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

[MadMan]

To protect marriage why don’t they criminalize prostitution and extra marital affair (Like Korea and Taiwan), ban hostesses in clubs, and disallow divorce just like Philippine

[StockBottom]

On 8/22/2022 at 6:33 PM, MadMan said:

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

 

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threads/what-is-lawrence-wongs-religion.6735738/

[StockBottom]

On 8/22/2022 at 6:36 PM, MadMan said:

To protect marriage why don’t they criminalize prostitution and extra marital affair (Like Korea and Taiwan), ban hostesses in clubs, and disallow divorce just like Philippine

 

Rules for thee, but not for me?

[fab]

On 8/22/2022 at 6:36 PM, MadMan said:

To protect marriage why don’t they criminalize prostitution and extra marital affair (Like Korea and Taiwan), ban hostesses in clubs, and disallow divorce just like Philippine

 

U hit the jackpot. 

[fab]

Over the radio,  I heard 1 of the greatest concernsof the public is whether gay couples, if allow to get married,  will have the same entitlement as straight married couples. 

 

So these selfish bastards are mainly concerned over financial benefits. 

[StockBottom]

The real reason.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/repeal-377a-not-possible-keep-status-quo-law-vulnerable-legal-challenges-edwin-tong-2892766

‘Not possible’ to keep status quo on Section 377A given vulnerability to legal challenges: Edwin Tong

 

 

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ndr-2022-377a-constitution-marriage-edwin-tong-1974591

S377A repeal: Proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage definition without 'hard-coding' it, says Edwin Tong

[Guest boomer]

the 6.30pm Ch 8 news interviewed some people on the streets,

those who support/no issue with it are generally the younger citizens,

the older generations are mainly against it.

[StockBottom]

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/muis-lgbtq-advocacy-respect-muslim-community-values-377a-repeal-ndr-2022-2892806

LGBTQ+ advocacy should respect values of the Muslim community: MUIS

MUIS said that the Muslim community has the right to preserve its religious and family values especially when these are directly challenged or disputed.

 

 

How about you respect us first?

Mind your own business, and we will mind ours.

[quanjishou]

i have a friend who is a very staunch christian and also a very loyal supporter of PAP.

So he is very against gay sex as it is against his religion belief/values and praise PAP for refusing to repeal section 377A.

Now that the govt decided to repeal section 377A, wonder what are his thoughts now?

[Guest More Than Meets The Eye]

VERY INTERESTING COMMENTS FROM SHANMUGAM. 

 

SINGAPORE - As it repeals Section 377A, the Government will also make clear in the Constitution that it is Parliament's prerogative to define marriage as being between a man and a woman and to make other pro-family policies on that basis, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam said on Monday (Aug 22).

This is different from enshrining the definition of marriage in the highest law of the land, but will stave off legal challenges on the definition of marriage, he added.

 

Mr Shanmugam said that to guard against this, the Government is planning to explicitly state in the Constitution that Parliament can define the institution of marriage in the way it has been defined in the Women's Charter, and can make other pro-family policies on the basis of that definition.

 

While constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority in Parliament to pass, changes to other pieces of legislation, including the repeal of Section 377A, require a simple majority.

 

He added that any political party or group that wants to push for same-sex marriage will be able to do so.

"They will have to put that in their manifesto, fight elections, get a majority and then change the definition of marriage," he said.

 

Mr Shanmugam said: "I want to be clear because I think there's some confusion. The definition of marriage is not going to be in the Constitution. That's not the intention."

 

TLDR: Government does not want any law changed by legal challenges on grounds of unconstitutionality being accepted by the judiciary which is not elected by society. Same-Sex Marriage/Civil Unions being legalised in future can still be on the cards if society one day elects a non-PAP opposition party to form a simple majority (50+1%) government and change the definition of marriage as an institution as defined in the Women's Charter. So any future change will 100% be societal-driven; YOUR VOTES MATTER EVEN MORE. 

 

Shanmugam has played the religious/conservative factions out. Unless religious/conservative faction of SG society can cultivate new generations of Singaporeans to be just like them in future to replenish and sustain their voting bloc size, their anti-LGBT stances will ultimately die out.  

[Guest Guest Guest]

On 8/22/2022 at 7:12 PM, fab said:

Over the radio,  I heard 1 of the greatest concernsof the public is whether gay couples, if allow to get married,  will have the same entitlement as straight married couples. 

