal to sex,is it illegal go jo together? 

[Cube3]

On 02/02/2016 at 6:30 PM, Anonymously said:

If it's illegal to sex,is it illegal go jo together? 

 

Hmmm...jerking off is not sodomy, so should not be covered under 377A?

[benedict5856]

its illegal.

But police will not come catch them.

Police are not that dumb that they dunno there are many gay sauna or when 2 men checking into hotel for 2 hours.

 

My friend went to jail for JO with another guy in a public toilet. I attended the hearings. The reason he went to sit for 3 months, is not bcas he had fun with the guy as both agreed to it, not bcas its a public place, BUT bcas the other guy was a minor, 15 years old.

The judge did not penalise him bcas he is gay, or what he has done in private but bcas of minor. 3 months, sitting in a tiny room in darkness.

[Guest Glyph]

43 minutes ago, Cube3 said:

Hmmm...jerking off is not sodomy, so should not be covered under 377A?

 

SMH...

 

377A.  Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

 

Penetration, oral, even prolonged kisses between two man can be loosely categorised as "an act of gross indecency".

[fab]

as long as u do it behind in privacy behind your closed door, i believe no one will wanna prosecute u.

[xboyhunk]

4 hours ago, fab said:

as long as u do it behind in privacy behind your closed door, i believe no one will wanna prosecute u.

 

Behind closed door or not, it doesn't matter. If the law says it's illegal, it's illegal. Drug junkies abuse drugs behind closed doors and they will be prosecuted when caught. With 377A, others have the option to prosecute. Gays are at their mercy. Only by removing 377A will gay sex not be illegal.

[Cube3]

Ouch.

[Nipoet]

17 hours ago, xboyhunk said:

 

Behind closed door or not, it doesn't matter. If the law says it's illegal, it's illegal. Drug junkies abuse drugs behind closed doors and they will be prosecuted when caught. With 377A, others have the option to prosecute. Gays are at their mercy. Only by removing 377A will gay sex not be illegal.

 

/\

This. Illegal, but the police have the "flexibility" of whether to catch or not. We will forever be under their whim until that particular section is repealed.

[HendryTan]

There are some mention of "in private".

 

As defined by law: 

“public place” means any place or premises to which at the material time the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission;

 

As such a sauna room, an expensive hotel room with door locked are all considered public place in the eyes of the law.

 

 

[xboyhunk]

11 minutes ago, HendryTan said:

There are some mention of "in private".

 

As defined by law: 

“public place” means any place or premises to which at the material time the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission;

 

As such a sauna room, an expensive hotel room with door locked are all considered public place in the eyes of the law.

 

 

 

Yes. Public toilet cubicle with a closed door is still public. If others own the place, it's not your private space. 377A makes it even worse as it takes effect in private places too.

Edited February 5, 2016 by xboyhunk

[Guest Glyph]

There's really not much point in debating the definition of a public or private place/area/compound since 377A penalises gay sex in both. However, do note that the definition of "public place" in the eyes of law may differ depending on which act it is classified under, especially if specified otherwise.

 

As quoted by @HendryTan, in the case of "Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order And Nuisance) Act" under Singapore law, a public place is;

 

any place or premises to which at the material time the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission

 

but in the case of Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act 2015 under Singapore law, a public place is more specifically;

(a) any premises to which members of the public or a section of the public have access as of right or by virtue of any express or implied permission, whether or not on payment of a fee and whether or not access to the premises may be restricted at particular times or for particular purposes, and whether or not it is an approved place within the meaning of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (Cap. 257); or

(b) a part of any premises that the occupier of the premises allows members of the public to enter, but only while that part is ordinarily open to members of the public;

 

A public place is not to be confused with a privately-owned public place or a private place. A public place is, generally speaking, a place you are free to be at with no restrictions other than the governing entity known as the police, as in the case of Misc. Offences. A privately-owned public space would be something like a shopping mall, where it is a space that you are free to enter but additionally subjected to the respective authority's own set of rules and regulations. Areas in hotels, saunas, even a chalet, where access is restricted from public are considered private places.

