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

[Guest Guest]

On 8/24/2022 at 11:37 PM, Guest Guest said:

yay!

 

Yay to repeal of 377A!

 

But these 2 sisters are v irritating and have way too much unnecessary exposure. 

[Guest Roy Tan]

 

[Guest Penetrator]

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! 

...

Hi, this is because females do not have dicks to penetrate one another.

By definition, Sex=Penetration by a dick

[Guest ffffffff]

On 8/26/2022 at 11:13 AM, Sizzler said:

Nothing wrong with "me me me' ... I have 1 life and I live it for myself ... I'm not going to live my life according to some religious prick's standard .. who the f^&* is he to me?

 

To be honest, this stage is nothing to celebrate about .. except that we now can show the middle finger to the religious groups. I have reached the stage where .. if I cannot get what I want in SG, get out ... no need to move mountains to get to your destination .. easier to detour

I often wonder what's the attraction here. So many want to come here join the rat race, stress themselves out, become irritable people. Just for limited resources, overpriced goods and services, overcrowded place.

[singalion]

 

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? 

 

On 8/28/2022 at 7:21 AM, Guest Penetrator said:

Hi, this is because females do not have dicks to penetrate one another.

By definition, Sex=Penetration by a dick

 

Just for clarification: 

 

377A is this:

 

Outrages on decency

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.   => a) It only applied to two men.  b) It doesn't depend on "penetration" only, all types of what was interpreted as "gross indecency" are affected.  Therefore it covered any homosexual activity between 2 men.  c) There was no general definition what "gross indecency" stood for. It depended solely on the judge whether any behaviour between two men constituted "gross indecency" but it was not restricted to "penetration". Even in English law there was never any interpretation of these words but meant to cover any homosexual activity between two men.

[Guest Singaporean]

On 8/26/2022 at 11:13 AM, Sizzler said:

Nothing wrong with "me me me' ... I have 1 life and I live it for myself ... I'm not going to live my life according to some religious prick's standard .. who the f^&* is he to me?

 

To be honest, this stage is nothing to celebrate about .. except that we now can show the middle finger to the religious groups. I have reached the stage where .. if I cannot get what I want in SG, get out ... no need to move mountains to get to your destination .. easier to detour

That is why there is no peace on earth. There are 7.7 billion people living on this Earth. If everybody adopts a me me me attitude, there will be daily wars to serve each one's me me me agenda.

 

Luckily there are us us us people.

 

You don't have to live your life according to some religious prick's standard. He is obviously another me me me person, just like you, in that sense, you are both pricks.

 

Living a me me me life means that you will take everything personally. Ultimately you will live your daily life highly sensitive to what others do, always angry why others do things this way, do things that way, are they against you, are they purposely out to get you.

 

In the end, because of all these preoccupations with me me me, you are growing your own daily unhappiness. It really shows, when you are not even keen in celebrating the small things and ever ready to point your middle finger/prick.

 

I agree with you though, if you are unhappy staying here, go ahead, get out. There are many more grateful people wanting to come in. Do consider holistically though, what Singapore can give, cannot give you and what your destination can give you, and cannot give you. 

 

Last but not least, it is often said that happiness is an insider job. Nobody else owes you or can guarantee you eternal happiness. I wish you will find your happiness. 

[singalion]

On 8/28/2022 at 10:46 PM, Guest Singaporean said:

That is why there is no peace on earth. There are 7.7 billion people living on this Earth. If everybody adopts a me me me attitude, there will be daily wars to serve each one's me me me agenda.

 

Luckily there are us us us people.

 

You don't have to live your life according to some religious prick's standard. He is obviously another me me me person, just like you, in that sense, you are both pricks.

 

Living a me me me life means that you will take everything personally. Ultimately you will live your daily life highly sensitive to what others do, always angry why others do things this way, do things that way, are they against you, are they purposely out to get you.

 

In the end, because of all these preoccupations with me me me, you are growing your own daily unhappiness. It really shows, when you are not even keen in celebrating the small things and ever ready to point your middle finger/prick.

 

I agree with you though, if you are unhappy staying here, go ahead, get out. There are many more grateful people wanting to come in. Do consider holistically though, what Singapore can give, cannot give you and what your destination can give you, and cannot give you. 

 

Last but not least, it is often said that happiness is an insider job. Nobody else owes you or can guarantee you eternal happiness. I wish you will find your happiness. 

 

It is common knowledge that younger generations are getting more and more selfish. This goes through all societies.

Education might be the issue, not so much school education but more from parents.

Another factor may be smaller families. Last time people had 3 - 10 siblings, there was more pressure that one cannot be taken care of all the time while ignoring the others.

Worst are probably the one child families that contribute to a more selfish mindset.

 

In Singapore there might be some "enhancers" as parents tend to instill their kids to seek the "me, me and me" even to extremes.

 

But other societies have same issues, that community spirit is getting less.

 

All boils down on parental education in my personal view.

If the damage is done, kindergarten and school teachers have little impact to remedy any wrongs, as then parents would turn up to scold the teachers...

 

 

 

 

 

[singalion]

After reading some posts, I must say, those who said, they are unaffected by the change I found quite disturbing comments.

 

Surely, it will need time for the change to set in and it doesn't mean acceptance will be here on the next day.

 

But for sure, even those who claim that the repeal of 377A doesn't affect them, they are wrong.

