Singapore's LGBTQ News & Section 377A Discussion (compiled)

[Why?]

On 8/21/2022 at 9:57 PM, Guest Two Steps Back said:

This has got to be one of the worst "compromise" I have ever witnessed; a lose for all Singaporeans.

 

This marked, possibly the first time in our history, a loud minority religious group is able to coerce the gahment in changing the consitution to satisfy its demand. This surely must be a bigger victory for these fundies than if 377A is retained.

 

Not only that, there will be no change in how homosexuality will be taught in the schools; gay students will still suffer official discrimination, and can expect no help from  school counselors.

 

Books "advocating" homosexuality can still be removed from the public library upon a single complaint (https://twitter.com/OliviaParamour/status/1559772597499437056)

 

 

No change on how gays will be seen in the mainstream media too. Gays will continued to be portrayed as unhappy suicidal individuals with bad endings, or just plain pedophiles and psychopaths. No Oscar speeches celebrating homosexuality in film either, and Elton John holding hands with his husband will still be snipped.   

 

Shitty.

Absolutely.  PM is setting the stage that this gesture is the maximum he can allow and we shouldn't push further for more equality, not even through legal action.  

[StockBottom]

In other words

 

Change where it does not matter (enforcement of 377A)

 

No change where it does matter (offical homophobia)

 

So nothing changed.

[Guest Get real]

As long as majority of gays revolve their lives around promiscuous sex, instead of focusing on building a proper future with a significant other, forget about getting respect from the majority of people outside the gay community.

[yhtang]

On 8/21/2022 at 10:53 PM, singalion said:

What is of more interest to me now, is whether the stance of the Censor Board on gay movies, tv shows, etc will shift also and a kiss in an animated movie between 2 persons of the same sex will no longer be censored and also most important a homosexual relationship can be displayed in movie, tv as normal. 

 

 

This is a valid point.  While the repeal of Sec 377A decriminalises sex between males, Sec 377A itself has no bearing on Censor Board's version of modesty.  I have a feeling it will be a while before Censor Board changes its concept of modesty.  

 

As a by the by, this announcement of repeal does not mean it is not longer a criminal act immediately.  According to my understanding, the machinations of the government still needs to move until the parliament votes and approves this repeal.     

[Guest Yeah]

On 8/21/2022 at 8:58 PM, Why? said:

exactly what I had imagined above.  This repeal of S377A is a reluctant gesture.  The government admit it was political implication not in their favour, regardless of the legal arguments in our favor.  Gay people are used as a political scapegoat to decide how we will be treated.  In response, PM Lee stated that the government has the final say and that gay people should not file complaints or seek equality through the legal system.  Speaking of no one being above the law, this contradiction is startling.
Gay people will not enjoy equal right in seeking discussions about housing, leisure activities, advertisement, education, or other gay-theme issues,  since our government's limited viewpoint prioritizes one-man, one-woman relationships.  Thus, the road ahead remain challenging for LGBT in this country.  I set my case down uncomfortably after listening to an extremely insecured morons.

 

Yes it wont be a short, smooth and straight path for us. But at least it is a step foward regardless of how small it may be. 😊

[Guest Expainer]

On 8/21/2022 at 11:03 PM, quanjishou said:

so all along there isnt any law against sex between females? so if no such law did not change the social norm or definition of marriage, why those str8 ppl so scared to repeal 377A then?

 

Cos women do not have penis to penetrate other women, so what they do is not considered as sex.

[Guest Yes]

Next Pink Dot 2023 agenda will be to stand up for legalized same sex marriage

[Guest Enjoy while it lasts]

in my view,

 

The repeal of 377A is progressive (and this is indeed something), but the enshrining of the definition of marriage in the constitution is regressive (going backwards).

 

it is like an onion - the government wants to grow some more additional layers (like changing the constitution) before the 377a layer can be peeled away.

 

And yes, the constitution is not carved in stone. if societal norms becomes more liberal in the future, then the government of that time can obviously change the constitution again, if it finds it useful to do so.

 

However, I view that societal norms are becoming more conservative actually, and not becoming more liberal. Look at the US with its abortion rights - this conservatism has the ability to spread elsewhere if not handled properly. If conservatism is to come back in the future, then please just enjoy the freedoms that is currently available right now.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Enjoy while it lasts]

On 8/21/2022 at 5:20 PM, Guest Win Battles Lose Wars said:

 

 

SG is currently at the stage of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" time period in US LGBT history. Long long way to go. Conservative/religious biteback is going to be severe. 377A's official repeal and decriminalisation of sex between men is ultimately immaterial if you consider how SG has allowed gay saunas to open and operate for so long; they KNOW what is going on in those places yet they license them to operate anyway. 

