Law Minister K Shanmugam said Singapore will not repeal its laws criminalising gay sex although the law will not be enforced. His comments come after the Delhi High Court ruled last Thursday that consensual sex acts between men in private is legal.
Singapore’s Section 377A of the Penal Code which specifies a jail term of up to two years is derived from the Indian Penal Code introduced in 1860 by colonial British administrators.
In 2007, the Ministry of Home Affairs announced that it would not proactively the law (Section 377) although it would be retained.
"We have the law. We say it won't be enforced. Is it totally clear? We, sometimes in these things, have to accept a bit of messiness. And the way the society is going, we don't think it's fair for us to prosecute people who say that they are homosexual," he said at a meeting with residents on Sunday.
"But at this time, our society is not ready for us to say we will pass legislations which say homosexuality is no longer an offence," he said.
A MARUAH (Singapore Working Group for ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism) spokesperson Fridae spoke to had this to say: "The intentional maintenance of laws that are deliberately not enforced will tend to bring the law into disregard, which should be avoided. As a human rights group, we see the law as a critical mechanism for the protection of rights and of minorities, and accordingly any provisions that would tend to bring the law into disrepute should be repealed."
Alex Au, prominent Singapore gay activist and social commentator, says as law minister, Shanmugam has the responsibility to ensure that legislation is just.
"Shanmugam is shirking his sworn constitutional duty to merely say let bad law stand; we'll just not enforce it. Such arbitrariness is contrary to constitutional government. I look forward to the day when he says let all tax laws stand, we’ll just not enforce them. What’s good for the gay goose should be good enough for the ganders," Au told Fridae.
"He should proactively start the process of repeal."
Meanwhile, the Times of India on Sunday reported that the central Indian government is unlikely to oppose the verdict in the Supreme Court as the ruling is thought to be "reasonable and well-balanced."
Printable Version
RSS Feed: 
Reader's Comments
Is a majority of Singapore ready for the legalisation of homosexuality?
If not, then that's where the Delhi approach works.
Is the law unconstitutional?
Bear in mind, in India it was done via the court based on the Indian constitution which is based on Nehru's principle of India being an inclusive nation, thus arguing that the 377 was in itself unconstitutional.
Took them some 100 years to find it as such, but better late than never.
Here in Malaysia there are two issues, Sharia Law and Penal Code 377. Even if they undo the Penal Code 377, there will still be gays who will be subjected to the religious law, which is enshrined in the Constitution.
I wonder if this minister even knows what "Law" means. Such thing as a non-enforced law shouldn't exist, it'd completely senseless.
They should just admit it: they use the gay issue to please the right wing and the religious groups.
But a few things to notice:
- how do they judge public opinion? So far as I know they never did a proper poll with a neutrally phrased question by a professional polling body.
- I get the impression that this is the only issue on which they don't want to be "ahead of public opinion".
- The law is clearly in breach of the Constitutional guarantee of equality before the law. The government sounds like it is saying it doesn't care.
Should the United States have asked the opinion of slave owners before liberating slaves? Should brothel owners and pimps be consulted before legislating against kidnapping and sex trafficking of women and children?
Why should mindless and ignorant homophobes be consulted in the matter of fundamental rights of the gay community? How many homophobes even know what being gay is about?
In principle, what sense does it make to ask someone his opinion about things he knows nothing about? What sense does it make to respect the opinions and sentiments of an ignoramus like this?
How can any religion be allowed to decide the rights of someone who does not even subscribe to that religion?
What if I create and register my own religion, and then inform you that according to my religion, your wife, daughter and property belong to me? Would you obligingly hand these over to me, saying, "Oh, of course, no problem, I respect your religion, here you are"?
Someone please send a copy of the Indian Court's ruling to this Minister. Let him understand the reasoning applied there, and then tell you why that reasoning does not apply in Singapore.
Take your own example, the United States. 53 years ago the United States Supreme Court ruled that African Americans who were imported as slaves, and their descendants, are not protected under the US Constitution.
Similarly, Indonesia still has a law that punishes masturbation with a death sentence.
In India, a daughter had no claims to her father's property under the Succession Act 1956 until it's amendment in 2005.
In Malaysia, gender equality was only enshrined in our constitution in July 2001.
Each nation have their own irrational law, similarly each nation has to wait for the change in majority mindset before such policies can be accepted.
California showed that their majority were not ready for gay marriage by vote. I find that irrational as well, but then, that's just human.
Let's keep the pressure up, brothers and sisters!!! Surely, one day WE SHALL OVERCOME those religious bigots who stand in the way of all human progress. Truth, right, reason and logic are on our side. And the future is GAY!!! :-)))
"But at this time, our society is not ready for us to say we will pass legislations which say homosexuality is no longer an offence," he said.
All the MORE reason for GLBT S'pores to COME OUT, without fear of prosecution. This is almost as messed up as my own USA armed forces DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL policy - which brave military souls are challenging precisely by TELLING!
lol i know know that we are generous after all.
hypocrites.
They are still holding on to the perception that they will not amend the law for the sake of a small group of conservative S'poreans who will never accept homosexuality and its relevant acts.
For too long, we've been told by the government on what to do, what not to do, what is right and what is wrong. All, in the view of the government, instead of our individual judgement. If homosexual act between 2 consentng adults is still considered as a crime, then what about hideous crimes of father/stepfather raping their daughter/stepdaughter? It seems that punishements for raping their kin is rather light to me. Which one leads to dysfunctional of the society? homosexuality or incest? Sex between consenting adults who are willing to do so or a forced unwanted sex on children?
Just because we have a group of people running the country who choose to close their eyes when the bare facts is right infront of them.
Oh, and a question comes to my mind: i wonder if the daughter of a minister in Singapore, who is in her middle age, is a lesbian herself, since she choose not to get married, and dressed up and looks like a man?
