• About Us
    • Fact Checking Policy
    • Ownership & funding information
    • Volunteer
  • Subscribe
  • Letter submission
    • Submissions Policy
  • Contact Us
The Online Citizen Asia
  • Opinion
    • Editorial
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • Comments
  • Current Affairs
    • Singapore
    • Malaysia
    • Indonesia
    • China
    • ASEAN
    • Asia
    • International
  • Finance
    • Economics
    • Labour
    • Property
    • Business
  • Community
    • Arts & Culture
    • Consumer Watch
    • NGO
    • Lifestyle
    • Travel
  • Politics
    • Civil Society
    • Parliament
    • Transport
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Health
    • Housing
  • Law & Order
    • Legislation
    • Court Cases
No Result
View All Result
  • Opinion
    • Editorial
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • Comments
  • Current Affairs
    • Singapore
    • Malaysia
    • Indonesia
    • China
    • ASEAN
    • Asia
    • International
  • Finance
    • Economics
    • Labour
    • Property
    • Business
  • Community
    • Arts & Culture
    • Consumer Watch
    • NGO
    • Lifestyle
    • Travel
  • Politics
    • Civil Society
    • Parliament
    • Transport
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Health
    • Housing
  • Law & Order
    • Legislation
    • Court Cases
No Result
View All Result
The Online Citizen Asia
No Result
View All Result

On S377A and gay rights in Singapore

by onlinecitizen
14/06/2015
in Commentaries
Reading Time: 6 mins read
0

By Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh

Sadness.

I will once again not be in Singapore for this year’s Pink Dot celebration, scheduled for 5pm, June 28th at Hong Lim Park (see here).

Aside from being our biggest civil demonstration, and looking like a rather fun party, of all the illiberal policies in Singapore, nothing offends my sensibilities more than the continued criminalisation of male homosexuals.

As I mentioned at the launch of Hard Choices (see here), I strongly believe that the presence of this law is a stain on our collective moral conscience. In the same way that future generations of humans may wonder how the world took so long to get ecological sustainability right, I am certain future generations of Singaporeans will ask how a developed, democratic, aspiring global city took so long to guarantee fundamental rights to a minority group.

Of course gay rights, just like ethnic rights, women’s rights, and every other human right, is a function of the social norms of the day. But this is the 21st century: while the rest of the developed world wonders whether or not to legalise gay marriage, some Singaporeans cling onto atavistic fears, dressed in cultural relativism, about legalising homosexuals themselves.

Though I have spoken publicly about this bigotry many times and touched on it in Floating on a Malayan Breeze, this is my first article or blogpost on the matter.

I actually didn’t think it necessary to write this—since many more enlightened souls have already spoken—but two people recently convinced me to do so. But since so much has already been written in Singapore and overseas, I will limit myself to what I believe are under-explored areas on the issue. This is not meant to be a comprehensive essay.

Indeed, a good primer on Singapore’s long-standing debates on this issue is a parliamentary discussion on the Penal Code in 2007 (see here). Siew Kum Hong, then nominated MP, outlined the pro-repeal (i.e. gay rights) stance; Thio Li-ann, then nominated MP, outlined the anti-repeal (i.e. anti-gay) stance; and Indranee Rajah and Christopher De Souza, PAP politicians, outlined the government’s position, which remains consistent to this day (to be discussed below).

The official position is disingenuous

The Singapore government’s main argument against repealing S377A is for its “signalling” effect in what it considers a still conservative society.

“Therefore, the stance which the Government is taking is, in fact, an exact reflection of what Singapore society in general think, which is that if you really have to do it in private, the Government and the Police will not take a proactive enforcement policy but, at the same time, we do not want to send a message to everybody that this is correct, because we have to take into account the majority view.”

– Indranee Rajah, 2007

(“if you really have to do it in private”…gosh, why don’t you tame your raging hormones, boy!)

The majority view? But throughout our history, the government has ignored the majority view and actively sought to dictate values, whether, for example, in terms of culture in the 1960s (language policy: Mandarin over dialects), family values in the 1970s (“Stop at two”); or societal norms in the 2000s (the return of gambling).

One reason the “Singapore consensus” is so admired by many emerging-market countries and businesses is precisely because of its ability to push through unpopular policies in the name of long-term developmental goals, ethical considerations or egalitarianism.