 

Police won't raid any saunas, you can go on with your sexual activity at home, hotel or any other private place without fear of officers entering your premises, but only your own mum can bump into your room (accidentally).

 

So it doesn't affect you if you can feel safe while going on with your homosexual activities in a hotel?

Let's be honest. sure the repeal will be a major step forward... or should I say "majullah"?

 

[Why?]

Regardless S377A is repealed, Politicians' speeches no longer interest me. Simply put, boring.

[Guest Singaporean]

On 8/29/2022 at 4:54 PM, singalion said:

 

It is common knowledge that younger generations are getting more and more selfish. This goes through all societies.

Education might be the issue, not so much school education but more from parents.

Another factor may be smaller families. Last time people had 3 - 10 siblings, there was more pressure that one cannot be taken care of all the time while ignoring the others.

Worst are probably the one child families that contribute to a more selfish mindset.

 

In Singapore there might be some "enhancers" as parents tend to instill their kids to seek the "me, me and me" even to extremes.

 

But other societies have same issues, that community spirit is getting less.

 

All boils down on parental education in my personal view.

If the damage is done, kindergarten and school teachers have little impact to remedy any wrongs, as then parents would turn up to scold the teachers...

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. Schools has so much on their hands, so many things to cover, so many areas that others are screaming should be the priority and there is only so much time that students stay in the school.

 

And there is no guarantee what kind of influence they get in schools as peers tend to exert a greater influence on the impressionable minds of the young. There is also no guarantee of the quality of teachers no matter how stringent the selection process is but overall parents play the biggest part in nurturing the right mindset from young. If a parent is a self-entitled litter bug, the child will likely grow up to be a self-entitled litter bug.    

 

But I feel the western media has the biggest part to play in it. The western culture tends to be more self-centred, more individualistic, thinking more of themselves and their own needs and objectives. while the Asian values tend to take into consideration the effect of their own actions in their social groups and society as a whole.  

 

Sadly, the western culture is so prevalent and celebrated worldwide. There is no balance. 

[singalion]

On 8/29/2022 at 10:26 PM, Guest Singaporean said:

But I feel the western media has the biggest part to play in it. The western culture tends to be more self-centred, more individualistic, thinking more of themselves and their own needs and objectives. while the Asian values tend to take into consideration the effect of their own actions in their social groups and society as a whole.  

 

I always thought that was part of the "Asian values" that one certain Singaporean politician instilled into the country's people but might have been a myth. 

 

Well, surely due to constraints in place, finances or other reasons, Singaporeans used to live in many generation in one flat, but is it still true in 2022?

 

Why does charity bring CNY, Hari Raya or Deepavali hampers to so many old people who seem neglected by their relatives...

 

When I lived in an HDB for some time both my neighbours on my corridor never had their parents, grandparents at home or visiting them...

 

And it is also not true that the majority of Westerners don't care for their elderly parents. It is still a minority that lives in Senior citizen homes, mostly when any help or care would be very cumbersome. 

 

 

[StockBottom]

Aiyah, no change lah.

 

 

S'pore's mainstream media must continue to be 'responsible & balanced' in handling LGBT topics: Josephine Teo

Minister for Communications and Information Josephine Teo said that it is of "utmost importance" for the mainstream media in Singapore to continue to be "responsible and balanced" in handling LGBT topics following the government's announcement to repeal Section 377A.

Teo said that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has "made clear" in his National Day Rally speech that the government does not want the repeal to "trigger a drastic shift" in Singapore's societal norms across the board, including what is shown on free-to-air television and in cinemas.

Mainstream media to maintain balance

On Saturday (Aug. 27), Teo addressed a Facebook post in the name of "Miak Siew" who publicly talked about his forthcoming participation on a radio programme on 89.3 MoneyFM.

The Facebook user said, "The announcement of the repeal has helped made it easier for us to be speaking about LGBT topics 'live on air'."

In response to this, Teo said that this view is "contrary to MCI's position".

The Facebook post gave the wrong impression that the mainstream media in Singapore— SPH Media Trust and MediaCorp— has shifted, Teo added.

Teo further stated that the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) has engaged the mainstream media in Singapore and can confirm that these media companies understand and support the government's position.

Teo added:

"If mainstream media campaigns or lobbies for either side in this debate – or gives prominence to one view to the exclusion of others - it would not be possible for us to avoid the culture wars we see elsewhere. It is of utmost importance that mainstream media continues to be responsible and balanced in handling LGBT topics. I am confident they will do so and will take appropriate action to maintain this balance as and when it is challenged."

Policies on LGBT media content will remain the same

Following PM Lee's announcement on the repeal of Section 377A, MCI released a statement to say that it will not be changing its policies on LGBT media content in Singapore.

In her Facebook post on Aug. 27, Teo reiterated MCI's stance.

She said that PM Lee has "made clear" the government's position on not triggering a drastic shift in Singapore's societal norms, including what is shown on free-to-air television and in cinemas.

"We will maintain the status quo in the media landscape, and strongly discourage campaigning for pro- or anti-LGBT viewpoints," Teo added.

Top image via Josephine Teo's Facebook page.

[singalion]

 

Does MCI still intend to withhold or restrict Movies that have a gay theme or a "gay theme" in a children movie?

 

 

A scene depicting kissing between two women in the latest Star Wars film, "The Rise of Skywalker", has been cut by Disney for screening in Singapore.