 

So these selfish bastards are mainly concerned over financial benefits. 

 

Bigger blame to lay on the Government for explicitly tying marriage status to so many financial/societal benefits in SG. It not only affects LGBT people but also single straight people. Marriage ages have been getting older and older in SG. Tying marriage status to financial/societal benefits granted by the government has not resulted in improvement for SG's horrifically low birth rate. 

 

So cannot say blame these "selfish bastards". The government enabling them is far more to blame. 

 

 

[Guest Religious Lobby Got Rekt]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/ndr-2022-lgbtq-community-express-relief-at-repeal-of-section-377a-religious-groups-voice-concerns

 

Reverend Yang Tuck Yoong, the chairman of the Alliance of Pentecostal & Charismatic Churches of Singapore, called the repeal an "extremely regrettable decision". The alliance also reiterated that the party whip should be lifted so MPs can vote freely on the matter when it is debated in Parliament.

 

Ask yourself why is a Religious Leader calling for the party whip to be lifted by the PAP which holds a supermajority (more than 2/3rd seats) in Parliament, supposedly for "MPs to vote freely on the matter". Because he and his religious lobby are banking on having enough influence/exerting enough pressure on PAP MPs who are either themselves Christian or have significant segments of their voters being Christian/religiously conservative, to vote against repealing 377A. This is as blatant an attempt at religious interference in national politics as one can get. 

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/pap-will-not-lift-whip-for-parliament-debate-on-section-377a-repeal-lawrence-wong

 

The People's Action Party will not be lifting the whip when Parliament votes to repeal a law that criminalises sex between men as the matter is one of public policy, said Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong on Monday (Aug 22).

This means that its MPs will have to vote according to the party's position.

 

GET REKT REV YANG AND RELIGIOUS LEADERS SEEKING TO INFLUENCE SG POLITICS. 

 

[StockBottom]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/pap-will-not-lift-whip-for-parliament-debate-on-section-377a-repeal-lawrence-wong

 

Let me quote:

"Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had announced during the National Day Rally that the Government will repeal Section 377A, but also amend the Constitution to protect the existing definition of marriage - between one man and one woman - from being challenged in the courts."

 

vs

 

"Asked why the Government will not entrench the definition of marriage in the Constitution, as some churches had called for, Mr Tong said the main reason is it "may not be appropriate" to do so."

 

 

The devil is in the details. Let's see what the gahment is up to.

 

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by StockBottom

[Guest Roy Tan]

 

[Guest Puzzled]

Actually, there is no difference after repealing 377A. So what are you guys so happy about:

1) you feel good that Singapore recognizes gays more

2) you feel good that you won a battle against the govt

3) you can come out to your family more easily

4) you can have fun with no more fear of being arrested (seriously, who is afraid all this while???)

5) you feel this is one step towards marrying your lover in Singapore one day

[doncoin]

On 8/22/2022 at 11:36 AM, Guest Puzzled said:

Actually, there is no difference after repealing 377A. So what are you guys so happy about:

1) you feel good that Singapore recognizes gays more

2) you feel good that you won a battle against the govt

3) you can come out to your family more easily

4) you can have fun with no more fear of being arrested (seriously, who is afraid all this while???)

5) you feel this is one step towards marrying your lover in Singapore one day

 

 

Singapore has recognized gay people for quite some time. It is just never talked about on the level of a National Day Rally which provided the legitimacy that we exist. In making such an announcement at a National Day Rally signals the importance of the issue to Singapore, and how the government is trying to progress and accommodate all. 

 

It is not a battle against the government. It is a battle against prejudice, ignorance, and fear.

 

 

 

[Guest Self hate]

Anyone find the govement to be hypocrite?

 

For years and all my life, I've been told by the society governed by the government that I'm a god damn criminal who don't deserve love. That I'm an abomination who will be punished by law if I engage in what they call unnatural gay sex. Even if I'm in love with the other person who happens to be a guy. 

 

Yet in todays tune most of them make the argument "oh its the right thing to do moving forward". Playing the card that "we are a government who do the right thing." 

 

The right thing to do is to apologise to the marginalised gay community for mistreating us for years even when the world have moved ahead. And not repeal it sooner. 

 

 

[lohwpr]

I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who fought hard to repeal 377A. 

You guys risk everything and pursued liberation for LGBT relentlessly. 

 

It is because of you that we have a brighter future in Singapore. 