 

 Yep agree completely.

[Guest Roy Tan]

 

[earth_tone]

This is a big thing considering where we are, a tiny island flanked by very conservative countries.

Every step takes time. But at least it is a step.

[mate69]

On 8/21/2022 at 1:05 PM, earth_tone said:

This is a big thing considering where we are, a tiny island flanked by very conservative countries.

Every step takes time. But at least it is a step.

 

Indeed. Social mores evolve, and take time to shift

I feel happy for all those who have worked hard behind the scenes all these years

[singalion]

very representative. lol

 

• Total voters

   

  172

   

• Poll closed Yesterday at 6:53 PM.

 

[singalion]

Who would give a s... to these xenophobe, homophobe hardwarezoners?

 

 

[Guest Roy Tan]

Transcript:
Another concerns the treatment of gay people in our society under the law. By and large, Singapore is a traditional society, with conservative social values. We believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, children should be born and raised within such families, the traditional family should form the basic building block of our society. Most Singaporeans would like to keep our society like this, and this is the Government’s position too. We have upheld and reinforced the importance of families through many national policies, and we will continue to do so. However, like every human society, we also have gay people in our midst. They are our fellow Singaporeans, they are our colleagues, our friends, our family members. They too want to live their own lives, participate in our community, and contribute fully to Singapore. We need to find the right way to reconcile and accommodate both the traditional mores of our society, and the aspiration of gay Singaporeans to be respected and accepted.
A major issue for gay Singaporeans is Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes sex between men a criminal offence. It was originally introduced in the 1930s by the British colonial government. It reflected moral attitudes and social norms that prevailed back then. But over the decades, homosexuality has become better understood, scientifically and medically. In many societies, including Singapore, gay people have become more accepted for who they are, instead of being shunned and stigmatised. Many countries that used to have laws against sex between men have since repealed them, and they include several Asian countries, but so far not Singapore.
Parliament last debated whether or not to repeal Section 377A in 2007. MPs expressed strong views on both sides. I joined in the debate to advise restraint and caution. I acknowledged that what consenting adults do in private is their personal affair, and the Government should not intervene. But I pointed out that not everyone was equally accepting of homosexuality. Quite a few had considerable reservations, particularly within certain religious groups, including the Muslims, the Catholics and many Protestant denominations. The Government decided then that we would leave 377A on our books, but not actively enforce it. We stopped short of repealing the law. It would have been too divisive to force the issue then. It was better for us to live with this untidy compromise, and it was a practical way to accommodate evolving societal attitudes and norms in Singapore. The compromise didn't satisfy every group. But by and large, it has enabled all of us to get along. And so we have lived with this sensitive issue, without it monopolising our national agenda or dividing our society.
Now, 15 years later, attitudes have shifted appreciably. While we remain a broadly conservative society, gay people are now better accepted in Singapore, especially among younger Singaporeans. It's timely to ask ourselves again the fundamental question: Should sex between men in private be a criminal offence? Singaporeans still have differing views on whether homosexuality is right or wrong. But most people accept that a person’s sexual orientation and behaviour is a private and personal matter, and that sex between men should not be a criminal offence. Even among those who want to retain Section 377A, most don't want to see it being actively enforced, and criminal penalties applied. From the national point of view, private sexual behaviour between consenting adults does not raise any law-and-order issue. There is no justification to prosecute people for it, nor to make it a crime.
Furthermore, we've seen several court challenges to Section 377A, seeking to declare the law unconstitutional. None have succeeded, so far. However, following the most recent judgement in the Court of Apppeal, the Minister for Law and the Attorney-General have advised that in a future court challenge, there's a significant risk of Section 377A being struck down, on the grounds that it breaches the Equal Protection provision in the Constitution. We have to take that advice seriously. It would be unwise to ignore the risk, and do nothing. For these reasons, the Government will repeal Section 377A and decriminalise sex between men. I believe this is the right thing to do, and something that most Singaporeans will now accept. 
[Applause] 