But not gay rights. When it comes to gay rights—and some other issues, such as the death penalty—the government suddenly remembers the quaint notion of “the majority view”, and we the citizens are allowed to revel, fleetingly, in the participatory joys of a representative democracy.

But this is not real democracy. Every democracy has an obligation to protect minority rights, not succumb to majoritarianism. What if a majority of Singaporeans wanted to ban all new immigrants?

Second, even if the government did, at the expense of minority protection, want to decide this issue by popular vote, I do not believe Singaporeans have ever had the opportunity to engage in a proper national conversation on it. All mainstream media is government controlled, and probably wary of wading into the culture wars. I have never read a single editorial on gay rights. Nor watched a proper debate about it on TV.

In 2012, when Singapore’s National Arts Council (NAC) refused to award a publishing grant to Floating on a Malayan Breeze because it apparently “has the potential to undermine the authority of the Singapore government”, one of the offending passages highlighted to me was this one:

“Private, consensual sex between males is punishable by up to two years in prison. Though the law is rarely enforced, its presence is a stain on the conscience of Singapore, which claims to be an inclusive, modern global city.” – p. 211

If even writers are not supposed to broach the topic in books….then who? How are Singaporeans expected to engage in a constructive debate?

I also believe that the government has never really accurately gauged public sentiment on this issue, instead relying on somewhat inaccurate surveys, and deciding by fiat.

When I say these surveys are “inaccurate”, all I mean is that they are not actually asking about the electorate’s view on the legality of homosexuality or S377A.1 Rather, they tend to ask about general perceptions towards homosexuals—perceptions that, as mentioned, have been strongly influenced by narrow reportage and a national, institutionalised history of anti-gay discrimination (as recently as the 1990s the Singapore Police engaged in odious sting operations against gays in Singapore).

For instance, the most recent one was a survey on race, language and religion conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), which showed that Singaporeans maintain conservative views on homosexuals.2

screen-shot-2014-06-02-at-2-51-25-pm

Newspaper reports, social media and everyday conversations immediately tied this finding to support for S377A. That is slightly problematic. There are many behaviours and values that people might disagree with yet do not feel should be illegal.

In the same survey, 72.5% say having a pregnancy outside marriage is wrong; 69.2% say gambling is wrong; and 56.4% say pre-marital sex is wrong. But do Singaporeans want to criminalise those activities? I suspect not.

On a related note, one curious finding from this survey is that Singaporeans are more tolerant of gay marriage than sex, and even more tolerant of gay’s adopting a child. Usually, a society first accepts gay sex before child adoption and marriage.

Why the reverse? One researcher I spoke with believes it has to do with Singaporeans’ focus on family values. I think it could also be because S377A has been drummed into us, whereas issues like gay marriage and child adoption are never even remotely discussed.

“Those answers told us more about how good Singaporeans are at responding to (political) message cues than about what they really thought,” says Alex Au, one of Singapore’s leading gay-rights advocates, who blogs at Yawning Bread. (Alex is also vice-president of Transient workers count too (TWC2), an NGO that promotes the rights of low-wage migrant workers.)

Therefore, even if Singapore decided that it wanted to suspend minority protection and decide this issue by popular vote—a very big IF—then it still has not been done in a precise way. First, we need a proper national conversation. And then, a proper referendum on “Do you believe private, consensual homosexual activity should be illegal in Singapore?”

To surmise, Singapore is a country that prides itself on

a) Government leading societal views and norms

b) Minority protection

c) Analytical rigour

When it comes to S377A, however, we seem to have temporarily suspended all three. Why?

To continue reading the rest of this article, please visit sudhirtv.com.

For just US$7.50 a month, sign up as a subscriber on The Online Citizen Asia (and enjoy ads-free experience on our site) to support our mission to transform TOC into an alternative mainstream press.

Related Posts

Myanmar town pleads for help as thousands flee fighting
Myanmar

SAC-M calls for a step-up on support for Myanmar’s democratic movement

01/02/2023
Tourism arrivals and tourism receipts to remain weak in 2021 despite development of vaccines: STB
Singapore

SG scores 5th as least corrupt country but its ranking dropping – illicit financial flows through SG

01/02/2023
They have done a fine job of confusing us about the jobs situation
Labour

They have done a fine job of confusing us about the jobs situation

01/02/2023
38-year-old Indian mother who has her two kidneys “stolen”, deserted by husband
Crime

38-year-old Indian mother who has her two kidneys “stolen”, deserted by husband

01/02/2023
Can we trust the words of prosecutors, police officers, civil servants and their witnesses at face-value?
Opinion

Can we trust the words of prosecutors, police officers, civil servants and their witnesses at face-value?