 

 

[Guest ffffffff]

Ministers explain why 377A being ruled unconstitutional viewed as 'significant risk'

https://mothership.sg/2022/08/significant-risk-377a-marriage-ministers-interview/

[Guest Preach]

On 8/23/2022 at 10:41 AM, Guest ffffffff said:

Ministers explain why 377A being ruled unconstitutional viewed as 'significant risk'

https://mothership.sg/2022/08/significant-risk-377a-marriage-ministers-interview/

 

So in another word, if it doesn't risk their constitution they would have rather label gay as criminal or moral abomination la. 

 

If Christian value so much about marriage and morals, then please ex communicate the city harvest Church leader la. 

 

That's a true criminal. 

Not us gays. We just want to be left alone. 

[BubbaBear]

It takes guts to openly support LGBT and I wouldn’t mind supporting them

[Guest Waiting to go home]

On 8/23/2022 at 4:22 PM, BubbaBear said:

It takes guts to openly support LGBT and I wouldn’t mind supporting them

 

In today's society its normal to support LGBT la. It's so mainstream now. If you have a friend who is gay, you are considered a "good friend". You suddenly become more valuable if you know gay people. 

 

Back then if you say "I have a gay friend.." the implication is you are also gay. Now you say "I have a gay friend.." the implication is you are so well liked until a gay will also confess and be your friend... You are like some alpha guy or what... 

[singalion]

On 8/22/2022 at 5:08 PM, Guest Enjoy while it lasts said:

 

 

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.

 

The danger with 377A was also a shift in policies, let it be a personal attitude of an incoming PM, the motivation of an eager Attorney General to remove the discretion not to prosecute under 377A.

 

The non prosecution of 377A was hanging on the words of the current prime minister from a speech in 2007. Once out of office, what value had these words?

 

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong may have said in 2007 that the Government would not proactively enforce Section 377A of the Penal Code, which forbids consensual sex between men, but it does not preclude such cases from being taken before the court anyway, Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal said. 

Speaking on Monday (Jan 25) during the hearing of three legal challenges to Section 377A before five Court of Appeal judges, he said that this is because the public prosecutor’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion is unfettered, as Attorney-General Lucien Wong had said so himself.

 

But look around, views can shift, take again the abortion judgment from the US Supreme Court that seemed settled since 1973 (!)...

 

The same could have happened with 377A. It just needed some "uproar" by straight citizens about toilet cruising or anything else or any other reason. An Attorney General under public pressure might have acted upon.

 

Who really felt safe while 377A was around? Just look at people calling the police because of some top less waiters serving food in a restaurant, the same person could have called the police while watching two guys going into an HDB flat and hearing certain noises at the windows...

 

 

So that danger of a shift in the stance of 377A always lingered around...

 

The repeal makes a difference!

 

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by singalion

[And then]

Some conservative elements of society are acting as if repealing 377A means every man out there now need to participate M2M sex.

 

What I do with another man is none of their fucking business, and they should have ZERO say in it.

[quanjishou]

On 8/23/2022 at 5:35 PM, And then said:

Some conservative elements of society are acting as if repealing 377A means every man out there now need to participate M2M sex.

 

What I do with another man is none of their fucking business, and they should have ZERO say in it.

the thing is 377A only covers M2M, there isnt a law regarding W2W all these while that doesnt means every woman out there have been doing W2W right?

 

[quanjishou]

they keep saying same sex is unnatural and against god creation blah blah blah.... i have seen 2 male dogs having sex taking turns to penetrate each other hahaha....

[quanjishou]

On 8/23/2022 at 6:59 PM, Since u r here said:

erm ie cos no choice

dun get what you mean?

[Guest Enjoy while it lasts]

On 8/23/2022 at 11:16 AM, singalion said:

 

Who really felt safe while 377A was around? Just look at people calling the police because of some top less waiters serving food in a restaurant, the same person could have called the police while watching two guys going into an HDB flat and hearing certain noises at the windows...

 

 

So that danger of a shift in the stance of 377A always lingered around...

 

The repeal makes a difference!

 

 

Seems more like people in general are uncomfortable with behaviour bordering on moral indecency - a straight couple both making lust noises and stripping at the window of their flat will invite the police too..wearing underwear in an setting where it is not usual to do so and where it causes public annoyance.....there are other laws such as the miscellaneous offenses / public nuisances to deal with these and not necessarily 377A - which is sex between men, and it wouldnt be used to deal with topless waiters 🤣

 

but yes, the repeal is a symbolic difference, just not a practical one imho.