 

To quote from the ST article regarding the alcohol supply and consumption act;

 

A public place is where a person has free access, like HDB void decks, parks, or beaches. Condominiums and chalets are considered private places.

 

More importantly, the state of being "private" is also loosely defined as not being in plain sight. So you can't make out in your own room with windows wide open and say it's okay cause it's done in a private place when the auntie at the block across spots you.

[Guest]

The same question, is jaywalking illegal. Yes it is, period. You don't have to be caught to make it illegal, the act of doing it in itself is illegal.

[Guest]

Hello. I'm a foreigner planning to go Singapore this coming week. I'm currently in a business trip and want to do stop over for few days in Singapore. I met someone few days ago in a chat and he was so eager to meet me. Since Singapore is on the way going back to Europe, I'm thinking why not give it a try. However, I would like to know if it is safe to go there for a gay like me. I understand that Singapore is still strict about homeosexuality. Also, is it really a good plan meeting this guy whom I just met? I know most Asians are friendly but I still need to mitigate the risks.

[Guest]

The Section 377A of the Penal Code of Singapore criminalises sex between mutually consenting adult men.

 

The law is still around, I believe due to two reasons:

 

1. Although Singapore is a developed country, the majority still do not accept homosexuality as being a part of life due to many reasons, i.e. religious (especially Abrahamic ones) and plain ignorance and hate.

2. Singapore is surrounded by Malaysia and Indonesia which explicitly repudiates the idea of homosexuality.

 

There are campaigns such as the ubiquitous Pink Dot SG which I believe, has successfully brought out the issue in Singapore as well as the whole of the world. The country, however, are still divided in their opinions towards 377A.

 

I believe that the elephant in the room should be addressed and hopefully, I would witness the darn 377A being repealed in my lifetime so that all of us would have the freedom to love.

 

Just my two cents...

 

Edit: Grammar

Edited February 20, 2016 by rejectedmember

[Guest]

On 2/5/2016 at 9:11 PM, Glyph said:

There's really not much point in debating the definition of a public or private place/area/compound since 377A penalises gay sex in both. However, do note that the definition of "public place" in the eyes of law may differ depending on which act it is classified under, especially if specified otherwise.

 

As quoted by @HendryTan, in the case of "Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order And Nuisance) Act" under Singapore law, a public place is;

 

any place or premises to which at the material time the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission

 

but in the case of Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act 2015 under Singapore law, a public place is more specifically;

(a) any premises to which members of the public or a section of the public have access as of right or by virtue of any express or implied permission, whether or not on payment of a fee and whether or not access to the premises may be restricted at particular times or for particular purposes, and whether or not it is an approved place within the meaning of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (Cap. 257); or

(b) a part of any premises that the occupier of the premises allows members of the public to enter, but only while that part is ordinarily open to members of the public;

 

A public place is not to be confused with a privately-owned public place or a private place. A public place is, generally speaking, a place you are free to be at with no restrictions other than the governing entity known as the police, as in the case of Misc. Offences. A privately-owned public space would be something like a shopping mall, where it is a space that you are free to enter but additionally subjected to the respective authority's own set of rules and regulations. Areas in hotels, saunas, even a chalet, where access is restricted from public are considered private places.

 

To quote from the ST article regarding the alcohol supply and consumption act;

 

A public place is where a person has free access, like HDB void decks, parks, or beaches. Condominiums and chalets are considered private places.

 

More importantly, the state of being "private" is also loosely defined as not being in plain sight. So you can't make out in your own room with windows wide open and say it's okay cause it's done in a private place when the auntie at the block across spots you.

 

What about the one that says a gathering of more than three persons is considered an illegal...... ....................................hahahaha

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Guest said:

Hello. I'm a foreigner planning to go Singapore this coming week. I'm currently in a business trip and want to do stop over for few days in Singapore. I met someone few days ago in a chat and he was so eager to meet me. Since Singapore is on the way going back to Europe, I'm thinking why not give it a try. However, I would like to know if it is safe to go there for a gay like me. I understand that Singapore is still strict about homeosexuality. Also, is it really a good plan meeting this guy whom I just met? I know most Asians are friendly but I still need to mitigate the risks.