01/02/2023
Myanmar junta prepares for poll, raising fears of more bloodshed
AFP

Myanmar marks coup anniversary with eyes on junta election plan

01/02/2023
Subscribe
Connect withD
Login
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Notify of
Connect withD
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Latest posts

Myanmar town pleads for help as thousands flee fighting

SAC-M calls for a step-up on support for Myanmar’s democratic movement

01/02/2023
Tourism arrivals and tourism receipts to remain weak in 2021 despite development of vaccines: STB

SG scores 5th as least corrupt country but its ranking dropping – illicit financial flows through SG

01/02/2023
They have done a fine job of confusing us about the jobs situation

They have done a fine job of confusing us about the jobs situation

01/02/2023
38-year-old Indian mother who has her two kidneys “stolen”, deserted by husband

38-year-old Indian mother who has her two kidneys “stolen”, deserted by husband

01/02/2023
Can we trust the words of prosecutors, police officers, civil servants and their witnesses at face-value?

Can we trust the words of prosecutors, police officers, civil servants and their witnesses at face-value?

01/02/2023
Myanmar junta prepares for poll, raising fears of more bloodshed

Myanmar marks coup anniversary with eyes on junta election plan

01/02/2023
No update on Karl Liew’s criminal hearing for providing false evidence against Parti Liyani

No update on Karl Liew’s criminal hearing for providing false evidence against Parti Liyani

01/02/2023
Record jobs growth in 2022, but no breakdown of the foreign and local workers in the workforce and jobs growth

Record jobs growth in 2022, but no breakdown of the foreign and local workers in the workforce and jobs growth

01/02/2023

Trending posts

Former Singaporean shares change of life in Australia with annual pay of S$80,000 as a plumber

Former Singaporean shares change of life in Australia with annual pay of S$80,000 as a plumber

by Yee Loon
30/01/2023
19

...

Two Indian nationals paid about S$330 and S$730 respectively for forged certificates submitted in their S-Pass application

MOM found issuing EPs meant for foreign PMETs to PRC waitress and general worker

by Correspondent
26/01/2023
41

...

Earning only S$400 a month, delivery-rider turned hawker threw in the towel after two years of running a rojak stall

Earning only S$400 a month, delivery-rider turned hawker threw in the towel after two years of running a rojak stall

by Yee Loon
26/01/2023
24

...

Indian rupee falls 60% since signing of CECA while Singapore becomes top investor in India

by Correspondent
25/01/2023
67

...

Temasek and GIC reportedly in talks with Adani Group accused of “brazen” market manipulation and accounting fraud

Temasek and GIC reportedly in talks with Adani Group accused of “brazen” market manipulation and accounting fraud

by The Online Citizen
26/01/2023
58

...

Ho Ching breaks silence over Temasek’s write down of its US$275 million investment in FTX, says it “can afford to be contrarian”

US regulator questions VCs’ due diligence work prior to investing in FTX; Ho Ching says Temasek can afford to be contrarian

by The Online Citizen
24/01/2023
28

...

June 2015
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  
« May   Jul »

The Online Citizen is a regional online publication based in Taiwan and formerly Singapore’s longest-running independent online media platform.

Navigation

  • Editorial
  • Commentaries
  • Opinion
  • Politics
  • Community

Support

  • Contact Us
  • Letter submission
  • Membership subscription

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Fact Checking Policy
  • Privacy Policy

© 2022 - 2023 The Online Citizen Asia

No Result
View All Result
  • Opinion
    • Editorial
    • Commentaries
    • Comments
  • Current Affairs
    • Malaysia
    • Indonesia
    • China
    • ASEAN
    • Asia
    • International
  • Finance
    • Economics
    • Labour
    • Property
    • Business
  • Community
    • Civil Society
    • Arts & Culture
    • Consumer Watch
    • NGO
  • Politics
    • Parliament
    • Transport
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Health
    • Housing
  • Law & Order
    • Legislation
    • Court Cases
  • Lifestyle
    • Travel
  • Subscribers login

© 2022 - 2023 The Online Citizen Asia

wpDiscuz