 

 

[fourth]

if repealing 377A gets me 1 free bubble tea with extra pearls every August, sure. otherwise, it doesn't mean shit to me.

 

all i ask for my younger gay and lesbian fellows, is equal partnership rights and equal housing rights. i don't care if they wanna reserve the strict definition of marriage to that of a man and a woman. Civil unions serve that purpose and if this conversation does not start within the next two years, they can forget about my vote.

 

one small step? how about throwing the old dogs a bone just cuz they've been chained up there in the yard for the longest time? only repealing it now to fit into their political agendas. i'm ok with it, as long as you give me my equal housing and partnership protection rights.

[Guest Take the small wins]

On 8/24/2022 at 2:08 AM, fourth said:

i'm ok with it, as long as you give me my equal housing and partnership protection rights.

Tbh tho, partnership protection rights can easily be overcome by means of an LPA. Also why bother wanting equal housing rights? I'm assuming you're referring to HDB BTOs. Just top-up a couple of hundred thousand to get a condo which is quite a bit more comfortable and classy than public housing. I myself have no intention in bidding for a BTO and am saving up for a landed property so I have my very own plot of land.

[fourth]

On 8/24/2022 at 2:14 AM, Guest Take the small wins said:

Tbh tho, partnership protection rights can easily be overcome by means of an LPA. Also why bother wanting equal housing rights? I'm assuming you're referring to HDB BTOs. Just top-up a couple of hundred thousand to get a condo which is quite a bit more comfortable and classy than public housing. I myself have no intention in bidding for a BTO and am saving up for a landed property so I have my very own plot of land.

 

that is you. don't speak for the rest of the blue collar gay people please. in my line of work, i see a lot of them whom are outside of the so called "glam circle".

top up a couple of hundred of thousands to get a condo, u say. wow, how much subtle information are you trying to squeeze in in just that 1 sentence? pathetic.

[doncoin]

On 8/23/2022 at 2:08 PM, fourth said:

if repealing 377A gets me 1 free bubble tea with extra pearls every August, sure. otherwise, it doesn't mean shit to me.

 

all i ask for my younger gay and lesbian fellows, is equal partnership rights and equal housing rights. i don't care if they wanna reserve the strict definition of marriage to that of a man and a woman. Civil unions serve that purpose and if this conversation does not start within the next two years, they can forget about my vote.

 

one small step? how about throwing the old dogs a bone just cuz they've been chained up there in the yard for the longest time? only repealing it now to fit into their political agendas. i'm ok with it, as long as you give me my equal housing and partnership protection rights.

 

The Singapore government is pretty pragmatic and not driven by ideology. Repealing 377A is more of a pragmatic move than anything else. As we know, it has been challenged in the courts about 4 times, and each time, it has been dismissed. However, even in its dismissal, the courts also made it clear that it cannot be enforced as it will infringe on equality. So this sets up a scenario where every so often, it can be challenged, and the courts will interpret the law accordingly, and parliament must respect the court's interpretation. 

 

As such if some judges were to interpret the law and say that 377a is unconstitutional, then the govt will have to respect the court's decision and then it becomes non-debatable even without parliament.  

 

By making the announcement to repeal it, is like a preemptive strike. Take away the court's power to interpret the law and let parliament decide. This avoids issues with the PAP losing face and creating a whole cascading effect. At the same time, Singapore wants to be a more cosmopolitan society. You cannot be one with draconian laws making gay sex a criminal offense. Plus, it is hard to enforce. How will the police know you are engaging in gay sex? There are far more serious crimes than 2 guys fucking. 

 

The PAP has also made it clear that it is a political move. In repealing 377A, they have made global headline news that Singapore is now a gay-friendly country, that syncs with the goal of being a cosmopolitan city. The repeal is like a bone tossed, but progress comes in many tiny steps, not a big leap. 

 

 

[Guest Gay sex]

Did you know that lesbian can have lesbian sex and its not subjected to 377A.

 

Clearly its to discriminate against gay man. 

 

Hot gay man can't have sex! 

Anyway I read that the law came from British is to prevent British into falling in love with local man. 

 

Haha so kinky. 

 

Is it wrong to think that gay sex is extremely hot? 