In response to Mothership's queries, a spokesperson for the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) stated that Disney had removed a "brief scene" from the film which would have necessitated a higher rating under Film Classification Guidelines.

 

Disney's Lightyear rated NC16 in Singapore over 'overt' lesbian kiss scene

14 June 2022

 

SINGAPORE — Walt Disney's new Pixar movie Lightyear, which features a same-sex couple sharing a brief kiss, has been rated NC16 in Singapore due to "overt homosexual depictions".

Media regulator Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) made the announcement on Tuesday (14 June), two days before the animated spin-off from Toy Story opens in Singapore.

The rating, which would restrict entry to those aged 16 and up, is the highest in Singapore for a children’s animated film. Disney, the film distributor, had turned down its request to consider the option of releasing the film in two versions, under its Simultaneous Rating Release (SRS) mechanism.

 

 

 

 

As if kids would be seriously alert on a short kiss between two women...

 

This places Singapore into a list of countries such as: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates...

 

 

 

[Guest Least harm is not enough]

Don't dismiss the fact that decriminalizing our sex acts is removing a huge social phycological burden on some timid people who are easily intimidated by authority.

 

That HDB director would be a good case. Having actual sex would be considered criminal offence under the law or if not, by people he knows who would quote that stupid law.

 

He might think that admiring men from pics and videos would be safe and least harmful.

 

Now timid people like him can physiologically accept having sex without nagging internal guilts.

 

 For those who still think this repeal is not monumental enough, you can stuff it for being so about "me me me me" .

Many gays are timid from being feeling prosecuted and bullied. It's about them not you. 

[singalion]

 

Indian court ruling shows risks of legal challenge to Singapore's definition of marriage: Shanmugam

 

ST 2 Sept 2022, 12:39 am SGT

 

 

SINGAPORE - The Indian Supreme Court's recent ruling to widen the country's definition of families to "atypical" households like same-sex couples has starkly illustrated the risks of a legal challenge to Singapore’s current definition of marriage, said Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam.

 

In a Facebook post on Thursday, Mr Shanmugam said the constitutional amendments that the Government intends to pass will seek to ensure that the definition of marriage here is decided in Parliament, not through the courts.

The Indian court had ruled last month that family benefits under law must be extended to blended families, same-sex couples and other households. Singapore’s courts have avoided such an approach and left the changing of laws to Parliament, he added.

 

Mr Shanmugam noted that the Indian court's decision to recognise different types of families comes just a few years after it struck out Section 377 of its Penal Code in 2018, which like Singapore's Section 377A criminalises sex between men.

 

At the National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had announced that Section 377A will be repealed, but also said the Government will amend the Constitution to safeguard the definition of marriage from legal challenges.

 

Elaborating a day later, Mr Shanmugam said the Constitution will be amended to make clear 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.

 

 

 

In its ruling last month, the Indian Supreme Court had ruled in favour of Ms Deepika Singh, a nurse whose employer - a government medical institute in northern India - had denied her application for maternity leave after she gave birth because she had already taken leave to care for her husband's children from a previous marriage.

 

 

The two-judge bench said the concept that a "family" consists of a single, unchanging unit with a mother and a father and their children ignores the fact that many families do not conform to this expectation.

 

Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, who wrote the order, said "family" could be defined by various configurations of adults occupying the roles of primary caretakers with both biological and non-biological children.

 

Referring to the Indian Court's ruling on Thursday, Mr Shanmugam said: "Our courts have traditionally eschewed such an approach, and have said that these matters should be dealt with in Parliament. The constitutional amendments will seek to ensure that."

 

 

 

[Steve5380]

On 9/2/2022 at 3:09 AM, singalion said:

 

The two-judge bench said the concept that a "family" consists of a single, unchanging unit with a mother and a father and their children ignores the fact that many families do not conform to this expectation.

 

Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, who wrote the order, said "family" could be defined by various configurations of adults occupying the roles of primary caretakers with both biological and non-biological children.

 

Referring to the Indian Court's ruling on Thursday, Mr Shanmugam said: "Our courts have traditionally eschewed such an approach, and have said that these matters should be dealt with in Parliament. The constitutional amendments will seek to ensure that."

 

 

It seems that judges of Indian Courts are smarter than the ones in Singapore Courts...

 

They correctly estimate that SOCIAL issues should not be handled by a "Parliament" that deals with POLITICS,  but by courts of law that deal with JUSTICE and JURISPRUDENCE.

[Guest 377A repealed]

https://thehomeground.asia/destinations/singapore/repeal-of-377a-singapores-peaceful-lawful-process-to-end-ban-on-gay-sex/
Repeal of 377A: Singapore’s peaceful, lawful process to end ban on gay sex
It may have taken Singapore an arduous 15 years to finally say “yes” to the repeal of Section 377A, but activists say there is still work to be done for LGBTQ citizens to enjoy the same rights that heterosexual Singaporeans take for granted.
Many in the LGBTQ community say it is now time for healing, and that the community should focus on more pressing issues.

TheHomeGround Asia retraces the steps of the number of contentious debates in the House and the legal challenges, albeit peaceful, that led to the repeal of the ban of gay sex in Singapore.
Judith Tan
23 Aug 2022

It took Singapore 15 years to finally say “yes” to repeal Section 377A, a deeply divisive law that criminalises sex between men.
On Sunday, 21 August, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made the much anticipated announcement during his National Day Rally 2022 (NDR 2022) speech. “I believe this is the right thing to do, and something that most Singaporeans will now accept. This will bring the law into line with current social mores, and I hope, provide some relief to gay Singaporeans.”