I shall be doing no such thing not least of all because the PAP's divide-and-conquer strategy was meant exactly to achieve the stigmatization in all the relationships between and among all of us who are actually natural allies.
So I'm going to post right now some relevant posts from the SDP's website:
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/home/2533-singapore-not-swayed-by-india-gay-sex-ruling-minister
This is the first one:
Robox - Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:53 am
Re: "[Captain Kangaroo] said however that Singapore's courts were free to interpret the law as the Indian court had done."
My first reaction to the above statement was to laugh out VERY LOUD indeed.
This is more of the same public disinformation that we can expect the liars in the PAP to come up with. There are only two ways that Singapore's kangaroo courts will find themselves in any position to 'interpret [S 377a of the Penal Code in light of Article 12 of the Constitution]':
1. If an individual Singaporean or a group of Singaporeans institute/s a constitutional challenge against S 377a. (Note: This is the same Captain Kangaroo who, with the SDP's pending court cases in mind, disinformed Singaporeans in his New Year Assault at the Law Society by making the extravagant claim that Parliament was the only way for laws to be changed.)
There are serious problems with the above procedure if followed in Singapore, namely, that a) public confidence in our kangaroo courts' integrity and independence from the Executive has been greatly eroded especially in politically motivated cases like the gay rights one is, and b) legal costs have been deliberately made prohibitive so that no one in Singapore who is not earning a cabinet minister's annual loot has access to justice in our kangaroo courts. Either way, gay Singaporeans are unlikely to (or unlikely to be able to) institute a constitutional challenge unlike our freer colleagues in India.
2. If an individual or individuals within Singapore jurisdiction is/are prosecuted under S 377a.
Again, how is that going to happen when the PAP government has assured gay Singaporeans that S 377a will not be invoked - not that this is good enough for us - and thus creating no opportunity for the kangaroo courts to 'interpret the law'? (Can our kangaroo judges, particularly with an eye to their very generous monthly bribes from the PAP government, even match the same professional competence as their Indian counterparts to interpret the Constitution and produce a 150-page ruling? Our kangaroo judges' Indian counterparts are also sticklers for the rule of law unlike in Singapore where there is only contempt for the law.)
Captain Kangaroo's citing of the Indian precedent to give Singaporeans false hope in our justice system is dishonest on yet another count. The Naz Foundation, the Indian LGBT group that instituted the constitutional challenge, specifically recommended to the Delhi High Court (DHC) to 'read down' S 377a so as not to leave a legislative gap in cases of rape of minor boys or of non-consensual sex involving men of majority age; the DHC accepted this recommendation by the Naz Foundation as perfectly legitimate because gay rights is also about the rights against sexual violence against ANYONE in society.
The DHC also accepted the reccomendation because as it stands now, India's anti-rape laws only covers the rape of girls and women, but there is a recommendation to the Government of India to eventually enact gender-neutral anti-rape laws and eventually strike down S 377a.
The above is not the case in Singapore. Our anti-rape (including statutory rape) laws and are already gender-neutral. Thus, unlike in India, the Singapore Parliament will not encounter a situation where they will have to abide by a court ruling, which as I have already pointed out, is unlikely to happen under the PAP's spite for the rule of law.
Does Captain Kangaroo really expect Singaporeans to buy this latest round of crap coming from our thoroughly unprofessional and incompetent legal fraternity that is headed by himself and two other members of Singapore's Kangaroo Trio: Walter Woon and Chan Sek Keong?
Re: "It is not our position to tell the courts what to do."
Oh yeah, Captain Kangaroo?
To the kangaroo judges presiding over the politcally motivated cases against the SDP, convince us that what Captain Kangaroo has now put on record is true.
The SDP has already submitted ample evidence in court that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the PAP's suka suka laws that SDP members have been charged in court with are all unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
Convince us kangaroo judges, that you have the professionalism and the competence of your Indian counterparts and that you are truly 'free to interpret the law as the Indian court had done' as Captain Kangaroo claims.
While the Naz Foundation only submitted a petition to read down S 377a on the basis that it hampers HIV prevention work with gay/bi men, the Indian judges went further to see the case as one of a human rights violation.
Convince us kangaroo judges, that you have the same professionalism and competence as your Indian counterparts to see that the PAP's politically motivated cases against the SDP are also human rights violations.
Convince us PAP, and especially Captain Kangaroo, that no judge from your kangaroo courts will suffer the same fate as Michael Khoo for ruling against your politically motivated actions against those who are far more intelligent than you and far more politically competent than you.
Until the kangaroo courts and the PAP government can prove all the above to be true, Captain Kangaroo would only be shown up to do what he is proving to be most competent at: lying to the Singapore public!
Re: "Singapore not swayed by India gay sex ruling: [kangaroo law] minister [Kangaroo Shanmugam]."
The Almighty PAP - the Republican Party of Singapore - has long been accustomed to making a grandiose claim of itself. According to this still unsubstantiated claim, and unlike the rest of the world - Denmark for example - that has only been cursed with mediocre governments, only WE in the Promised Land that is Singapore are blessed with a government that will not 'do something just because it was popular'.
I had been truly bedazzled by this claim by PAP ministers and backbenchers alike, unsubstantiated as it was; I felt as if I was truly being visited upon by God Himself who bore the strangest likeness to none other than the Knower Of All Things Under The Sun, Lee Kuan Yew, the progenitor of so Divine a Revelation.
Every time that I heard that statement made, I fell on my knees crying endless rivers of tears.
I am merely one more gay man who is obsessed with having sex 24/7 and blessed with abundantly more energy for sex than any average heterosexual. I should rightly then be consigned to the entirety of the private space that I deserve, for the maximum amount of my private immorality by none other than the PAP. What have I done to deserve this good fortune from the PAP?"