 

 

Funny that these posts are related. I guess that they are checking each other.

 

 

 

[Guest Chan]

LOL. I read that too. They're checking each other. I'm wondering now who is really keen on meeting one or the other.

[Cube3]

Latest development: it was apparently a scam? Why would a scammer need to check...?

[Guest]

No offence but some of the posts here (and the whole of the forum, in fact) seem like they were written by fourteen-year-olds...

I apologise if my comment is wrong though...

[Guest]

2 hours ago, rejectedmember said:

No offence but some of the posts here (and the whole of the forum, in fact) seem like they were written by fourteen-year-olds...

I apologise if my comment is wrong though...

 

Doesn't the forum have age regulations?

[Guest]

Quote

 

Doesn't the forum have age regulations?

 

My apologies, I did not write clearly in my previous comment, I was referring to the comment where two Guest users were writing about whether it is safe for them to meet each other in Singapore and whether they can have some sexy times together... (related to this post and 377A)

 

c.f. @Cube3's comment above which I totally agree with i.e. probably a scam.

 

Others include a Guest asking whether they should make a police report because they have lost their credit card (I mean, isn't that an obvious thing to do?) and another one saying that he is still staying with his parents so where should he have some sexy time with his partner (not related to this post). I mean they would obviously know what to do if they are grown-ups right...

 

There is an age regulation on this forum but this is the Internet and things could be faked easily...

 

Sorry that I am going out of topic, I think we should refocus on the topic of the legality of homosexual activities in Singapore... Peace

 

 

[Guest]

Having gay sex should always remain private and should not be discussed in any forum to keep it legal

[Guest Alex]

Just arrive here in Singapore. I plan to go to Orchard later. How safe it is to roam around here?

[Nwest]

 

2 hours ago, Guest Alex said:

Just arrive here in Singapore. I plan to go to Orchard later. How safe it is to roam around here?

Very Safe ... Just be a smart traveller don't go into dark alley 

Edited August 21, 2016 by Nwest
Nilk

[cutejack]

Very safe if after roam u bring him to yr plc or his.choose the right guy.str8 are there too n might dont like it.hehe

[Guest guest]

U can be charged under penal code 377A

 

 

Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jump to: navigation, search

Section 377A of the Penal Code of Singapore is the main remaining piece of legislation which criminalises sex between mutually consenting adult men.

Section 377A ("Outrages on decency") states that:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

 

Origin[edit]

To understand Section 377A, the enactment of its mother statute, Section 377, must first be explained. Section 377 criminalised sex "against the order of nature".

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

Explanation. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.

Ecclesiastical roots in Britain under Henry VIII[edit]

 

Henry VIII, the monarch who enacted Britain's anti-sodomy laws

An analysis of the origin of British laws that sought to prohibit buggery and their evolution into Section 377 is found in an academic paper entitled 377 and the Unnatural Afterlife of British Colonialism in Asia by Professor Douglas E. Sanders at Thailand's Chulalongkorn University.^[1]

In summary, the British anti-buggery law was enacted in 1534, taking over from ecclesiastical law. The wording used, which included "abominable" (taken from the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament), "buggery" (which, by the 13th century, had become associated with sodomy), and "vice", confirms its religious character.^{[1]:page: 2} It was formulated in the context of King Henry VIII's break from papal authority to establish the Anglican church. Its purpose was to justify the seizure of Catholic monasteries and the confiscation of their other wealthy properties. The pretext was the alleged sexual immorality of those in the religious vocation. Without this anti-Catholic agenda, it seems unlikely that it would have been enacted.^{[1]:pages: 5–6}

Codification of law, particularly criminal law, became a major reform project in Britain in the 19th century, pushed by Jeremy Bentham and the utilitarians. Codes were well-suited to British colonialism, providing a single, orderly written version of areas of law - easy to enact for a colony.^{[1]:pages: 8–10}