The announcement comes after years of contentious debates in Parliament and legal challenges from various parties, either arguing for or against the law that originated from the British colonial era, making Singapore the latest place in Asia to move on LGBT rights, after India, Taiwan and Thailand.

LGBTQ activist Dr Roy Tan, 64, tells TheHomeGround Asia he is “elated and relieved for Singapore’s LGBTQ community about the impending repeal of Section 377A”. A retired General Practitioner (GP), he was one of six men who challenged Section 377A of the Penal Code in the courts, launching challenges to the law in 2019. Their cases resulted in the Court of Appeal declaring in February that Section 377A was entirely unenforceable.
Dr Tan says the 28 February 2022 landmark judgement by the Court of Appeal was instrumental in the Government arriving at its decision on Sunday. 

“It has been an arduous 12-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 clinched 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,” Dr Tan says.
The “Tan Eng Hong” he is referring to challenged the constitutionality of the anti-gay law after he was charged in 2010 for allegedly having oral sex with another consenting adult man in a locked cubicle of a public toilet. 

His case clinched a landmark judgement by the Court of Appeal, flinging the doors open to make possible four subsequent constitutional challenges, culminating in the statute being ruled “unenforceable” in 2022.

The origins of Section 377A
Section 377A is a legacy of Singapore’s colonial past, introduced into its Penal Code in 1938, specifically criminalising sex between consenting male adults.

It descended from the 1885 Labouchere Amendment. Then, homosexuality was only illegal with regards to the act of buggery but it all changed when Liberal MP for Northampton Henry Labouchere, a strong opponent of homosexuality, introduced Section 11 of the 1885 Criminal Law Amendment Act which made all homosexual acts illegal. 

While the bill was primarily concerned with the protection of women and girls by increasing the age of consent, this small section was pivotal in homosexual legislation and was passed during a late night debate in the House of Commons with only a few MPs present. 

The move towards repeal: amicable and “within the law”
So far, Section 377A has since been repealed in the United Kingdom (where the law originated), Hong Kong, Australia and India. In East and South-east Asia, only Myanmar, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia’s Aceh province continue to criminalise sexual activity between men.

While violence ensues in the Western world over fighting for communal rights, in Singapore, the fight is considered “mild and amicable” and “organised within the law”. 

In 2000, the Speaker’s Corner at Hong Lim Park became Singapore’s first outdoor legal public-speaking venue where visitors could give public speeches without the need for various licences. The regulations there were further relaxed in 2004 and 2008, paving the way for Singapore’s first ever public pro-LGBTQ rally on 19 May 2009.

Dr Tan was the first to register an LGBTQ rally at Hong Lim Park in 2008 but postponed it to 2009 to spend more time organising. This rally came to be known as Pink Dot SG, a non-profit movement and Singapore’s biggest civil society gathering. The annual rally at Hong Lim Park grew over the years in both attendance and public support from everyday Singaporeans, celebrities, and politicians. It is mainly a rally for changes in the laws that govern the community.

Repeal of 377A: Singapore's peaceful, lawful process to end ban on gay sex
The 2019 Pink Dot SG focused on Section 377A and efforts to repeal this archaic law. It zoomed in on the many stories of discrimination faced by the different members of the LGBTQ community in all facets of society – the workplace, schools, public and online. (Photo source: NBC News)
In 2019 Pink Dot SG focused on Section 377A and efforts to repeal this archaic law. It was the last time the rally was organised in-person before the Covid-19 pandemic hit. The next time crowds physically gathered at the park was June this year and media headlines seem to focus on awarding accolades to those who attended. This, many believed, might just well indicate an underlying shifting of tides.

Dr Tan himself also “predicted” this when he, in a June interview with TheHomeGround Asia, said that “the State is going to repeal Section 377A soon, probably before the year is out”. He said the leaps and bounds made in a series of “firsts” in the Government’s allowing of recent publication in the mainstream media of a slew of LGBT-supportive news, most notably the Ipsos survey. 

It was in 2007 that Parliament debated amendments to the Penal Code. Then Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong filed a citizen’s petition to repeal Section 377A, sparking a passionate debate on the topic with fierce arguments from both sides.

Speaking to the BBC after this year’s National Day Rally, the former NMP said there will be deeper conflict ahead and warned “we will see the temperature ratchet up” in coming months as Singapore prepares to enact both the repeal and constitutional amendment.

The constitutional challenges against Section 377A
But the first legal challenge posed against Section 377A was in 2010, when massage therapist Tan Eng Hong filed to declare Section 377A unconstitutional after he was charged under the provision for engaging in a sex act with a man in a locked cubicle in a public toilet.

His case was thrown out in 2011 when High Court judge Lai Siu Chiu found there was “no real controversy” for the court to proceed. Mr Tan’s appeal was heard in the High Court because Section 377A affects the lives of many in a “very real and intimate way”. This opened the door for others to file against S377A.

Gay couple Lim Meng Suang and Kenneth Chee put in the second constitutional challenge but was dismissed in April 2013 by High Court judge Quentin Loh who held that Section 377A is not inconsistent with Article 12 of the Constitution, which guarantees everyone equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Six months later, Justice Loh threw out Mr Tan’s case and wrote that Parliament should be the one to change the law because the issue is one of “morality and societal values”.