Then the gay rights challenge struck.
The demigod Kangaroo Shanmugam now tells us that the Government "cannot move ahead of public opinion" and has to "be careful of being ahead of public opinion."
So what happened, O Almighty PAP?
Can you incompetents in the PAP do what is unpopular, but what is right, as you have previously claimed until gay rights hit you in your face?
Or do you, like ALL mediocre governments like Denmark's, only pander to popular opinion but NOT right action?
Are Mr. Minister saying that the majority of Singaporeans are the most CLOSE-MINDED UNEDUCATED among all other modern civil societies? China decriminalized gay sex more than decades ago!
Yes, Mr. Minister is clear that you Singaporean gays are criminals, but pardoned ones?
Check out www.sodomylaws.org to view the map of sodomy laws around world to see how the great Singapore stands. Note that the red Indian on that map has turned white.
Aput at Post No. 8: Is it too ridiculous and absurd to equate Singapore, the most westernized and self-claimed most modern state in South East Asia, to US in its 1950s, to Indonesian, to Malaysia? Why don't we compare Singapore to Iran and praise Singapore as such a generous society to gays?
On the same sex marriage vote in California, Mr. Aput, at least there was a vote there. Was there a similar referendum in Singapore to support your and Mr. Minister arguments?
I also note that Aput's view is obviously different from the great Lee Kuan Yew, the father of Singapore, who said in April 2007 it was time to decriminalize gay sex.
Who reflects the majority view of modern Singapore? The 80 years' old Lee Kuan Yew, or this 50ish Minister?
Is Singapore legal regime more Islamic?
1. "[How does the Singapore government] judge public opinion? So far as I know they never did a proper poll with a neutrally phrased question by a professional polling body."
The Singapore government has NEVER made any empirical study on public opinion towards gay rights. And if they ever would, it would not be trusted by Singaporeans anyway because of their already established record for dishonesty. Their main concern right now is to minimize the number of Christian MPs who may step down or resign - as has already happened - from their ranks should they support rule of law and equality for gay Singaporeans.
Besides, Singaporeans - like the PAP government itself - haven't yet grappled with the distinction between the ordinarily conservative Singaporean as opposed to the minority ultraconservative ones, most of whom are Christians; when both are lumped together as one, they appear to be the majority. In truth, I suspect from knowing the Singaporean ground, that many of the ordinarily conservative Singaporeans are actually politically liberal much like the majority in India.
Just as claimed in one of the comments I have posted above by [Robox], another Indian gay supporter of the SDP, the PAP has only ever paid lip service to doing the unpopular even if it meant BEING unpopular - the PAP can do this knowing full well that, after all the laws they have rigged, they can NEVER be voted out of office.
Which is why this is also a logical consequence of the above:
2. "I get the impression that this is the only issue on which they don't want to be "ahead of public opinion"."
Next:
3. "The government sounds like it is saying it doesn't care."
They don't, and that's the truth.
Re: "Here in Malaysia there are two issues, Sharia Law and Penal Code 377. Even if they undo the Penal Code 377, there will still be gays who will be subjected to the religious law, which is enshrined in the Constitution."
I'm not sure how correct you are.
In Singapore - and I don't imagine it's drastically different in Malaysia - Syariah law doesn't cover same sex sexual activity.
So how is it that Muslim LGBTs will be unaffected even if S 377 in Malaysia is ever ruled to be unconstitutional, and despite the fact that Islam is Malaysia's state religion?
First and foremost, of course my view is different from Lee Kuan Yew, a person who ruled Singapore since it's conception and only spoke out about gay rights AFTER he left the PM's office.
Similarly, you have Dick Cheney, ex-VPUSA supporting gay marriage AFTER he left the US Vice Presidents post.
If you wish to compare Singapore to Iran, then by all means do so. Iran forces gay men to apply for sex reassignment surgery. It's not a choice.
As for whether or not Singaporean society is ready for it , I raised the question in comment #2.
There is no basis whatsoever to deny nor PROVE whether Singaporean society is ready. I think this is something that should be looked at.
Hello percole,
In the Malaysian Federal Constitution it states the the official religion of Malaysia is Islam (Article 3.1). Put this together with the fact that the Sharia Court is fully separate from the Malaysian High Courts (Article 121.1.A), you have two separate legal systems in the country.
It is also dictated that all Muslims must adhere to the rulings of Sharia law, which is determined on a State-wide basis. All States and Federal Sharia law codes state that homosexuality is a crime. In the Federal Territory Syariah Criminal Offences (1996), gay sex is punishable by 3 to 5 years in jail, a maximum 5000 ringgit fine and a maximum 6 strokes of a cane.
Here's a link to the .pdf file of the law. Please refer to page 14, point 25 and 26.
http://www.parlimen.gov.my/billindex/pdf/1996/Bill%20DR%2049.pdf
Therefore, even if the Malaysian High Court rules (if ever) that homosexuality is unconstitutional, or even repeal S 377, the provisions I mentioned above would make it irrelevant to the Muslim LGBT population.
Secondly, since when does any government really follow public opinion on many matters? Most governments around the world regularly make laws and push through legislation that are wildly unpopular, but just tell The People: "Hey, you put us in charge, and we think this is necessary and right. So shut up, and deal with it!" In this specific case, is the Singaporean government saying that, well, it's okay for most Singaporeans to be homophobic, so they won't challenge that... That's just silly; aren't there various Equality groups and tribunals in place there who would say that it's unfair to have such a discriminatory statute still in place?
I could go on, but it's just a curious stance to take, and especially as the government there Must know that it Will end up repealing the law one day, and soon enough. But I guess it's unconcerned about the international image that it still has, on top of what its own citizens may think of it...