[And then]

On 8/23/2022 at 8:48 PM, quanjishou said:

the thing is 377A only covers M2M, there isnt a law regarding W2W all these while that doesnt means every woman out there have been doing W2W right?

 

exactly!

but how to argue with people who are blinded by religion/tradition/convention

[And then]

On 8/24/2022 at 4:08 AM, fourth said:

if repealing 377A gets me 1 free bubble tea with extra pearls every August, sure. otherwise, it doesn't mean shit to me.

 

all i ask for my younger gay and lesbian fellows, is equal partnership rights and equal housing rights. i don't care if they wanna reserve the strict definition of marriage to that of a man and a woman. Civil unions serve that purpose and if this conversation does not start within the next two years, they can forget about my vote.

 

one small step? how about throwing the old dogs a bone just cuz they've been chained up there in the yard for the longest time? only repealing it now to fit into their political agendas. i'm ok with it, as long as you give me my equal housing and partnership protection rights.

 

if you look the gay history of other countries, decriminalisation is the generally the first step.

so hopefully there will be progress to come soon

*** i just wish the govt would have the guts to do the right thing and not pander to these conservative elements. they seem to have forgotten the meaning of equality and justice

[Guest Hate and anger]

On 8/24/2022 at 9:40 AM, And then said:

 

if you look the gay history of other countries, decriminalisation is the generally the first step.

so hopefully there will be progress to come soon

*** i just wish the govt would have the guts to do the right thing and not pander to these conservative elements. they seem to have forgotten the meaning of equality and justice

 

Government only care about bottom line. 

They have never cares about the right thing. 

 

Killing drug trafficker is more important to protect the majority. 

Suppressing gay minority is more important to protect the majority. 

 

So if you see a child misbehaving please scold and condemn the child's parent cause their religious parent didn't raize the kid. 

 

WE GAY COMMUNITY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR STRAIGHT PEOPLE'S FAILED UPBRINGING. 

 

they don't care about us. 

We don't care about them. 

We have already paid our taxes, serve NS.

 

We are denied love. 

Don't ask us to love our neighbours

[fourth]

On 8/24/2022 at 9:40 AM, And then said:

 

if you look the gay history of other countries, decriminalisation is the generally the first step.

so hopefully there will be progress to come soon

*** i just wish the govt would have the guts to do the right thing and not pander to these conservative elements. they seem to have forgotten the meaning of equality and justice

 

they wanted to ENSHRINE it in the CONSTITUTION limiting MARRIAGE to strictly btwn a man and a woman at the same time they announce the repeal. Which other country has done that, then?

 

the govt failed the LGBT population in that aspect, and there is no doubt about it. It is only happening now because 20 years from now, the vocal dissidents will be replaced by the millennials who have no issues with gay marriage. and they can't afford to look archaic when that happens.

 

 

[Guest Object]

Muslim how? 

The rich one is supposed to be able to have multiple wives. 

 

So we all know subscribe to the religion of Lawrence Wong is it? 

[StockBottom]

On 8/24/2022 at 10:27 AM, fourth said:

the govt failed the LGBT population in that aspect, and there is no doubt about it.

 

The gahment failed all Singaporeans, by pandering to a loud vocal religious minority. Do you see any other group asking for their definition of marriage to be enshrined in the constitution?

 

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by StockBottom

[Guest Apathy]

On 8/24/2022 at 12:55 PM, StockBottom said:

 

The gahment failed all Singaporeans, by pandering to a loud vocal religious minority. Do you see any other group asking for their definition of marriage to be enshrined in the constitution?

 

 

 

Alot of normal people don't really think about LGBT issues just like gays don't really think about trans issues like toilet, pronouns and etc. 

 

Only a select group is very devoted on honosexual issues. One would wonder why? 

[And then]

On 8/24/2022 at 12:27 PM, fourth said:

 

they wanted to ENSHRINE it in the CONSTITUTION limiting MARRIAGE to strictly btwn a man and a woman at the same time they announce the repeal. Which other country has done that, then?

 

the govt failed the LGBT population in that aspect, and there is no doubt about it. It is only happening now because 20 years from now, the vocal dissidents will be replaced by the millennials who have no issues with gay marriage. and they can't afford to look archaic when that happens.