The Indian Penal Code[edit]

 

Lord Thomas Macaulay

The British Parliament formed the Indian Law Commission in 1833.^{[1]:pages: 10–11} Lord Thomas Macaulay was appointed to chair the commission.^{[1]:page: 11} The 1837 draft of the Indian Penal Code was largely his work.^{[1]:page: 11} It took 23 years for his work to be reviewed by the commission and the Supreme Court judges in Mumbai, Calcutta, and Madras.^{[1]:page: 11} The code was adopted in 1860 and took effect 1 January 1862.^{[1]:page: 11}

Macaulay's draft did not reflect existing Indian laws or customs.^{[1]:page: 11} It was largely a rewrite of the British Royal Commission's 1843 draft code.^{[1]:page: 11} The adopted draft included a Section 377 (quoted above), but there were many ambiguities in the section, including the question of what had to penetrate what.^{[2]:page: 18} These in turn let future jurists redefine what these provisions actually punished.^{[2]:page: 18} Under Hindu law, consensual intercourse between members of the same sex was never an offence.^{[citation needed]} In the new Indian Penal Code, however, Section 377 criminalised "carnal intercourse against the order of nature", derived from words attributed to Sir Edward Coke in the seventeenth century.^{[2]:pages: 14–15}

Section 377A (Outrages on decency) was added to the sub-title "Unnatural offences" in the Straits Settlements in 1938.^{[2]:page: 20} Both sections were absorbed unchanged into the Singapore Penal Code when the latter was passed by Singapore's Legislative Council on 28 January 1955.^{[citation needed]}

Scope[edit]

The original Section 377 (repealed in October 2007)[edit]

Unnatural sex or sodomy was not defined in the Indian Penal Code drafted by the British. Legal records show that Indian legislators in the 19th and early 20th centuries interpreted "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" between individuals (of all sexes - the law being non-gender specific with its use of the word "whoever") to include anal sex, bestiality and, often after much courtroom deliberation, oral sex as well, namely, any form of sexual intercourse which did not have the potential for procreation.

Therefore, both heterosexual and homosexual oral and anal sex were criminal offences. In this particular narrow sense, Section 377 did not discriminate against homosexuals. However, early cases tried in India mainly involved forced fellatio with unwilling male children and one unusual case of sexual intercourse with the nostril of a buffalo.

Theoretically, even lesbian sex which involved penetration, e.g. of a finger or sex toy into the vagina or anus, would be covered under the law, although there are no records of any judge in India or any other British colony interpreting the law to include sex between women.

In the Singaporean context, recent cases^[which?] had established that heterosexual fellatio was exempted if indulged in as foreplay which eventually leads to coitus. The Singaporean margin note of the original Section 377 further explained that mere penetration of the penis into the anus or mouth even without orgasm would constitute the offence. The law applied regardless of the act being consensual between both parties and done in private.

Owing to overwhelming public support and the realisation by the politico-legal system that the statute was no longer relevant to contemporary society, Section 377 was repealed in October 2007. A new Section 377, which criminalises sex with dead bodies ("Sexual penetration of a corpse")[3], was substituted in its place.

Section 377A[edit]

Section 377A was introduced into the Singapore Penal Code in 1938 to criminalise all other non-penetrative sexual acts between men. Research is currently underway, facilitated by the digitisation of local newspapers in 2008, to fathom the reasons why the colonial administration sought to enact such a law here when there were more pressing concerns in an era when civilised nations were on the brink of the second World War.

One hypothesis is that prostitution, including that by transvestites, was rife during the early decades of the 20th century. In endeavouring to curb it, the British must have found it difficult to use Section 377 to prosecute cross-dressers, who were legally men, for having sex with their male clients if prima facie evidence of anal or oral sex could not be found. In these cases, a new law such as Section 377A which was vague enough to convict any form of non-penetrative sexual activity between men, or more accurately, a cross-dressing man and his outwardly male partner, could be used as a backup. The fact that two "men" were found naked together in an enclosed space would be sufficient for a charge to be made against them.