Remember the old saying "you can't be honest AND intelligent AND a communist" ? Well, replace "communist" with "politician" and you get a picture of who runs the world at the present time. Not just in SG, everywhere.
A long time ago I graduated in Political Science and Sociology... when I showed the diplomas to my parents they proudly asked me what I was going to do from there.
I told them I wanted to become a pop singer.
I'm not joking, that's really what happened !
And I did become a pop singer, only to realize after a few years that show business was just as bad as/ if not worse than/ politics.
Singapore has one of the most blatantly paternalistic regimes of the day, and don't get me wrong, a paternalistic regime is of course better than a brutal dictatorship, no one will argue that. But hello, it's light years away from real democracy.
Since when, for instance, do paternalistic regimes keep their eyes on opinion polls before making a decision ? Answer : they don't, of course.
But then take a look at how opinion polls have perverted our de-mock-racies in the west. In my country for instance, the President litterally surfs on them. Expert poll surfer, champion poll glider, that's our Nicolas ! His opinions are pollinions. Going, going, gone with the wind !
Every French person with an ounce of brain and education watches him surfing and gliding, and is utterly appalled of course. At a loss for words of horror, but feeling totally powerless to do anything because the Western World Politics Big Book clearly says that his is the perfect democratic attitude !
So, there we are. No polls = not real democracy. Excess of polls = perversion of democracy (demagogy).
What are we missing ?
Old fashioned items maybe ? such as purpose, courage, idealism, selflessness, and the like...
LOL, I better stop right here cos I can see the bored expressions and the purled lips: purrrrr leeease !
Referring to the worldwide history of gay sex decriminalization, I wonder what are the basis that one should look for in order to prove the readiness of Singaporean society?
Post 26 seems to suggest that notwithstanding 90% of non-islamic states have decriminalized gay sex, for so long as "there is no basis whatsoever to DENY nor prove whether Singaporean society is ready," we cannot challenge the criminalization of gay sex in Singapore because Singaporean society is so unique and different from the rest of the civil world that the universal human rights even China recognizes won't apply to Singapore?
Simply by referring to Asian neighbours like China, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korean, Philipines, I doubt that Singaporeans in general would be subnormal or mentally deficient and not responsive to the changes if the government has initiatives in a positive way.
One of the functions of the government is to lead and take appropriate initiatives. Where are Singov's leadship and initiatives in this regard?
BTW, if there is no basis whatsoever to DENY nor prove whether Singaporean society is ready, then the remarks made by Mr. Minister are GROUNDLESS, why is the author of Post 26 so defensive for him?
Strangely, this doesn't contradict what I just said about there being too much "poll surfing" in Western democracies.
What it does underline, however, is the frigthtening gap between "communication" and "action" nowadays in politics. A lot of actions are taken that totally disregard the voters' opinions, while communication pampers them and relentlessly strives to make them believe they are the ones who count and ultimately decide.
Well, let's not forget that what is now labelled with the elegant words "communication" and "information" was not long ago called, and with surprising honesty, PROPAGANDA.
Urm...I'm not being defensive about him at all.
I'm just saying that in a democracy it is the majority's decision, which is why I pointed out how Californians were not ready for gay marriage.
If you can prove that Singaporean society is ready, then by all means go ahead and do so, and disprove the Minister's comments on how conservative he perceives Singaporean society to be.
Whether or not Singapore is "subnormal or mentally deficient" is irrelevant in the issue of whether or not a society is ready for the decriminalisation of gay sex altogether, because their argument is based on morality and belief.
While I personally respect Singaporeans for having a religious and moral aspect to their decision making, I disagree with the notion that they let this dictate and influence a decision for everyone, regardless of differing beliefs.
But then, therein lies the flaw of democracy.
As for the influence of the decisions of other nations as you mention, that is also not a valid argument to a government's view to change national law applicable to citizens within the nation, not the rest of the world.
Not if there is a decent constitution protecting minority rights and a strong independent judiciary to back it up.
Don't be evasive, and pretending that all other societies that have long nullified criminal codes on gay sex do not have their prevailing religious and moral beliefs.
Vatican spokesman stated in December 2008: "The well-known principles of respect for the fundamental rights of the person and the rejection of all unjust discrimination -- recognized clearly by the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself -- evidently exclude not only the death penalty, but all violent or discriminatory penal legislations in relation to homosexuals."
It does not make normal sense to believe that the majority of Singaporeans are more religious than Vatican.
If 90% of normal citizens of non-islamic states (including non-Singaporean Christians) won't consider it morally or religiously imperative to keep criminalizing gay sex in 21st century, yet most Singaporeans hold opposite views, this would only mean that Singaporeans are indeed subnormal and mentally deficient.
Post 31 has to understand that IT IS NOT for us to PROVE whether Sigaporeans are ready for change.
Rather, it is for the Singaporean government to tell the international community WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR IT TO DENY THE READINESS OF SINGAPOREANS FOR CHANGES.
If it turns out that the government does have such basis, then the government has an undeniable responsibility to educate and grow up Singaporeans so that they know how to think normally, not subnormally, notwithstanding their morval beliefs.
Finally, like many Fridae members, I just don't regard Singapore as democratic at all. So your argument 0f flaw of democracy is kinda irrelevant in the case of Singapore.
I'm not being evasive.
I've yet to evade anything you wish to state about my comments.
The people you've mentioned above, that are okay with gay sex being legal, are those who do not wish to impose their ideas unto others.
I mentioned disagreeing to those who wish to impose said moral edicts unto others in comment #31.
.....Are Singaporean Catholics the majority?
Otherwise, the whole quote about the Vatican is irrelevant.
The government is not the one that has an issue with the status quo of the law.
As such, it is up to the citizenry to prove that they, as a whole, take it as an issue.
Backing the call to repeal 377, backed by evidence in the forms of surveys and testimony from the populous, enforced and highlighted by the media, will pressure the government into repealing the law.