This will bring the law into line with current social mores, and I hope, provide some relief to gay Singaporeans. But at the same time, most Singaporeans do not want the repeal to trigger a drastic shift in our societal norms across the board, including how we define marriage, what we teach children in schools, what's shown on free-to-air television and in cinemas, or what is generally acceptable conduct in public. In our engagements and soundings over several months, this has come through very clearly. Among those with reservations, some feel strongly about 377A itself. But for most, their main worry is what they feel Section 377A stands for, and what they fear repealing it may quickly lead to. They also worry that this may encourage more aggressive and divisive activism on all sides. This is not only the concern of those with religious objections, but is shared by many non-religious people. Even many Singaporeans who support repeal want to maintain our current family and social norms. The Government understands these concerns. We too do not want the repeal to trigger wholesale changes in our society. We will maintain our current family-oriented approach, and the prevailing norms and values of Singapore society. Hence, even as we repeal 377A, we will uphold and safeguard the institution of marriage. Under the law, only marriages between one man and one woman are recognised in Singapore. Many national policies rely upon this definition of marriage including public housing, education, adoption rules, advertising standards, film classification. The Government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage, nor these policies.
However, as the law stands, this definition of marriage can be challenged on constitutional grounds in the courts, just like Section 377A has been challenged. And this has indeed happened elsewhere. If one day such a challenge succeeds here, it could cause same-sex marriages to become recognised in Singapore. And this would happen not because Parliament passed any such law but as the result of a court judgment. And then, even if the majority of MPs oppose same-sex marriage, Parliament may not be able simply to change the law to restore the status quo ante. Because to reverse the position, Parliament may have to amend the Constitution, and that would require a two-thirds majority. I do not think that for Singapore, the courts are the right forum to decide such issues. Judges interpret and apply the law. That's what they are trained and appointed to do - to interpret the law, what does the law say, to apply the law, how does it work in this instance. But judges and courts have neither the expertise nor the mandate to settle political questions, or to rule on social norms and values. Because these are fundamentally not legal problems, but political issues. This has been wisely acknowledged by our courts in their judgments dealing with such cases. But even so, those seeking change may still try to force the pace through litigation which is, in its nature, adversarial. It would highlight differences, inflame tensions and polarise society. And I'm convinced this would be bad for Singapore. 
We will therefore protect the definition of marriage from being challenged constitutionally in the courts. The legal definition is contained in the Interpretation Act and the Women’s Charter. We have to amend the Constitution to protect it, and we will do so. This will help us repeal Section 377A in a controlled and carefully considered way. It will limit this change to what I believe most Singaporeans will accept, which is to decriminalise sexual relations between consenting men in private. But it will also keep what I believe most Singaporeans still want, and that is to retain the basic family structure of marriage between a man and a woman, within which we have and raise our children.
[Applause]
What we seek is a political accommodation, one that balances different legitimate views and aspirations among Singaporeans. For some, this will be too modest a step. For others, it will be a step taken only with great reluctance, even regret. But in a society where diverse groups have strongly held opposing views, everyone has to accept that no group can have things all their way. If one side pushes too hard, the other side will push back even harder. And in some Western societies, not few, this has resulted in culture wars, contempt for opposing views, and not just for their views but for opposing people - cancel culture to browbeat and shut up opponents, and bitter feuds splitting society into warring tribes. There are some signs of similar things starting to happen here too.  
I say, let us not go in this direction. All groups should exercise restraint because that is the only way we can move forward as one nation together. There's much more to be said on this difficult subject. I'm sure what I have said tonight will set off further reactions and discussions. And we will have a full debate when we bring the legislation to Parliament. But tonight, I wanted to set out our broad approach on this issue. We have a stable and generally harmonious society, and we will work hard to keep things like this. I hope the new balance will enable Singapore to remain a tolerant and inclusive society for many years to come.