The Labouchere Amendment[edit]

The term "gross indecency" used in the statute was based on the wording of the Labouchere Amendment, also known as Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 of the UK. It was not a euphemism for buggery or sodomy, which was already a crime but rather, any other sexual activity between men.

Wording[edit]

It was worded thus:

"Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures, or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted shall be liable at the discretion of the Court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour."

The almost identical phrasing between the Labouchere Amendment and Section 377A is the best evidence that the latter was derived from the former.

Reason for enactment[edit]

 

Henry Labouchere

In the 1880s, Britain was in the grip of a moral panic about the extent of prostitution. At the time, it was legal to have sex with teenage girls as young as 13 years of age, while a thriving trade buying and selling girls for prostitution alarmed many middle-class citizens. The Criminal Law Amendment Bill was thus drafted in 1881 to combat this. However, it languished for four years until a new scandal in July 1885 - a newspaper undertaking investigative journalism managed to buy a girl - roused parliament into renewed action.

On 6 August 1885, a member of parliament, Henry Labouchere, proposed a last-minute amendment to the bill making "gross indecency" between males an offence. There was hardly any debate although one member of parliament, Charles Warton, questioned whether Labouchere's amendment had anything to do with the original intent of the bill, namely, the prohibition of sexual assault against young women, and prostitution. Speaker Arthur Peel responded that under procedural rules any amendment was permitted as long as Parliament permitted it.

Without a record of a debate, it is difficult to know what the UK Parliament’s intention was with respect to the "gross indecency" clause. But if one considers that the Amendment Bill as a whole was designed to address prostitution and human trafficking, and if one realises that not only was female prostitution rife, but so was male prostitution, one can more or less guess why. The main part of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was gender-specific about girls as victims. Without the Labouchere Amendment, it would not have addressed male prostitution at all.

Punishment[edit]

The former Attorney-General, Sir Henry James, while supporting the amendment, objected to the leniency of the sentence, and wanted to increase the penalty to two years' hard labour. Labouchere agreed, and the proposed amendment was tacked onto the full Criminal Law Amendment Bill. The latter was rushed through and passed as the Criminal Law Amendment Act in the early hours of 7 August 1885.

Vagueness[edit]

As a result of the vagueness of the term "gross indecency," this law allowed juries, judges and lawyers to prosecute virtually any male homosexual behaviour where actual sodomy could not be proven. The sentence was relatively light compared to sodomy, which remained a separate crime.

Prosecutions[edit]

 

Oscar Wilde and his lover, Lord Alfred Douglas

Lawyers dubbed the Labouchere Amendment or Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, the "Blackmailer's Charter." It was ceremoniously invoked to convict the celebrated author Oscar Wilde ten years later, in 1895. Wilde was given the most severe sentence possible under the act, which the judge described as "totally inadequate for a case such as this." The famous mathematician, logician, cryptanalyst and computer scientist Alan Turing was convicted under the same law in 1952 and sentenced to chemical castration with female hormones, as an alternative to a prison sentence.

 

Repeal[edit]

The law was repealed in part by the Sexual Offences Act 1967 when homosexual acts were decriminalised in England and Wales, with remaining provisions being deleted later.

Singapore's Section 377A[edit]

Singapore's Section 377A is descended from the Labouchere Amendment.[4] There is no compelling evidence to support the legend that lesbians were not included in similar legislation all across the Commonwealth because Queen Victoria refused to believe that they were capable of such behaviour.

In the local context, "gross indecency" is a broad term which, from a review of past cases locally, has been applied to mutual masturbation, genital contact, or even lewd behaviour without direct physical contact. As with the former Section 377, performing such acts in private does not constitute a defence. There is not, nor has there ever been, any law in Singapore equally specific to non-penetrative lesbian sex. Section 377A has been in the statute books since the 1930s and has been retained even after the Penal Code review of October 2007.