And could you point out where you get this 90 percent of the non-Muslim population of the world being okay with gay sex quote?
I'd like to read it.
Re: percole #19: Yes, I did advise on distancing ourselves fr the SDP.
Now, though, the above incident has made me feeling kinda foolish for saying so...so, my apologies to you :-) Indeed, we PLUS in Singapore have been turning the other cheek for too long...and let the PAP abuse what little rights we have...because they CAN. It's time we stop it. NOW. But I will be very frank that it is a very Herculean task; not first because apart fr those who actually suffered under the PAP, few here can see through their cunning (GST credits, anyone? lol) I won't blame them though...lambs normally don't think; as long as they are well-fed, well-clothed...and safe. Some are even content to let things remain the same...that's why I don't want to be one of them, to be led unknowingly to the slaughter house when its time. But I can tell you it's not the right time...indignation alone can't solve problems; only STRATEGY can. ;-)
I actually read this post of yours about 4 hours ago. I'm just 'returning' from MJ's funeral service right now. (I am from that age that just missed all that hype about him but remember my older siblings hoo haa-ing over him.)
So why have I brought this up and how relevant is it to this topic?
My first spiritual teacher, who was actually from that same age group, mentioned to me that MJ is most likely a new soul, meaning that it is his first time on earth. (It also means that he WILL return.)
And how do we tell?
Many years from that experience, I think I finally figured out that what my teacher meant was that any new soul inspires the getting back down to the basics; I saw exactly what that meant at MJ's funeral service.
I truly believe that Dr Chee too, and the SDP that he inspires, is also a new soul; it's what accounts for his attractiveness to other new souls to him - my teacher suggested that I could be one too, though I'm not too sure myself.
But on to the other things that you wrote: yes, I share your view that change in Singapore is going to be a Herculean task. But I am sensing a bright side to this, and it is none other than the LGBT rights issue that is forcing the re-examination of how everything is done (or not done) in Singapore. What I am also sensing is that LGBTs now have a political clout in Singapore because of all the issues that we have raised, and for the first time in Singapore's political history.
Just look at this topic we are writing on: when has there EVER been an official reaction to ANY gay rights story - whether a success story or otherwise - in Singapore? (India must also feel proud about this impact.)
That's why I feel that we have a responsibility to use this new found clout to help other Singaporeans out of the rut that the government has forced them into; we can hardly be said to be THE most oppressed group in Singapore at this stage.
The PAP has succeeded so well in stigmatizing so many groups in Singapore, groups who would otherwise have banded together in alliance. I feel we should stop their strategy from succeeding.
Still, I would have to agree with you that indignation alone will not solve the problems, but strategy would.
Why don't we work together on this?
In May 1968 in France there was a student uprising which eventually reached out to the working folk and turned the country upside down. The impact of that "revolution" was huge and can still be felt in French Society nowadays.
The students who revolted were born after World War II. Their parents had often gone through hard times during the German occupation and when the war finally ended, there was a "baby-boom". People had children almost as a form of denial of what they'd just been through, or more positively as a way to say "life goes on, let's be happy families from now on".
Those parents were, understandably, very materialistic. They focused on making money, acquiring new exciting devices such as fridges, cars, etc. They put a lot of pressure on their kids to also focus on wealth, social success and having a lot of things because that was seen as the key to happiness.
The kids were thus "well-fed, well-clothed and safe"... except... they weren't happy at all ! They felt that the lack of "soul" (whatever you put under that word) in society was robbing them of something absolutely essential in a human being's life.
They got totally fed up with the rigidity of the school and university system, with the (most often) undeserved respect that their teachers demanded from them, and with the depressing perspective of living a life focused on product-consuming.
So they took to the streets. Things got out of hand and sometimes got ugly too, but as I said, the mostly positive impact on French society and culture was incredible and stills lasts to this day.
My point is, it can happen. People who take to the street don't necessarily do so because they are starved of food, because they lose their jobs, or they are up to their ears in debt. They can also do it out of sheer thirst for meaning, art, culture, dreams, spirituality. Yes, really.
Hercules you say ? well, maybe, but Singapore is not that big so it's kind of like Hercules in Lilliput, don't you think ? I bet he(she) can handle it
:-))
I hope that we can remain connected on this website despite coming from very different backgrounds. I had actually long harboured hopes for a Malaysian-Singaporean LGBT connection.
I'm thinking now that maybe the way out in this case that has been raised may be to be more vocal about the coming ASEAN human rights commission. I have been very happy about it because it would mean a loss of sovereignty for Singapore's fascism.
But as a start in supporting our Muslim LGBT brothers and sisters, I wonder if citing some of these would help:
1. The largest Muslim nation in the world - Indonesia - does not have any laws against same sex sexual activity; neither actually do many other Muslim-majority countries like Egypt. I also wonder about how Muslim countries like Turkey are going to fare in the EU if they don't harmonize their human rights legislation with the rest of the EU. (Maybe those from Europe here can help us out with this.)
2. Is Islam impervious to fact? Or rationality? Why can't Muslims listen to the facts and rational arguments that we as LGBTs have been presenting to all of society including to Muslims? Wasn't there a period in Islamic history - I forget exactly when - of intellectual inquiry that they all speak of as a golden age of Islam and that actually looks very much like what is happening right now with the gay rights challenge?
3. In the Indian case that we are all still reeling about, even some Muslim religious leaders there have conceeded that not only is Islam is silent on the exact punishment for same sex sexual activity, they are speaking about the difference between sin and crime.
On what basis in democracy that makes you believe that the government must passively sit and wait until they are told that the citizenry, as a whole, take it as an issue?