[Guest Zhaw]

The Workers’ Party recognises the fundamental right of people to live free from fear and discrimination and to be treated equally under the law. By the same token, we also respect the right of different groups to hold and discuss positions according to their conscience.

Singapore is a pluralistic society that consists of multiple religions, ethnicities, cultures, and languages. Mutual accommodation and tolerance are critical considerations for legislation in our context.

[Guest Hypocritical Government]

"We will therefore protect the definition of marriage from being challenged constitutionally in the courts. The legal definition is contained in the Interpretation Act and the Women’s Charter. We have to amend the Constitution to protect it, and we will do so. This will help us repeal Section 377A in a controlled and carefully considered way. It will limit this change to what I believe most Singaporeans will accept, which is to decriminalise sexual relations between consenting men in private. But it will also keep what I believe most Singaporeans still want, and that is to retain the basic family structure of marriage between a man and a woman, within which we have and raise our children."

 

Is it a democracy if the ruling majority party of the day that forms a country's government actively seeks to enshrine and meddle with the national constitution using its majority mandate/percentage in Parliament to set in stone beliefs and ideologies it chooses to hold, and ultimately neuter the so-called independent judiciary from ever posing a legitimate and effective challenge to legislative partisan power by a single majority party? 

 

How is the SG government's attitude towards power any different from that of the Myanmar military dictatorship junta, which also wrote for themselves into their Burmese Constitution that no matter what future democratically elected government comes into power, at least a quarter of the parliamentary seats will be reserved for serving military officers? In this case it's writing into the Constitution and casting it into stone the official definition of marriage in SG society as between a biological male and female, with no concern or worry on the part of the PAP and the conservative/religious interests it panders to that it will ever be repealed or changed for the next 50 years because not only do you need an Opposition pro-equality Government to come into power, they NEED 2/3 SUPERMAJORITY THEMSELVES TO CHANGE ANYTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION. 

[Guest Roy Tan]

 

PM Lee Hsien Loong's National Day Rally speech on Section 377A in Malay.

Transkrip:
Pastinya, dari semasa kesemasa, akan muncul isu-isu lain yang sensitif. Dan kita mesti menanganinya dengan cara yang sama. Salah satu isu ini yang anda mungkin sudah maklum ialah Seksyen 377A. Pada asasnya, ia berbeza daripada isu tudung. Tetapi, ia juga hal yang perlu ditangani dengan teliti. Saya akan sentuh perkara ini dengan lebih lanjut dalam ucapan Bahasa Inggeris nanti. Namun, biar saya beri jaminan disini. Dalam menangani hal ini, Pemerintah akan terus mengekalkan keluarga sebagai asas pembentukan masyarakat. Kami tidak akan mengubah dasar-dasar perhubung keluarga dan perkahwinan. Kami juga akan terus mengekalkan norma-norma serta nilai-nilai sosial sedia ada dalam masyarakat kita. Seksyen 377A adalah isu yang sangat sensitif dan boleh menimbulkan perbalahan. Kedua-dua penyokong dan penentang mempunyai pandangan yang keras. Tetapi kita tidak boleh membiarkan perkara ini memecahbelahkan kita seperti yang berlaku di tempat-tempat lain. Biarkan kita menangani isu ini dengan berhati-hati. Ibarat menarik rambut dalam tepung. Rambut jangan putus, tepung jangan berserak.
[Tepukan tangan]
Setiap kumpulan mesti menerima bahawa ia tidak boleh dapat semua yang diinginkan kerana ia sesuatu yang mustahil. Dan kita mesti memelihara sifat saling menghormati dan mempercayai yang telah kita kupuk bertahun-tahun lamanya serta kekal bersatupadu sebagai satu rakyat. Dalam dunia yang kian tidak menentu dan semakin kompleks ini, daya tahan dan perpaduan masyarakat kita akan menjadi semakin genting.
=======================
Transcript:
Definitely, from time to time, there will be other sensitive issues that we must address in the same manner. One such issue, as you would know, is Section 377A. It is fundamentally different from the tudung issue. But it needs to be handled just as carefully. I will say more on this in my English speech. But let me rassure everyone thatin handling the issue, the Government will continue to uphold families as the basic building blocks of society. We will keep our policies on family and marriage unchanged, and maintain the prevailing norms and social values of our society. Section 377A is a highly sensitive and contentious issue. There are strong views on both sides. But we must not allow it to divide us, like what has happened elsewhere. We must handle this carefully like how a Malay proverb describes it best: "Like pulling hair in flour. Don't break the hair, don't scatter the flour." (Complex matters need to be handled delicately with care to avoid undesirable consequences.)
[Applause]
Every group must accept that it cannot get everything it wants, because that is simply not possible. And we must maintain the mutual respect and trust that we have painstakingly built up over the years, and sty united as one people. In an increasinly uncertain and complex world, our society's resilience and unity will be more important than ever.

[auscent]

Finally, some steps to respect adult choices.

[fab]

By and large, how can Singaporeans be conservative when majority of them come from a background with 5 thousands years of history that embraces homosexualities?

 

377a per se is discriminative and not humanitarian. It is a joke and even an embarrassment. 

[mith]

hmmm... how very crafty of him... a true politician! his father has taught him the craft well.

 

in case QUOTE : "the repeal to trigger a drastic shift in our societal norms across the board, including how we define marriage..." 

 

so before officially repealing 377A, QUOTE : :We will therefore protect the definition of marriage from being challenged constitutionally in the courts"

 

the repeal will pacify a lot of young people, gay and straight, who will become a substantial voting population in the upcoming election, and at the same time, makes the conservatives happy by preventing any other norms and activism the repeal may lead to being challenged! this group are already the current voting population.

 

so before passing his baton to LW, he will make sure the PAP's immortality.