After the erstwhile Section 377 was replaced by the current law criminalising sex with corpses, it has become a standing joke in the LGBT community that in the Penal Code, gay sex (377A) is now sandwiched between sex with dead bodies (the new Section 377) and sex with animals (Section 377B, "Sexual penetration with a living animal").^[3]

Repeal or retention[edit]

Arguments raised[edit]

Advocates of the repeal often cited reasons of civil liberty, human rights, and increasing scientific evidence that homosexuality was inborn ^[4] and found in nature.^{[5][citation needed]} Opponents of the repeal based their arguments on the conviction that to decriminalise homosexuality would result in a breakdown of the family unit, compromise Singapore's position on procreation, and lead to future undesirable scenarios such as the approval of bestiality and paedophila.^{[citation needed]}

Opponents of the repeal also emphasised the wishes of the putative conservative majority to retain 377A. This was despite there being no formal survey or census done specifically on the topic.^{[citation needed]} In various Singaporean online forums, such as Reach^[6] and the AsiaOne Forum^[7] strong opinions such as homosexuality being a genetic disease, the existence of a militant gay agenda originating from the West, homosexuality being a product of Western decadence incompatible with Singapore, were repeatedly posted.^{[citation needed]} "Conversion treatments", such as those by NARTH, were also recommended.^{[citation needed]}

Forums organised[edit]

In the lead-up to the overhaul of the Penal Code, forums were organised to discuss the issue of homosexuality in Singapore and the repeal of Section 377A.

A seminar entitled, "Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality and Pastoral Care" was organised by Safehaven, a ministry of the Free Community Church. It was held at the Amara Hotel on 10 May 2007.

During the dialogue, Dr. Tan Kim Huat, the Chen Su Lan Professor of New Testament and Dean of Studies at Trinity Theological College said, "Singapore is a pluralistic society...There must be spaces for it", referring to homosexuals in society. This was the reason he gave for supporting the repeal of Section 377A.[5]

Another forum to discuss the repeal of Section 377A was organised on 15 July 2007 by theatre company W!ld Rice in conjunction with Happy Endings: Asian Boys Vol 3, a gay play then being staged. The forum, held at the National Library, attracted some 250 participants.

For the first time in the history of forums on gay issues in Singapore, a member of parliament from the ruling People's Action Party, Baey Yam Keng, and a Nominated Member of Parliament, Siew Kum Hong, were part of the five-member panel convened to debate the issue. Other members of the panel were Alex Au (gay blogger and co-founder of PLU), Rev. Yap Kim Hao (Free Community Church), and Dr Stuart Koe (CEO & Founder of Fridae.com).

Baey for the first time publicly voiced support for the law to be repealed, saying, "Personally, I think that the whip should be lifted for a very open debate and open expression of opinion by the MPs. And if that is so, I would vote for a repeal of the act."[6]

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) was quoted in The Straits Times of 18 September 2007 saying that public feedback on the issue had been "emotional, divided and strongly expressed", with a majority of people calling for Section 377A to be retained.[7] The MHA also said that it recognised that "we are generally a conservative society and that we should let the situation evolve".

The prospect for the repeal of both Sections 377 and 377A in Singapore captured the attention of gay activists worldwide. In July 2007, on a visit to Singapore, the actor Sir Ian McKellen made an appeal to the authorities to get rid of this remnant of British colonial law, just as his country of origin had done,^[8]

England & Wales, the former British colony of Hong Kong, and Australia have since repealed laws prohibiting sex between men in 1967, 1991 and 1997 (in the state of Tasmania, the last Australian state to do so) respectively. India effectively repealed its Section 377, by "reading down" the law in 2009 (see video^{[clarification needed]}). Elsewhere in East and South-east Asia, apart from Singapore, only Myanmar, Malaysia and Brunei, all former British colonies, and recently Indonesia's Aceh province (applicable only to Muslims), continue to criminalise sex between men.^[9]

On 3 October 2007, another online appeal was launched via the "Repeal 377A" website ^[10] to gather signatories for an open letter to the Prime Minister calling for the repeal of Section 377A. In response, a counter-petition on the website "Keep 377A" ^[11] was set up by entrepreneur Martin Tan to give citizens a channel to voice support for the Government's retention of the law. By 1:30 p.m. on 20 October, Keep377A had overtaken Repeal377A by 7,068 to 7,058 signatories.^[12] (The content of the Keep377A.com website was removed in 2009, although its web address remains.)