Vatican's statement is of course relevant in response to your insinuation that majority Singaporeans are likely to think only from religious and moral angles. The question that I ask is whether they would be more religious than Vatican, and this is irrelevant to what form of religion they are associated with. The answer to this question would tell whether majority Singaporeans are normal or subnormal and whether the government has to do anything to better educate and grow up its citizenry.
Did I say anyting like 90 percent of the non-Muslim population of the world being okay with gay sex? Please do not fabricate what I said, as it would turn out to be very ugly.
If the Singapore governing body truly wants to do it for whatever reasons (modernizing or advancing Singapore's international image or simply being sensible and generous), with a little lobby efforts and political tricks, it will gain enough votes to have 377A repealed in no time without facing any threats to its governing status. Public views can always be manipulated one way or the other in semi-authoritarian states like Singapore. I truly believe that majority Singaporeans are not subnormal and are adequately intelligent so they fully undertand why their counterparts in other non-islamic asian countries would accept the decriminalization of gay sex.
If the governing body in Singapore does not want 377A repealed, no matter how popular the repeal petition would be, there will be no repeal.
I don't understand what aput is trying to argue about? Singapore is super religious state? or Singapore is so democratic so the government is led by its citizens?
You are referring to the period of the Abassides. The most famous of their clan was the Calife Haroun Al Rashid (786-809 AD). They were based in Baghdad and the Golden Age you're referring to goes roughly from 750 to 850 AD.
They welcomed every form of science, art and philosophy and showed absolute tolerance for other religions as long as they did not threaten the power of the Califes. If they did they were severely punished though, and in those days and age, punishment was ugly as hell.
So... it was a great period obviously but wasn't all smiles and roses either. People often believe that during that same period the Inquisition was all over the Christian world, but actually it was not. The first Christian empires (Valentinian I and Theodose II between 321 and 450 AD) who started issuing laws against heresy and introduced punishment against it were met with clear disapproval from the church itself who insisted that spilling blood was against the teaching of Christ, no matter what. Interesting huh ?
The Inquisition started after the year 1000 and culminated in absolute horror almost 500 years later with the Spanish Inquisition (a religious court founded in 1478)
You might be interested to read there are Shariah laws against 'homosexuality' in Indonesia, according to a gay rights activist Widodo "Dodo" Budi Darmo of Arus Pelangi.
"In 2004, the region of Palembang introduced a regional law that proscribes homosexuality as an act of prostitution that 'violates the norms of common decency, religion, and legal norms as they apply to societal rule,'" Dodo -- a co-founder of Arus Pelangi -- told Gay City News from Jakarta. "That law says that included under the term 'act of prostitution' are 'homosexual sex, lesbians, sodomy, sexual harassment, and other pornographic acts.'"
Dodo said that "this regional law was part of a chain of similar laws across Sumatra and Java that base themselves on Sharia law from the Koran," and that "52 regions have adopted or put forward such laws." In the special capital district of Jakarta itself, he said, "all lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and transsexual people are legally considered cacat, or mentally handicapped, and as such are not protected by law. This contradiction of LGBT people falling outside the law while still being subjected to it is one of the injustices that Arus Pelangi hopes to combat."
Indonesia: Gays Fight Sharia Laws
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/2944
It seems only former British colonies have gay sex laws in their penal codes.
"If 90% of normal citizens of non-islamic states (including non-Singaporean Christians) won't consider it morally or religiously imperative to keep criminalizing gay sex in 21st century....,"
Isn't this your point? I merely ask where you get this from.
Re: #41
"On what basis in democracy that makes you believe that the government must passively sit and wait until they are told that the citizenry, as a whole, take it as an issue?"
The very real basis that public opinion shifts the government.
Do we think that what happened in Delhi would have happened if there was no pressure from the grassroots to raise it as an issue?
Also notice that on Fridae itself it was highlighted that the media put immense coverage on this, even certain television networks seemingly supporting the repeal of the law.
You need public support for this.
Re: #42
"I don't understand what aput is trying to argue about? Singapore is super religious state? or Singapore is so democratic so the government is led by its citizens?"
My argument is simple.
The people of Singapore should prove that the majority of Singaporean society is supportive of a full repeal of the act. Get the support of the media. Challenge the government with this as firepower for your campaign.
However, I also state that there will be those who won't support such a call using "morality and religion" as an excuse.
1. Re-read your own question and compare it with the original text of my words.
2. A true and functional democracy is not so simple and naive. Public opinion, highly vulnerable to manipulation, never is the sole driving force in a democratic law-making process. And by no means your so called "very real base" would lead to a conclusion that the government has to act PASSIVELY. Ironically, an authoritarian government is more likely than its democratic counterpart to use its people as an excuse or as a cover to shift or deny its responsibilities.
Thanks for bringing up what is happening in India. Does the judicial victory indeed represent the shift of the majority view of Indian population in favor of decriminalization according to your interpretation of democracy? Where is the scientific proof of the correlation between this victory and the shift of the public opinion in India on this issue rather than media coverage? What makes you believe that the media would not give same level coverage if 377A was to be repealed in Singapore?
Taking about pressure from grassroots, simply judged from international and domestic media visibility before July 2009, it seems that pressure from grassroots of Singapore on the repeal of 377A is more visible than that in India.
According to my observation, the difference between India and Singapore is NOT the so called "public opinion" or "grassroots pressure", BUT the level of responsiveness of the government and the level of judicial independence between these 2 countries.
3. To make sense out of your argument, I have to assume that the majority of Singaporean society has not been proved to be so educated, civilized and normal enough to accept what has been universally considered as acceptable among its non-Islamic Asian neighbours, which obviously belittles Singaporeans a big time. That is why I don't understand.
4. Again, Singapore is not a democratic state and thus, public opinion is not really a dominant issue in Singapore's law-making as so claimed by you. The Singapore society is not known to be more religious, conservative and uneducated than most states which have decriminalized gay sex. As such, I believe that the issue does not rest on the willingness of people to accept, the issue rests on the willingness of the government to explain and tell its people what should and must be accepted.