 

nonetheless, i'm glad 377A is struck down and done with.

[Guest Guest]

I guess we got to be prepared for some intense discussions in the coming weeks on the repeal of 377A.

 

Some of the homophobics were not prepared for this repeal to happen. They are so entrenched in their beliefs and are

not even convinced that this law will be abolished. I mean, there are so much telltale signs, from sending a MP to pinkdot and gathering the religious leaders for a discussion. This repeal will happen soon and NDR is the best avenue to make such announcement.

 

But honestly, Im still really happy that 377A will be repealed. So glad to be able to see this happen in my lifetime. Its a small step but its such a historic move for us gays.

 

[G_M]

[thickhead79]

NDR 2022: Repeal of Section 377A a relief but move to protect marriage definition is 'disappointing', say LGBTQ groups

The LGBTQ groups urged the Government "not to heed recent calls from religious conservatives to enshrine the definition of marriage into the Constitution".

[bodybuildMLY]

On 8/22/2022 at 12:08 AM, Guest Yes said:

Next Pink Dot 2023 agenda will be to stand up for legalized same sex marriage

Then please start writing The Gay Men’s Charter vis-a-vis The Women’s Charter. 

[thickhead79]

"The Workers’ Party recognises the fundamental right of people to live free from fear and discrimination and to be treated equally under the law. By the same token, we also respect the right of different groups to hold and discuss positions according to their conscience.

Singapore is a pluralistic society that consists of multiple religions, ethnicities, cultures, and languages. Mutual accommodation and tolerance are critical considerations for legislation in our context."

[thickhead79]

An alliance of about 80 churches here said that the party whip should be lifted for voting when the Constitution is amended in Parliament to protect the institution of marriage, so that Members of Parliament may fully express the views of Singaporeans.

[thickhead79]

"A society without Section 377A is a society that is more progressive, not just for LGBTQ people, but for everyone. No one is free until everyone is free. This is a win for humanity," says a statement signed by 22 LGBTQ groups. #NDR2022

[thickhead79]

Govt policies on medical content will not change after repeal of Section 377A

LGBT content will contuinue to warrant higher age ratings

 

MCI

[Guest Singaporean]

On 8/21/2022 at 9:03 PM, Sizzler said:

So .. continue to vote against PAP until they give equal rights to us gays

This is as narrow minded as the homophobic against the repealing.

 

Like the opposition parties are going to give you equal rights as gays if they form the government? Your optimism is so naive. 

 

I hope people in your life judge you based on the 1001 good things that you have done and not on the one thing you did that does not feed well with their own agendas. 

[thickhead79]

it took 15y to remove 377A

 

so maybe another 15y before same sex marriage

 

u really believe in same sex marriage ask yrself?

what the purpose

 

or just look good, can LGBTQ reallu sustain with marry cert with 1 partner in life?

[Guest Guest]

 

[singalion]

 

On the whole discussion about 377A and the religious "conservatives" there has always been throughout the years one point that was striking me...

 

While certain religious groups have been hitting against homosexuality in Singapore, those groups rested very silent on abortion.

 

Most religious groups in other parts of the world shot against abortion, also against homosexuality but the main focus was/ is on abortion.

 

Why this agitation against homosexuality?

 

Did anyone understand this?

 

And now these groups are taking marriage as hostage to act against homosexuality....

 

Even if marriage is enshrined in the constitution (which seems a bit messy in my view), does it prevent homosexuality?

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by singalion

[StockBottom]

Like I said, nothing really changed. LHL didn't do it becos he is concerned about lgbt discrimination, he did it purely from a legalistic/practical pov.

 

Oh, today I learned that advertising standards and film classification actually depend on the definition of marriage 🤣

 

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/lgbt-media-content-will-continue-warrant-higher-age-ratings-govt-takes-reference-prevailing-norms-mci-1974486

 

LGBT media content will 'continue to warrant higher age ratings', as Govt takes reference from prevailing norms: MCI

 

SINGAPORE — Media content on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons will "continue to warrant higher age ratings", with the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) taking reference from "prevailing norms", the ministry said on Monday (Aug 22).

MCI's statement comes a day after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced in his annual National Day Rally that the Government will repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises sex between men.

In his speech, Mr Lee said the Government has no intention of changing national policies that rely upon the definition of marriage, such as public housing, education, adoption rules, advertising standards, and film classification.

"MCI reaffirms the Government’s position that the repeal of Section 377A does not mean that we are changing the tone of society. This position also applies to our policies on media content," said the ministry.