The Court of Appeal issued a landmark ruling a year after, saying it is constitutional and that the equal protection under Article 12 of the Constitution “touches only on issues of religion, race, place of birth and descent, not on gender, sex and sexual orientation.

But Mr Ong filed a fresh constitutional challenge after India’s Supreme Court struck off Section 377 of its Penal Code, which criminalises consensual gay sex. He was joined by Mr Choong and Dr Tan. This was thrown out in 2020 by High Court judge See Kee Oon, saying he found no conclusive scientific evidence to show that homosexuality is changing over time or that it is solely caused by biological factors.

He also said Section 377A cannot be said to be redundant “simply because the Government has taken a stance that it will not seek to enforce the law” and that Parliament should be the one deciding if the law stays.

The three men appealed against his decision and in dismissing the appeal in February, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon also said Section 377A “would not be proactively enforced”, and that the Government has assessed that “society has yet to adequately integrate the opposing views of mainstream conservatives and the homosexual community”, and that “forcing the issue would polarise those who are presently willing to live and let live”.

The turning of the tide
Minister for Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam has said on multiple occasions that LGBTQ persons would be protected, adding that “we are not any lesser by reason of our sexual preferences”.

In a Parliamentary hearing on 3 March, Mr Shanmugam reiterated that the Government is carefully considering the best way forward on Section 377A of the Penal Code. “We must respect the different viewpoints, consider them carefully, and talk to the different groups,” he said.

“If and when we decide to move, we will do so in a way that continues to balance these different viewpoints, and avoids causing a sudden, destabilising change in social norms and public expectations,” he added.

A month later, Mr Shanmugam told the House the Government has been consulting with and will continue to speak to diverse groups of Singaporeans to better understand their viewpoints on 377A and will consider the various views carefully as it decides on the next steps for Singapore.

S377A repealed: What it means in the future
In an interview with CNA a day after PM Lee announced the repeal of S377A in his National Day Rally, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong said the current legal position on Section 377A is a “very untidy compromise”, with the law criminalising sex between men being “vulnerable” to legal challenges.

This means that it was not possible for the Government to “keep to (the) status quo for much longer”, Mr Tong, who is also Second Minister for Law, said.

Mr Tong added that the Government studied the judgement made by CJ Menon “very carefully” and with advice from Attorney-General Lucien Wong, took the overall view that there is a “significant risk” that Section 377A could be struck down on the grounds that it breaches the Constitution’s Equal Protection provision.

Dr Tan tells TheHomeGround Asia that the retention of Section 377A caused “a trickle-down effect which influences many of the rules and guidelines governing the lives of LGBT individuals in Singapore”. 

Repeal of 377A: Singapore's peaceful, lawful process to end ban on gay sex 
With the law repealed, the LGBTQ community is able to peel off the layers of prejudicial treatment, which include media representation, censorship, employment, being subjected to conversion therapy, school and workplace bullying and violence. (Photo source: AFP)
“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. These include the areas of media representation, censorship, employment, being subjected to the traumatising effects of conversion therapy, school and workplace bullying and violence, sexuality and safer-sex education in schools and in public advertisements, registration of societies and businesses, in the armed forces and access to inclusive healthcare,” Dr Tan says.

“My hopes for the future are that every Singaporean LGBT citizen will be able to enjoy exactly the same rights that our heterosexual counterparts take for granted, no more, no less. … Eventually, I look forward to a time when we can hold our heads up high as equals in every aspect of the law instead of living as marginalised, second-class citizens in our own country,” he adds. 

[Guest OK 2 SUCK THAT CAWK]

https://mothership.sg/2022/09/repealing-377a-political-campaign-issue/

[fab]

Safeguard straight marriage?  He divorced b4. 

 

Straight and gay marriages are not mutually exclusive. 

[singalion]

On 9/4/2022 at 1:52 PM, Guest OK 2 SUCK THAT CAWK said:

https://mothership.sg/2022/09/repealing-377a-political-campaign-issue/

 

Nice article, but isn't anything that Governments having a majority in parliament do somehow political or to win elections?

 

The positive point is: The law can be changed in future... It is not that it is not changeable.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by singalion

[Guest Ok 2 suck cawk]

On 9/4/2022 at 2:54 PM, singalion said:

 

Nice article, but isn't anything that Governments having a majority in parliament do somehow political or to win elections?

 

The positive point is: The law can be changed in future... It is not that it is not changeable.

 

 

Gotta wait till LW retire then see how...

[Guest erm]

how many of you got someone to get married to now, or even in the future? If not, why care about laws allowing gay marriage?

[Guest Wtaf]

On 9/4/2022 at 9:56 PM, Guest erm said:

how many of you got someone to get married to now, or even in the future? If not, why care about laws allowing gay marriage?

what a strange life you live, where you only concern yourself with things that directly affect you personally at that exact moment in time. 

[Steve5380]

On 9/4/2022 at 9:28 AM, Guest Wtaf said:

what a strange life you live, where you only concern yourself with things that directly affect you personally at that exact moment in time. 

 

It may not be a strange life.   It may be a very rational thinking that the social benefits of eliminating 377A surpass by far the inconvenience of not being able to marry same-sex.  