I hope that you will take this in the spirit that I am intending.
I regard the queer rights movement as an inherently democratic one, and much like feminism actually. The only people who can offer democracy to others are those who practise it themselves, and this is where I hope that you may regard this post from me as the practise of our own internal democracy.
The populations of both Malaysia and Singapore have been so seriously disinformed about what democracy really is; in both countries democracy is defined in its entirety by ELECTIONS and ELECTIONS only and nothing else, and by none other than the governments in power who don't want to practise ANY democracy in the maximum 5-year periods in between those ELECTIONS.
It is only during elections, and ONLY in the first-past-the-post systems that we have in both our countries, that popular opinion matters; the party that wins the majority of the vote based on popular opinion gets to form the government - that's the only basis for the "majority wins" mantra in first-past-the-post democracies.
There are other systems, like proportionate repesentation, that in my opinion are actually more democratic.
Still, the party that forms the government in this same first-past-the-post system is legally bound to provide equality rights to the ENTIRE population after they have formed the government; the unpopularity of any group is legally no longer an issue as long as that unpopular group can present evidence - either in Parliament or in court - for why it shouldn't be discriminated against under the law.
In Singapore, even if the argument against discrimination against LGBTs are presented in Parliament and won, our laws and the pervasive political culture perpetrated by the government in Singapore ensures that the ruling party will always be returned to power: popular opinion does not matter and the PAP government could never lose elections on the basis of gay rights.
If the above description of one procedure Singapore's 'democracy' fails, there is an alternative route for redress that is theoretically in place even in countries like Malaysia and Singapore, but practically impossible because the systems in both countries have been so corrupted: a court challenge like we have now seen in India.
Democracy also provides for redress for any injustice that we encounter as a discriminated against minority community, and that is really what we are talking about in this successful Indian court challenge: LGBT Indians, without any popular support because the MAJORITY of the Indian public doesn't actually care enough to oppose this, managed to win the right to legal equality for themselves.
I feel that we should be focussing more on the other aspects of democracy instead of the only one we have been disinformed with, which so far have only really been arguments FOR the tyranny of the majority which true democracies aren't.
Thus I would have to agree with raysjun: if you don't practise democracy, then you equally shouldn't be advancing the same arguments that are only relevant in functioning democracies.
Yes, now that I recall, I had always associated that golden period in Islam with modern day Iraq.
True, it couldn't have been a bed of roses even as it was, but then again no feudal political system ever was. There are many aspects to "civilization", but as far as just "political civilization" goes, I think that democracy is still the highest expression.
We have hope.
To kellen,
*sigh*
Maybe we really should throw our weight behind the ASEAN human rights commission.
Gay activists rejoice over Centre's plan, hold parades
29 Jun 2009, 0000 hrs IST, TNN
CHENNAI/BANGALORE: Placards with the words 'We demand Repeal of Section 377' were seen on the famous Marina beach for the first time on Sunday.
There were about 200 people at the first-ever gay pride parade in the Tamil Nadu capital. But the number swelled as the march moved on through the city's streets overturning the perception that Chennai was conservative when it comes to sexuality.
Hundreds came out on the streets for the gay pride parade in Bangalore too. Hundreds more joined members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and inter-sex communities, as supporters.
In Bangalore, the marchers gathered at the National College Grounds around 3 pm and spent an hour interacting, celebrating in groups.
A group of foreigners also gathered to enjoy the parade with the local flavour. The marchers, dressed in vibrant colours and wearing exquisite head gear of pink and gold danced to loud thumps of drums and bongos.
In Chennai, the marchers braved the sweltering heat, united by a desire to influence public opinion in favour of a more tolerant society. They included prominent figures from the community such as Kalki, a transgender who runs the Sahodari Foundation and TV chat show host Rose.
"While Chennai is generally perceived to be a conservative society, people here are progressive in their thinking," said Aniruddhan Vasudevan, a Bharatanatyam artist and member of Shakti Center, a collective that aims to foster public dialogue on gender and sexuality in Chennai.
Preparations for the march began a few months ago when various rights organisations came together. The approach of the Tamil Nadu government has encouraged the organizers.
It’s not about gay rights, it’s about human rights
Celina Jaitly Tuesday June 02, 2009
Dear friends,
Wow! Pages and pages of response... and what a response! Firstly, I would like to say thank-you to all those who support this human rights issue. But what is really interesting to me is:
A) The humongous amount of hatred towards the gay community; and,
B) The humongous amount of antagonism towards ME for showing my support towards the gay community.
Well... to begin with it really amuses me to see that people who do not believe in sexual minorities actually have the time to spend hours hurling distasteful comments at the people who support them. I cannot fathom where it comes from. Someone I know (who is not into gay rights but is a very influential person) once said something which ought to teach homophobic people a thing. “If you don’t believe in gay relationships don’t get into one. As simple as that... Where is the hatred coming from?”
Join My Petition For Equal Rights For Gays
Blog: Calling for gay rights in India
Believe me, ladies and gentlemen, it’s not much to do with what is happening in the bedrooms of people... because if it was that, 80% of straight people/couples would be persecuted. It’s not about gay rights... it’s about basic human rights, about acceptance, about tolerance, about everything a human being (irrespective of their sex, caste, creed or colour) expects from parents, friends, society and most of all the LAW which is our protector.
I really liked one of the comments on my blog, by Shelly Sapra. She says, “If you derive happiness from the company of someone you love, then why deprive somebody else the same kind of happiness... you have no right to make a judgement or discriminate against anyone... Grow up!”