 

 

Not sure how similar, but in 2004, Australia amended its Marriage law, and that was not changed until 2017

The definition of ‘marriage’ and the 2004 amendments to the Marriage Act

As noted above, the Marriage Act defines marriage as ‘the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’.[8]

This definition was inserted into the Marriage Act in 2004 along with changes to expressly preclude the recognition of same-sex marriages conducted overseas.[9] These amendments were in the main a response to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in a number of overseas jurisdictions.

 

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd054#_Toc499302448

 

[singalion]

On 8/23/2022 at 9:07 PM, Guest Enjoy while it lasts said:

Seems more like people in general are uncomfortable with behaviour bordering on moral indecency - a straight couple both making lust noises and stripping at the window of their flat will invite the police too..wearing underwear in an setting where it is not usual to do so and where it causes public annoyance.....there are other laws such as the miscellaneous offenses / public nuisances to deal with these and not necessarily 377A - which is sex between men, and it wouldnt be used to deal with topless waiters 🤣

 

but yes, the repeal is a symbolic difference, just not a practical one imho.

 

 

 

There was never any charge of the waiters who worked top less.

While the police came to the spot, no action was taken and the police report was never followed up.

 

But you are right to point to the fact that the repeal of 377A is no free run into undesired public behaviour or behaviour in public, such as sex in a public toilet, sex at a beach or playground or even sex in your car (irrespective whether two straights or two homosexuals).

 

But I think you did not get the point that the repeal is not just symbolic.

While the PM in 2007 said, 377A will not be "actively" enforced, the point is already with "actively".

 

It was the Court decision that concluded that 377A is actually "rested" as long as the AG will not prosecute gays.

The Court of Appeal escaped the question whether 377A was unconstitutional on the premise that the AG had given the confirmation that it will not prosecute. Therefore, there was no reason to make a final judgment on the constitutionality of 377A.

 

The decision might have been different, if the "guarantee" not to prosecute at current time had been taken away.

 

However, the Court of Appeals said that once the public prosecutor re-asserts the right to enforce 377A, then...

this means that 377A hang on the discretion of the public prosecution and public policy of the Attorney General.

When they switched their mind and re-started prosecuting... things had changed.

 

Here:

Quote from the judgment of the court of appeal in Feb 2022:

The Court of Appeal held that the entirety of Section 377A is "unenforceable" unless and until the Attorney-General of the day provides clear notice that he, in his capacity as the public prosecutor, intends to reassert his right to enforce the law by way of prosecution and will no longer abide by representations made by the then-AG in 2018 as to the prosecutorial policy that applies to certain conduct.

Chief Justice Menon said it is therefore "unnecessary" for the Court of Appeal to address the constitutional questions raised by the appellants.

 

 

Therefore, 377A was just temporarily rested by a declaration of the Attorney General but never in final.

 

As I wrote before on BW (maybe in a different thread as there are so many now on 377A), all depended on the stance of the government to prosecute gay sex or not. The stance could have changed at any time.

 

As such there was always the danger that gays will be prosecuted for gay sex in Singapore in future.

 

Now with the repeal, that is going to be final and gays do not need to fear being charged for gay sex in the future.

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by singalion

[singalion]

On 8/24/2022 at 10:38 AM, Guest Object said:

Muslim how? 

The rich one is supposed to be able to have multiple wives. 

 

So we all know subscribe to the religion of Lawrence Wong is it? 

 

No one prevents you to become rich and to convert to a muslim and marry 4 wives...

[singalion]

On 8/24/2022 at 1:19 PM, Guest Apathy said:

 

Only a select group is very devoted on honosexual issues. One would wonder why? 

 

Because they always need a scapegoat...

[singalion]

On 8/24/2022 at 3:49 PM, And then said:

 

Not sure how similar, but in 2004, Australia amended its Marriage law, and that was not changed until 2017

The definition of ‘marriage’ and the 2004 amendments to the Marriage Act

As noted above, the Marriage Act defines marriage as ‘the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’.[8]

This definition was inserted into the Marriage Act in 2004 along with changes to expressly preclude the recognition of same-sex marriages conducted overseas.[9] These amendments were in the main a response to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in a number of overseas jurisdictions.

 

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd054#_Toc499302448

 

 

The point is that any Act can be changed by a simple majority, while constitutions can only be amended with a 2/3 majority in parliament.

 

While the Conservative Party (Liberal Party in Australia) tried to block gay marriage under Howard in 2004 (as mentioned above), the conservative party came under pressure in later years. It was in fact a gay Liberal Party member who introduced the same sex marriage bill.