On 12 October 2007, in an initiative headed by impresario Alan Seah, leading members of Singapore's arts fraternity, both gay and straight, took part on a promotional rap video titled "Repeal 377A Singapore!". It was produced and directed by Edgar Tang and theatre celebrity Pam Oei. Concerned with what was perceived as the video's narrow presentation of issues, a "Families Petition" was launched by the independent group "Family&Freedom" to run until 9 August 2015 as an awareness campaign aimed at educating the middle-ground of undecided voters on the potential long-term impact of a repeal on the institution of the family.

Credibility of Keep377A.com and Repeal377A.com[edit]

As online petitions, both websites suffered the same doubts regarding the credibility of the numbers of their signatories. There was no mention of whether technical measures were taken to ensure that multiple-voting by the same person was prevented.

In addition, the opening page of http://www.keep377A.com Keep377A.com was amended to include the following conclusion:

"Take time to hear from friends who are gay so that we too can understand their point of views personally. In our democracy, we can learn to agree to disagree, peacefully and respectfully."

The statement was incongruous with forum postings in other parts of the site which repeatedly used derogatory terms and called for Section 377A to be actively enforced.

Research cited by Keep377A.com[edit]

One of the references cited within Keep377A.com was a research article titled "Singaporeans’ Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men and their Tolerance of Media Portrayals of Homosexuality",[8] written by Benjamin H. Detenber and Mark Cenite of the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University. The article reported findings on the attitudes of Singaporeans towards homosexuals, with an emphasis on the comfort of viewing homosexual acts in the mass media. The conclusion highlighted a significant level of negativity. It was not, however, mentioned in the article whether this negativity translated into a specific desire to criminalise homosexual acts. The objectives of the research also did not involve gauging attitudes relating to legislation.

As of November 2007, neither the research fellows involved, the school, nor Martin Tan had issued any statement regarding this.

Copycat sites[edit]

Towards the end of October 2007, at least one copycat site emerged - Support377A.com. Created in virtually the same format as its predecessors, it nevertheless only featured letters to forums against the repeal, and supposed church sermons given on the subject by the Cornerstone Community Church and the Church of Our Saviour, Singapore.

Constitutional challenge[edit]

On 24 September 2010, criminal lawyer M. Ravi filed an application in the High Court to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A on behalf of his client Tan Eng Hong, who was charged for allegedly having oral sex with another consenting adult male in a locked cubicle of a public toilet.[9] Ravi's case was thrown out of court, the judge citing "a lack of a real controversy" for the court to deal with. [10]

See also[edit]

• Criminal law of Singapore
• LGBT rights in Singapore
• Penal Code (Singapore)
• Sodomy law
• Paragraph 175

[Guest Impeh]

Should be okay lah. Just don't do it in public places

[adiff]

It is asked here whether it is legal to have gay sex in SG. 

 

I humbly propound that by the spirit and letters of the law, it is clear through domestic legislations that it is not. It is a blanket prohibition. By blanket prohibition,  i mean that it is not contingent upon whether it is done with consent by both or all parties involved, or whether it is done for any kind of purpose, be it as ludicrous as for charity or as common as to satisfy lust and curiosity. It also means that it is a prohibition that is almost strict in nature, and by this i mean that if one is charged for it, the defense available is very limited and very hard to be proven and accepted, what more to serve as a complete defense, unless of course if one pleads self-defense, or absolute intoxication that is not inflicted by oneself, or in the presence of imminent danger or threat. 

 

I will not go further from this as the question merely asks about the legality, not the moral issues regarding gay sex and relevance of the legal prohibition of such act. 

 

Cheers !

[Marineboy]

Laws are made by the people in power...

Laws can change and so can the people in power..

We have to respect it since one can be charged  fro breaking it..

So be smart lah...