So true...When will we grow up? This hate is exactly the reason I stand my stance as a gay rights activist... if people’s reaction towards a supporter and activist is so, I can imagine what it will be towards a person belonging to a sexual minority. An individual named Caged Keanu happens to be topping the list of homophobic commentators/abusers on this blog. I have only one thing to say to him: Your hatred is nothing... it’s just the absence of love. A man/woman who is filled with love sees love on all sides and attracts the love of others. The man with hate in his heart gets all the hate he can stand. Your antagonism towards the supporters of a sexual minority is nothing but a reflection of the disharmony within your mind.
A comment on my blog by Kevin Arnie from US really is wonderful and it’s comforting to see that for every non-supporter there are 10 supporters who are wonderful human beings.
For all those who oppose gay rights or gay unions — how does the union or giving rights to a gay couple diminish your own? How exactly does it tear at the moral fibre of your diverse community? Doesn’t being gay and straight, Hindu and Muslim, Southern and Northerner make you diverse in the first place?
For those who say — animals know the right thing and not to mate with same sex, read a little further and you will find examples of gay behaviour in the animal kingdom too, but more than that isn’t the ability to choose for ourselves and make decisions make us the ones that are more evolved?
For those who quote the scriptures — I have just these words, “Love one another as I have loved you”, I know just the parable of Christ dining with all kinds of people, and healing them not based on their orientation. Denying gay rights and calling it unnatural isn’t making this go away. For a society to be truly progressive, we need to embrace everyone as ONE, not delineate based on sex, caste, religion or orientation. That’s the first step.
I also received a lot of emails which asked, ‘Will your movement make a difference?’ I have come up the hard way in life but have had unwavering faith in my principles and always trusted my instincts. I support this cause. As a responsible citizen of one of the biggest democracies of the world, I deeply abhor the kind of treatment given to equally responsible citizens and am sanguine that they are bona fide voters who have done their bit in formulating the carrier of our ruling elite. I hope that the government, while formulating the new policy, should give it a sympathetic thought.
Also, yes, I agree there are many causes which may seem more important than this, but till when should one wait? Till all other problems of the world get solved? As one commentator Joseph A said very correctly, “It’s a bit unfair to suggest that any group should overlook what hurts it directly first for other problems — just as one would not ask battered housewives to forgo their fight and take up the cause of orphans. People are harassed for their orientation on a daily basis, but you would not know it unless you were the victim or a close friend/relative of one. This is an attempt to find a voice that the community had never had. And I think a disparity that can easily be addressed by amending the IPC should not have to be a long drawn struggle, unlike more comprehensive measures required to eradicate poverty and homelessness."
Every cause of inequality causes a big hole in the foundation of society, every cause is related to another and no one is implying that gay rights should come about at the cost of any others... but while patients in the ICU are being treated, should the treatment of patients in other wards be stopped?
Homosexuality is nothing new, it’s just different from the so-called perfect model of self-built society. Open your eyes, look beyond hatred, nobody is trying to enforce their sexuality or way of life on you — they are instead asking you to respect and love them just the way they are.
I want to say special thanks to commentators Rajan Chanan, Harmeet Singh, Dharmendra Saha and Alok Kumar for their wonderful touching words of support. Amar Arab your point noted and the mistake amended (it is the Indian Penal Code) and I would like to point out that your support is appreciated and many thanks to the entire gay community and media who support this lone endeavour of mine. As Majrooh Sultanpuri once said... “Mein akela hi chala tha jaanib-manzil magar log saath aate gaye aur caarvaan badhta gaya.” (I set out for a goal without a friend or a mate, but the people kept on coming and the caravan was made
Yes, yr words are that impactful. :-)
And @ yveserwan, if, fr yr description, 'lambs' who took to the streets in protest despite being 'well-clothed, well-fed & protected" are not lambs, they're tigers.:-) It's a herculean task in Singapore precisely because of this. Come live in Singapore for a few years; after that, you'll know what I'm talking about....we can't compare with France cause our society, laws, norms,even the peoples' attitude are very,very different, pardon the political-incorrectness. Here, when you are rich, famous, & preferably white, you are THE world. The rest...well, of course, they are 'free' to express their views (how else to give the impression of an 'open' society?lol) , bt priority should STILL be given to our rich, famous, & preferably white friends. Get it?
The sad thing is, many Singaporeans believed in this mantra too...save for a few courageous souls, very few ever questioned the status quo;even if they do, it's based on a deep calculation of how much it will benefit themselves on the whole. Harsh? Yes...THAT is the soul of Singapore society. Enjoy.
So, why does a law stay when it is claimed "obsolete"? Yawn,,plain as the royal flush on your face when u call a bluff with a straw sticking outta of your nose.=> Power, control, threats, blackmail, bending of will...etc...all things sweet and nice to keep fat pigs stay fat. LEGALLY it's legal to arrest you but I'm feeling generous today so I'll not enforce the law on you. So, what have you done for me lately? OK, u may go now but I'll collect (no limits) one day, ya? Remember, I own you now, so stay obedient or else...;P
So, why do they feed BS to its people when even an IQ of 1 can smell it's BS. Yawn....zzz, plain as the peanuts that is shaped like kidneys on a golden plate for "sale". => We do it cos err....hmm...oh ya; We do it cos we can, YES WE CAN! Ya, so cool, so Bruno, no? So 2009. Yes We Can, Yes we can, can can can! :P
So, tada...you are now broke. Please leave the casino. We need new uninformed paying victims...I meant, customers, to fill the tables. Free flow of alcohol everyone. Drinks on the house. Make way for our new foreign labour, err, talent, err, dignitaries....make way for the Filipinos, Indians, Chinese, Ang Mos...anyone with money.
Oh dear, did we forget anyone? Sorry, Singaporeans have to PAP (payAndpay) to re-enter. Is That clear?? ;)
Please log in to use this feature.