 

As majorities were always very slim in the past years in Australian parliament, plus some independents, PM Turnbull initiated a Australian wide survey, where 80% of the voters participated and 61% was in favour of permitting same sex marriage in Australia.

 

If you look at 46% "I have no opinion on this" here in Singapore, then...

 

The Singapore government just intended to prevent any clash by the anti 377A repeal supporters becoming vocal...

Just remember that one survey by the Government that was stopped after 1 day.

 

However, trying to accommodate these "conservative" parts of society with the marriage thing seems not persuasive to me.

 

If you listen to the more recent interviews, they seem to lower down amending the constitution... I assume that legal experts have expressed their concerns ...

 

 

 

[sgmaven]

They can always table the resolution, but never get to voting on it, because there are more "pressing issues" like the cost of living rises.

[Guest Repeal Soon]

https://www.allsingaporestuff.com/2022/08/22/lgbt-activist-roy-tan-with-377a-repealed-we-can-progressively-dismantle-the-impediments-to-queer-citizens/

LGBT Activist Roy Tan: With 377A repealed, we can progressively dismantle the impediments to queer citizens!

farhan August 22, 2022 Alternatives

 

Hello everyone,

This is Roy Tan again and the following is my media statement following Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s announcement that Section 377A will be repealed:

“I am elated and relieved for Singapore’s LGBT community that PM Lee Hsien Loong announced yesterday that Section 377A will be repealed. The 28 February 2022 landmark judgment by the Court of Appeal in the constitutional challenge launched by human rights lawyer M Ravi and myself that Section 377A is “unenforceable” and the historical legal precedent it established that our courts now recognise the doctrine of substantive legal expectation (SLE) in constitutional law were instrumental in making the Government arrive at its decision to repeal the discriminatory statute. It has been an arduous twelve-year struggle to arrive at this juncture. We are greatly indebted to Tan Eng Hong for having the courage to initiate the first constitutional challenge in 2010 which clinced a seminal ruling and made all subsequent challenges possible. He undertook this despite a complete lack of support and despite facing the spectre of bankruptcy from hefty court fees.

The retention of Section 377A causes a trickle-down effect which influences many of the rules and guidelines governing the lives of LGBT individuals in Singapore. With the law repealed, we can progressively dismantle the impediments to the visibility and progress of queer citizens because there no longer exists a reason for prejudicial treatment, for example in the areas of media representation, censorship, employment, sexuality and safer-sex education in schools and in public advertisements, in the armed forces and access to inclusive healthcare. I look forward to a future where we can hold our heads up high as equals in the eyes of the law instead of living as marginalised, second-class citizens in our own country.”

Yours sincerely,
Roy Tan Seng Kee.

Background information:
https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Roy_Tan

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Challenge_to_the_constitutionality_of_Section_377A

[Guest SIngaporean]

The ego is strong in this thread. Most of the replies are me me me, not enough for me me me.

 

Of course there are others who celebrated the small step forward but the crybabies are overwhelmingly the majority here, some even taking the opportunity to throw in their own agendas into the argument.

 

Every step forward we take, we take as Singaporeans. Not as hetrosexuals alone, not as gays alone. As Singaporeans as a whole. We take the middle path forward. 

 

Some are so silly as to cry out that the Government care about the majority only. This only shows how self-centred they are. 

 

We can slowly take steps to earn the equal rights. Don't act like a nuisance to let the homophobics have a chance to have a lowly impression of you. We can do better. 

 

To be able to reach this stage is definitely worth celebrating for. To continue to sulk non-stop "not enough, not enough for me" just show if you are a person who counts your blessing or you are a person who always want more more more.

[Guest Guest]

yay!

 

[Pubic01]

On 8/24/2022 at 8:05 AM, Guest Gay sex said:

Did you know that lesbian can have lesbian sex and its not subjected to 377A.

 

Clearly its to discriminate against gay man. 

 

Hot gay man can't have sex! 

Anyway I read that the law came from British is to prevent British into falling in love with local man. 

 

Haha so kinky. 

 

Is it wrong to think that gay sex is extremely hot? 

Ya lo. Horny Ang mo officers mmmm lol.
 

It’s funny how a code passed to control horny ang mo officers back in the early days can evolved into something with such a religious slant … (family wholesomeness, whatever shit). I marvel at the sales pitch of these religious dogs for twisting ideas to fit everyone into their moulds. 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Pubic01