MCI and its statutory board, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), presently regulate media content to protect younger audiences from age-inappropriate content, as well as to enable mature audiences to make informed choices over a diverse range of content.

"Media content with higher reach and impact is subject to more stringent requirements," said the ministry.

To understand the community's views, MCI said IMDA regularly consults its advisory committees, made up of members of the public from all walks of life  on specific titles, as well as content guidelines and regulations.

"Our content regulatory approach has to be sensitive to societal norms and values," said the ministry.

Edited August 22, 2022 by StockBottom

[G_M]

Repeal S377A: A Timeline Of The Long Road To Repeal

From legal challenges to photo shoots, read about the long and arduous journey it took to repeal Section 377A in Singapore.

 

August 21, 2022

Dear Straight People,

Singapore has finally repealed Section 377A!

After years of failed attempts, many in the LGBT+ community have started to give up hope at ever seeing the repeal of Section 377A; the archaic law that criminalises consensual sex between men.

But on 21 August 2022, the Singapore government has finally done what it should have done years ago; abolish a law that propagates stigma and prejudice against the LGBTQ+ community by legally framing same-sex attraction as immoral and criminal.

The road to repeal has been a long and arduous one. In a bid to pay tribute to those who fought tirelessly for this historic day to come, here is a timeline of some key events that led to the repeal of Section 377A.

SECTION 377A: ORIGINS

Section 377A of the Penal Code of Singapore was a law implemented under British colonial law that specifically criminalises consensual sex between adult men. It was part of Section 377, which criminalises sex deemed to be ‘against the nature of nature’.

• This included consensual oral sex, even among heterosexual couples.

The earliest documented case of prosecution under Section 377A reportedly happened in September 1938, when Lim Eng Kooi and Lim Eng Kok were imprisoned for 7 months each.

According to a blogpost by pioneering gay activist Alex Au on his popular website Yawning Bread, there were reportedly 185 convictions under Section 377A between 1997 to 2006.

SECTION 377A: BIRTH OF THE REPEAL MOVEMENT

2006: Annis bin Abdullah v PP

The movement to repeal Section 377A can be traced back to the Annis Abdullah case, a police sergeant who was imprisoned for 2 years for having consensual oral sex with a 16-year old teenage girl.

Seeing as the girl was of legal age and the act was consensual, his case sparked a public outcry as many were shocked that consensual oral sex was a criminal offence in Singapore.

The public outcry prompted the Ministry Of Home Affairs to review the Penal Code. After a year, many laws under Section 377 of the Penal Code of Singapore were removed, but Section 377A remained.

The retention of Section 377A sparked an outcry within the LGBT+ community, birthing the repeal movement.

2007: Early Calls For Repeal Of Section 377A

• August 2007: International movie star Sir Ian McKellen called for a repeal of Section 377A during a visit to Singapore.
• October 2007: Pink Dot committee member Alan Seah, theatre director Ivan Heng and actress Pam Oei delivered a letter with over 8,000 signatories to the Prime Minister’s office calling for the repeal of Section 377A.
• October 2007: Lawyer George Hwang, media mogul Dr Stuart Koe and housewife Tan Joo Hymn organised a parliamentary petition to repeal Section 377A. This led to a parliamentary debate over Section 377A. Politicians who supported a repeal included PAP MPs Charles Chong and Baey Yam Keng. Eventually, the decision made in parliament was to retain Section 377A but that the government would not actively enforce Section 377A.

LEGAL CHALLENGES TO REPEAL SECTION 377A

2010: Tan Eng Hong v. Attorney-General

The first person to file a constitional challenge against Section 377A was massage therapist Ivan Tan Eng Hong.

In September 2010, lawyer M. Ravi filed a legal challenge to Section 377A in the High Court on behalf of his client Tan Eng Hong, who was charged for having consensual oral sex with another man in a public toilet.

Tan’s case was initially dismissed by the High Court, due to “a lack of a real controversy”.

The landmark ruling came in 2012 in Singapore’s Court of Appeal, who overturned the High Court’s verdict, thereby allowing Tan his day in court.

In 2013, Tan’s case was combined with Lim Meng Suang and another v. Attorney-General (see below).

2012: Lim Meng Suang and another v. Attorney-General

Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee

Gary Lim Meng Suan and Kenneth Chee Mun-leon, a gay couple who have been together for 15 years, filed a constitutional challenge to Section 377A.

Justice Quentin Loh ruled against their challenge on 9 April 2013, but the couple filed an appeal on 30 April 2013.

Following a successful crowdfunding campaign, renowned lawyers Deborah Barker and Lord Peter Henry Goldsmith were hired to take on the case.