[Guest Wtaf]

On 9/7/2022 at 11:12 AM, Steve5380 said:

 

It may not be a strange life.   It may be a very rational thinking that the social benefits of eliminating 377A surpass by far the inconvenience of not being able to marry same-sex.  

I guess you didn’t read or couldn’t understand the post I was responding to... but anything to just keep posting on every single thread, even those where your lack of knowledge or experience of the issues discussed is embarrassingly clear. 

[Steve5380]

On 9/7/2022 at 12:18 AM, Guest Wtaf said:

I guess you didn’t read or couldn’t understand the post I was responding to... but anything to just keep posting on every single thread, even those where your lack of knowledge or experience of the issues discussed is embarrassingly clear. 

 

Please, don't feel embarrass by having misjudged me and missed the clarity of my knowledge of your 377A law and the need for same-sex marriage.

[Guest Roy Tan]

On Friday, 9 September 2022, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, in a keynote speech as guest-of-honour at the opening ceremony of the International Conference on Communities of Success (ICCOS). that the Government must take a neutral, secular approach in a multireligious society such as Singapore’s.
He gave the example of Section 377A, the colonial-era law criminalising sex between men. He said: "Islam considers homosexual acts to be sinful. Many Christians think so too. But what some religions consider a sin should not necessarily therefore be made a crime. Like every human society, Singapore also has gay people in our midst. And like other Singaporeans, gay people want to be respected and accepted just like their fellow citizens. For reasons that the Government has explained, we intend to repeal S377A, and to decriminalise sex between men." 
Lee, however, also stressed that the Government did not want the repeal to trigger any drastic shift in societal norms, lead to same-sex marriage, or affect the many policies that were based on the existing definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
The Government intended to uphold and safeguard the institution of marriage, and will amend the Constitution to protect the existing definition of marriage from being challenged constitutionally in courts, he said, reiterating a point he made at the NDR.
Lee explained: "Muslims are not directly affected by this, because Muslim marriages are governed separately by Muslim law. But understandably, Muslims are concerned too. Hence we have reassured them that they will remain free to preach and practise what Islam teaches on sexuality and marriage. The broader social context within which Muslims live in Singapore will not suddenly change."

[Guest 377A Repealed]

This is an analytically piercing academic paper just published yesterday by former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong regarding the Court of Appeal's ruling on Roy Tan's Section 377A constitutional challenge: Tan Seng Kee v Attorney-General [2022] SCGA 16. It argues that there was no convincing basis for the Court not to address the constitutionality of Section 377A.

Published on e-First 12 September 2022
EQUAL JUSTICE AND THE PROSECUTORIAL POWER
This article considers the many novel propositions raised in the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Tan Seng Kee v Attorney-General [2022] SCGA 16. The Court of Appeal ruled, among other things, that the appellants lacked locus standi because the Attorney-General, in recognition of the Governments “political compromise” in not repealing and not proactively enforcing s 377A of the Penal Code, had undertaken not to enforce the law. Such undertaking amounted to representations that engendered a substantive legitimate expectation that s 377A would not be enforced, which led the Court to declare that s 377A was unenforceable in its entirety. This article offers alternative interpretive approaches to these propositions, including the application of the reasonable classification test to s 377A and Art 12(1) of the Constitution, and further argues that there was no convincing basis for the Court not to address the primary issue in the appeals, viz, the constitutionality of s 377A.
CHAN Sek Keong SC
LLB (University of Malaya in Singapore),
LLD (Hons) (National University of Singapore), LLD (Hons) (Singapore Management University);
Distinguished Fellow (National University of Singapore).
The entire paper in PDF format may be downloaded from Singapore Law Watch's website:

https%3A%2F%2Fwww.singaporelawwatch.sg%2FPortals%2F0%2F2209-02%20Equal%20Justice%20Prosecutorial%20Power.pdf%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3fuIXcSoRxo2boL72LTNxF8NBYbGTMiSNAmRuwagG1lbMbfLPcm8TIHoU&h=AT0_Vfzt3zJqzC6tpg5vp2T5IfAHgIIhVsSvR5cwINsz65FWqWTFVID0i8CMQuvozli8PPJODm1OBrm0bY_9eTf_RMPlLY720kKyLy2jo7joO1w3uY0nT2MGJPUpyw4K-Zk&__tn__=-UK*F

[Guest Section 377A Repealed]

Among former Chief Justice Chan Seck Keong's startling propositions which contradicted the Court of Appeal's ruling were:
*The appellants had standing in the appeal, before and after the date of the judgment. In any event, the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction and could have addressed the constitutional question.
*The political compromise not to proactively enforce Section 377A, whether or not packaged with the Attorney-General's representations, was not justiciable, and had no legal significance.
*The AG's representations were information, and not representations intended to engender legitimate expectations under the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation (DSLE). In any event, requirements of the DSLE were not satisfied on the facts, and also on the law in that the DSLE did not apply to prosecutorial power. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal had no power to declare a subsisting law unenforceable.
*The courts were not bound under Section 9A(1) of the Interpretation Act to apply the Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General framework to interpret Section 377A, and may refer to any relevant extrinsic evidence to interpret legislation under the common law.
*Section 377A, properly construed, did not criminalise penetrative sex punishable under the former Section 377 (repealed in 2007).
*The classification of male-male acts of gross indecency in Section 377A was under-inclusive in relation to the purpose or object of Section 377A, and accordingly Section 377A was inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
*If Section 377A was inconsistent with Article 12(1), it may be construed pursuant to Article 162 to conform to the Constitution in a manner that would safeguard public decency. If it could not be construed to conform to the Constitution, it remained an existing law that could not be enforced.