But on 29 October 2014, the Court of Appeal rejected Lim and Kenneth’s challenge to repeal Section 377A,

2018: Challenges Against Section 377A

When India decriminalised sex between people of the same sex, it ignited hope of the same in Singapore. Notably, esteemed diplomat Professor Tommy Koh voiced his encouragement for a constitutional challenge against Section 377A.

Credit: Remy Choo Zheng Xi, Ching S. Sia, Roy Tan

This prompted three separate challenges against Section 377A:

• Johnson Ong, popularly known as DJ Big Kid, filed a challenge against Section 377A on 10 September 2018. (Read our feature on Johnson here)
• Activist Bryan Choong filed a challenge against Section 377A in November 2018. (Read our feature on Johnson here)
• Retired doctor Dr Roy Tan filed a challenge against Section 377A in September 2019. (Read our feature on Roy here)

On 30 March 2020, Justice See Kee Oon combined the three challenges into a single case, and ruled against them.

Appeals were filed on 31 March 2020 but the Court Of Appeal ruled against the appeals on 28 February 2022.

NON-LEGAL MOVEMENTS TO REPEAL SECTION 377A

2009 to current: Pink Dot

Founded in 2009, Pink Dot is an annual movement that is organised in support of the LGBT+ community in Singapore.

The repeal of Section 377A has consistently been a key focus of Pink Dot. Notably, Pink Dot 2019’s edition featured the message ‘REPEAL 377A’.

Source: Pink Dot

2018: Ready4Repeal Petition

Spearheaded by theatre director Glen Goei and Johannes Hadi, Ready4Repeal is an online movement that organised a petition for the repeal of Section 377A.

The petition collected over 50,000 signatories, including notable figures such as Professor Tommy Koh.

2018: Reasons4Repeal Photoshoot by Dear Straight People

In November 2018, Dear Straight People organised a photoshoot #Reasons4Repeal, calling for the repeal of Section 377A.

Photographed by Audi Khalid, the photoshoot featured over 70 participants from all walks of life, including public figures such as actor Julian Hee and Paralympic medalist Theresa Goh.

The resulting photo album garnered over 1,000 shares on Facebook alone. You can view the photos here.

THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO FOUGHT THE HARD FIGHT

Here’s a big thank you to everyone who fought to repeal Section 377A!

The road to repeal was a long and complicated one. This article is not meant to be a comprehensive timeline of every single event that contributed to the abolishment of Section 377A.

This article is meant to merely illustrate just how long it took for Singapore to reach this historic movement, and also pay tribute to those who paved the way.

Here are some additional readings to illustrate the complicated journey it took to repeal Section 377A:

• Section 377A of the Penal Code (The Singapore LGBT encyclopaedia Wiki compiled by Dr Roy Tan)
• I on Singapore (Blog posts on matters related to Section 377A)
• Yawning Bread (Blog by pioneering activist Alex Au)
• Section 377A of the Penal Code Wikipedia entry

 

[fab]

I din know Julian hee is out.

[fab]

A conditional repeal, though embarrassing and frustrating, nonetheless,is still better than no repeal. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by fab

[Guest Roy Tan]

 

[Guest lovelove]

While a step in the right direction, we have to conduct ourselves at a higher standard. Which means contribute more towards the society through our actions - less discrimination amongst ourselves, be more gracious towards others, let our actions speak more of love and not sex (piak piak is legal but it doesn't mean orgy or group fun, do find a partner to settle down so will have someone to be there for you in the future), act towards with kindness and accumulate more merits in the society. 

[thickhead79]

Education policies to remain anchored on prevaillingh family values and social norms, including marriage between man and woman: MOE

 

Following the news that 377A will be repealed, MOE has said its education policies & curriculum will remain anchored on prevailing family values & social norms.

MOE also said schools must remain safe spaces for the pursuit of knowledge, not advocacy. 

 

Education policies to remain anchored on prevailing family values and social norms, incluidng marriage between man and woman. MOE

Edited August 22, 2022 by thickhead79

[Guest Nothing changed]

Repeal or no repeal makes no difference la. 

Other than just a psychological thing. 

 

Also can't get married or be legally recognised.

 

Most gay just end up alone, lonely, aging. 

 

The young one can enjoy now flaunting their sexuality la. 

 

But still can't buy hdb together. 

Still end up 1 party live with the other party who own the hdb. 

 

Renovate House, bills etc still legally under one person name. 

Can't build a future together. 

 

One sick or accident, can't visit in icu or make any legal arrangement. 

Gay couple could live a partnered life but under the law, you're still discriminated. 