[quanjishou]

 

[Guest Marriage so important meh]

On 9/21/2022 at 11:40 PM, quanjishou said:

 

 

Marriage is between A man and A woman. No divorce and second marriages allowed. 

 

 

[Guest Roy Tan]

On Monday, 26 September 2022, a panel discussion with Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam on the implications of Tan Seng Kee v AG was co-hosted by the Singapore Academy of Law and the Law Society of Singapore. The forum was moderated by Professor Lee Pey Woan, dean of Singapore Management University's Yong Pung How School of Law. This video is a combination of the reports filed by The Straits Times and Asia One. Law academics and senior members of the legal fraternity said repealing Section 377A was the right move as there was a real risk of the law being struck down by the courts in a future legal challenge, and doing away with it through the democratic process in Parliament would be less messy. Also, the sheer existence of the law, even if it was not used, would continue to cause a societal rift between those who opposed the law and those who supported it. Minister Shanmugam said that the apex court's decision in February 2022 suggested that Section 377A might be unconstitutional because the statute could violate Article 12 of the Constitution if a particular approach were taken to evaluate it. The court also held that the three men who brought the case did not have locus standi, or standing, to challenge the law, since there was no real risk of prosecution under Section 377A. However, he noted that the court had limited itself to considering the lack of standing with regard to prosecution and not investigations by the police. This meant it was possible for the court to rule differently on the issue of standing in future, based on a different set of facts.

Links:

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

[Guest guest]

On 10/3/2022 at 10:12 PM, Since u r here said:

gd to watch

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1468965810291095

Really good watch.

[Guest Roy Tan]

On Thursday, 20 October 2022, a Penal Code (Amendment) Bill to repeal Section 377A was tabled for its first reading in Parliament by Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam, paving the way for the law to be struck off from the stature books. At the same time, based on a parliamentary order paper released the day before, the Ministry of Social and Family Development introduced the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 3) Bill to modify the Constitution to protect the existing definition of marriage as being between a man and woman, and laws and government policies made on that basis, from being challenged in the courts on the grounds that it violated Article 12 of the Constitution. There were two laws that defined marriage in Singapore - the Women’s Charter stated that a marriage that was not between a man and a woman was void, while the Interpretation Act stated that a monogamous marriage was the union of one man and one woman. The two tabled Bills would be debated together when Parliament sat on 28 November 2022, and then voted on separately. This was because repealing a law required just a simple majority of MPs, while any amendment to the Constitution had to be supported by at least two-thirds of MPs, excluding Nominated MPs. The constitutional amendment, tabled by Minister for Social and Family Development Masagos Zulkifli, would come in the form of Article 156 on the Institution of Marriage, which would state in part (1) that the Legislature, that is Parliament, may, by law, define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage. Article 156 (2) would provide for the Government and public authorities to protect and promote the institution of marriage in the exercise of their functions. The effect of these new provisions was that Parliament could define the institution of marriage and with the Government, could make policies on the basis of that definition. Examples of measures included public housing policies and financial benefits for married couples, as well as education and media policies that promote and safeguard the institution of marriage. Article 156(3) and 156(4) would protect laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and laws and policies based on such a definition, from being invalidated by the courts on the grounds that they violated Part 4 of the Constitution (Fundamental Liberties) which contained Article 12. Examples of such policies included those on public housing, where married couples received financial benefits, as well as education and media policies that promoted and safeguarded the institution of marriage, said the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Social and Family Development in a joint statement after the Bills were introduced. Should the amendment pass, any change to the heterosexual definition of marriage and laws made on that basis could only happen through Parliament and not through the courts. “Such issues should be decided by Parliament, where there can be a full debate that accounts for different perspectives and considerations, and is not tied to a binary (win-lose) decision like in the Courts,” the ministries added. They also noted that the Bill did not codify or enshrine the definition of marriage into the Constitution, a move that some Abrahamic religious groups had earlier called for. Masagos reiterated the Government’s position that families were foundational to society in Singapore, and that the constitutional amendment was aimed at protecting the current definition and laws and policies that relied on this definition from a court challenge. “This significant amendment to our Constitution demonstrates our commitment for Singapore to be a pro-family society and build a Singapore made for families,” he said at a dialogue session with volunteers from social service agencies after the Parliament sitting.

Links:

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

[Guest Roy Tan]

The news was also broadcast over Channel NewsAsia at 10pm on Singapore Tonight.

[Guest Roy Tan]

The Gov.sg Facebook page also uploaded three separate videos featuring graphics explaining why the Government was repealing Section 377A and the implications of the move.

[StockBottom]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/askst-what-to-know-about-the-constitutional-changes-to-protect-the-definition-of-marriage

 

 

Quote

 

6. Why isn’t the definition of marriage permanently written into the Constitution, as some groups have suggested?

The definition of marriage may be subject to change in the future, depending on the attitudes of society at the time.

However, it will not change under PM Lee’s watch, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has said.

Mr Wong, who is slated to be Singapore’s next prime minister, has also said that the definition will not change, should the People’s Action Party win the next election.

 

 

How nice, play politics so blatantly and unashamedly. Basically sucking up to the conservatives just to get their votes.

[StockBottom]

14 hours ago, Guest Roy Tan said:

The Gov.sg Facebook page also uploaded three separate videos featuring graphics explaining why the Government was repealing Section 377A and the implications of the move.

 

So let's not kid ourselves, despite what he said during the National Day Rally, LHL didn't repeal 377A so that gay male Singaporeans can live a dignified life; he did it to stave off a potential legal conundrum.

[Guest Hiwat]

I have always been confused with the argument of religious groups saying that traditonal marriage between a man and a woman, should be protected. Protected from what exactly? Just because you allow LGBT couples to marry, doesn't mean heterosexual couples are no longer free to get married. Neither would allowing LGBT marriage undermine traditional marriage and family. Straight couples can still contimue doing their thing. It's not like all of a sudden all straight people will turn gay or something and stop procreating. Like, DUH. 

[Guest Easy to Guess]

Countries that easily abolished S337A demonstrate the government's confidence in running their country.  Those nations that have been dragging their feet on S377A for years have been led by incredibly insecure individuals who can neither be trusted nor looked to for humanitarian policies or for the wellbeing of their citizens. When confronted by the majority or powerful bullies, these leaders typically lack the guts to stand their ground and will instead push the helpless closer to risk and peril.   You know which country I was referring to.

[Guest Update check]

https://sso.agc.gov.sg/act/pc1871?ProvIds=pr377A-#pr377A-
 

377a has not been repealed yet. Link for reference and updates

[doncoin]

The repeal of Section 377a is just a compromise of sorts, to be honest. While it is a step forward towards equality, it is still cutting the LGBTQA+ community from full equality. As many have pointed out, it just decriminalizes a sexual act between two men which in reality is hard to enforce, which also raises the challenge to the legality when it is three or more men, as the law states with "another man..." 

 

The decriminalization of 377a, and the enforcement of the constitution that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, basically just tell homosexual couples in a loving relationship that their relationship is not equal or on par as those in a heterosexual relationship. So while it is a small step in the right direction, the journey ends there effectively by the government. Gay couples will not be given the same equal treatment as straight couples in terms of marriage, starting a family, housing, and other benefits. It's a form of segregation. 

 

Yes, I know the Singapore mentality. Don't stir the pot. This is good enough. The repeal of section 377a is the best we can ever hope for as gay people in Singapore. We are not America or Europe, etc. we are an Asian society that is conservative etc. Yes, all of that is true. But so was America and Europe, and all those countries not too long ago. Societies change, but change does not come from sitting on our asses. Change comes when you believe that you deserve better and fight for that change. You deserve the same equal treatment as your straight friend who is getting married and has applied for a BTO.  Or do you think that because you are gay, you do not deserve the same equal rights- to marry the person you love and build a home? 

 

As many pointed out here, the repeal of 377a is one step forward, two steps back. Perhaps the opposition who have been silent or AWOL as the PM pointed out can speak up. This is not about a gay rights issue. This is about equal rights. As gay men, we have fulfilled our duties and obligations as citizens of Singapore, yet somehow, when it comes to who we love, and want to grow old with, it is denied of us. 

Edited November 6, 2022 by doncoin

[drektster]

Worker party is'nt the ruling party.

[Guest Repeal or not?]

377A wasn't repealed in 2007 because allegedly the society was too conservative and hence, not ready for it. In 2022 it's repealed because the society seemed to be more liberal and willing to accept.

From 2007 to 2021, 276,800 residents died, most were old people. Can we say the deaths of 200K+ old people paved way for the repealing of 377A?

[Guest Repeal]

I think there should be a letter/petition to the WP to state our struggles so we can have a better chance of repealing. There is a deadline for the repeal, I think if it is not done within the timeline, the matter will be dismissed.

[Guest The true behind the scene]

17 hours ago, Guest Repeal or not? said:

Can we say the deaths of 200K+ old people paved way for the repealing of 377A?

You will be surprised some younger folks can be very territied by LGBT and tend to be more vocal against us.   Older folks are largely silent, played by the rule of live and let live attitude because, to them, LGBT is part and parcel of life they have seen.  It is the PAP that played the "woke" into the elderly minds, and influenced them into thinking what the main stream media wanted them to think.  Thereafter, THE G will claim that the large part of our society is "traditional", without saying it was the other religious group they feared the most, in case of losing more votes. 

[singalion]

Guess it is just politics...

 

WP just intends to tease the PAP if they get the majority for a constitutional change and to abolish 377A.

 

WP will be delightedly watching the brawls from the backbenches....

 

 

[Guest Sigh]

3 hours ago, singalion said:

Guess it is just politics...

 

WP just intends to tease the PAP if they get the majority for a constitutional change and to abolish 377A.

 

WP will be delightedly watching the brawls from the backbenches....

 

 

Only one Malay WP MP is vocal against LGBT,  I hardly heard the rest said anything negative. 

[Guest Repeal]

Most likely the pink votes will wipe a few seats away from the oppositions.

[Guest Peter]

377A wasn't repealed in 2007 because allegedly the society was too conservative and hence, not ready for it. In 2022 it's repealed because the society seemed to be more liberal and willing to accept.

From 2007 to 2021, 276,800 residents died, most were old people. Can we say the deaths of 200K+ old people paved way for the repealing of 377A?