 

Can't take family care leave to take care of your bf-hubby. 

Can't top up your SO CPF to get tax exemption cause not considered family. 

 

In the end, nothing really changed. 

Still can't hold whatever gay ceremonies. 

[fab]

On 8/22/2022 at 3:25 PM, Guest lovelove said:

While a step in the right direction, we have to conduct ourselves at a higher standard. Which means contribute more towards the society through our actions - less discrimination amongst ourselves, be more gracious towards others, let our actions speak more of love and not sex (piak piak is legal but it doesn't mean orgy or group fun, do find a partner to settle down so will have someone to be there for you in the future), act towards with kindness and accumulate more merits in the society. 

 

♥️

[fab]

On 8/22/2022 at 3:56 PM, Guest Nothing changed said:

Repeal or no repeal makes no difference la. 

Other than just a psychological thing. 

 

Also can't get married or be legally recognised.

 

Most gay just end up alone, lonely, aging. 

 

The young one can enjoy now flaunting their sexuality la. 

 

But still can't buy hdb together. 

Still end up 1 party live with the other party who own the hdb. 

 

Renovate House, bills etc still legally under one person name. 

Can't build a future together. 

 

One sick or accident, can't visit in icu or make any legal arrangement. 

Gay couple could live a partnered life but under the law, you're still discriminated. 

 

Can't take family care leave to take care of your bf-hubby. 

Can't top up your SO CPF to get tax exemption cause not considered family. 

 

In the end, nothing really changed. 

Still can't hold whatever gay ceremonies. 

 

💔

[Guest HuhWhy]

To me 377A doesn't really affect me at all LOL

Rejoice over 377A being repealed is lame because it's not like as if the government recognize same-sex marriage ? 

if the day the government recognize same-sex marriage then thats the day to truly REJOICE

The last I check... has the gov arrested/charged anybody under the377A before? 

[Guest HuhWhy]

Approve same sex marriage then talk

the 377A repealed makes no diff lol

[Guest Enjoy while it lasts]

 

 

if you noticed....civil partnership was completely not mentioned completely in the speech yesterday. what does this suggest to you? do you think it will happen in your lifetime? If the answer is yes, then work towards that goal....

 

But yet, you have to ask yourself - to what extent do you personally need a marriage or even civil partnerships? (not just talking about gay couples - the question can even apply to straight couples).

 

so, by extension, to what extent do you even need 377A to be revoked, given that the government will not enforce?

 

How does it personally impact your life?

How many people will need (versus a want) a revocation of 377A, marriage, or civil partnership? Not too many I would assume.

 

In fact, I dare to day, this revocation will bring very little change to gay folks personally, other than the symbolism, which is worth zilch in terms of life's practicalities. so when LHY talks about "relief", I dont really know what kind of "relief" he is referring to.

 

The majority can choose to accommodate the minority, if they need to.

[Guest Guest]

On 8/22/2022 at 5:00 PM, Guest HuhWhy said:

To me 377A doesn't really affect me at all LOL

Rejoice over 377A being repealed is lame because it's not like as if the government recognize same-sex marriage ? 

if the day the government recognize same-sex marriage then thats the day to truly REJOICE

The last I check... has the gov arrested/charged anybody under the377A before? 

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/unpacking-the-issues-around-section-377a

 

"In 2010, a man was charged under Section 377A over having oral sex with another man in a public toilet cubicle. Although the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) later amended the charge against Mr Tan Eng Hong to one of committing an obscene act in public, he subsequently filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Section 377A."

 

I didnt follow the above, so dun have much details on it.

 

But I do hope random police raids on gay saunas will stop completely, though they have not been doing it for the past few years.

 

[StockBottom]

Dun expect me to support you and your team in any way then.

 

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/lawrence-wong-no-change-marriage-under-my-watch-1974641

 

No change to marriage definition 'under my watch' as next PM if PAP wins next GE: DPM Lawrence Wong

[StockBottom]

So many articles and actions to appease the fascists, is it really a win for us, a move to greater pluralism and inclusivity? Or is it actually a step backwards?

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/constitution-will-be-amended-to-protect-parliaments-right-to-define-marriage-shanmugam

 

 

[MadMan]

On 8/22/2022 at 6:27 PM, StockBottom said:

Dun expect me to support you and your team in any way then.

 

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/lawrence-wong-no-change-marriage-under-my-watch-1974641

 

No change to marriage definition 'under my watch' as next PM if PAP wins next GE: DPM Lawrence Wong

Correct me if I’m wrong, I was told LW is a church elder, he probably not even for repealing 377A