Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

Login

Remember Me

New to Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

4 Aug 2022

Singapore signals that review of ban on gay sex won't open door to Marriage Equality

A government minister has made it clear that the current definition of marriage will be protected from any review on the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

Public discussion on a colonial-era law that criminalizes sex between men is gaining momentum in Singapore, where a senior minister said any easing would ensure the current definition of marriage is protected.
While the government is reviewing the regulation, “at the same time we are considering how can we safeguard the current legal position on marriage from being challenged in the courts,” Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said in a Facebook video clip posted on the weekend. “We are now considering how best to achieve this balance.”
Singapore has grappled with how to make its society more inclusive of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community even as some countries around the world move toward recognizing same-sex marriages. Several attempts to overturn the legal ban on sex between men, known as Section 377A of the Penal Code, have failed in courts over the years. Thailand, regarded as conservative and deeply religious, became the first country in Southeast Asia to move toward legalizing same-sex unions this year.
The colonial-era law reflected Singapore’s conservative stance toward the LGBTQ community, and any discussion of changing it in the past has drawn resistance from religious groups. Recent comments from the Catholic Church and an LGBTQ group signal a potential compromise that would address the biggest concerns of both sides — decriminalizing sex between men while stopping short of recognizing same-sex marriages.
Singapore’s Catholic Church said on Sunday it respects the dignity of LGBTQ community, but asked for the right to maintain the position on marriage. “The fruitfulness of marriage also necessitates that marriage must be open to procreation,” the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore said in a statement posted on its website. In Singapore’s religiously diverse society, about 19% of Singaporeans identify as Christian, while Buddhism is the largest group with 31%.
A 2014 court challenge against 377A failed when Singapore’s Supreme Court ruled it was a constitutional matter. In February, the Court of Appeal upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss three challenges to Section 377A, Channel NewsAsia reported. The law has not been actively enforced for over a decade.
Dealing with 377A, while also maintaining the current legal definition that marriage is between a man and a woman, should be discussed and decided in Parliament and not in the courts, said Shanmugam.
The local LGBTQ community has no immediate plans to mount legal challenges to redefine the definition of marriage, Leow Yangfa, the executive director of rights group Oogachaga, was cited in Today newspaper as saying.
Taiwan is the only Asian jurisdiction that legally recognizes same-sex marriage. Vietnam allows same-sex couples to have symbolic weddings but doesn’t recognize the marriage. Hong Kong doesn’t allow it, but does permit gay expatriate workers to bring their spouses in on dependent visas. Myanmar, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei have rules that outlaw sexual relations between people of the same gender.

Public discussion on a colonial-era law that criminalises sex between men is gaining momentum in Singapore, where a senior minister said any easing would ensure the current definition of marriage is protected.

While the government is reviewing the regulation, “at the same time we are considering how can we safeguard the current legal position on marriage from being challenged in the courts,” Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said in a Facebook video clip posted on the weekend. “We are now considering how best to achieve this balance.”

Several attempts to overturn the legal ban on sex between men - known as Section 377A of the Penal Code - have failed in courts over the years. 

A 2014 court challenge against 377A failed when Singapore’s Supreme Court ruled it was a constitutional matter. In February, the Court of Appeal upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss three challenges to Section 377A, Channel NewsAsia reported. The law has not been actively enforced for over a decade.

The colonial-era law reflected Singapore’s conservative stance toward the LGBTQ community, and any discussion of changing it in the past has drawn resistance from religious groups.

Why is homosexuality illegal in Singapore?

By taking advantage of regional instability and a power struggle within the Malaysian Sultanate, the British government colonised Singapore in 1819.

British control of the island included the introduction of the British legal system, which – at that time – included laws against sex between men.

Singapore became independent in 1965, but the colonial legal system remain in place.

Following a review of the Penal Code in 1938, the laws that policed sexual activity were documented within Section 377A of Singapore’s Penal Code. The laws meant that anal sex and oral sex were prohibited for everyone – heterosexual or homosexual. In 2007, amendments to the law specifically legalised anal sex and oral sex for heterosexual sexual encounters, but they remained criminalised for man-on-man sexual encounters. Sex between women isn’t covered by Section 377A and doesn’t appear to have ever been explicitly prohibited in Singapore law.

The punishment for sex between men is two years’ imprisonment. Prosecutions and convictions are rare, but the government has consistently resisted calls for the law to be reviewed.

Research into the archives of the British Government has shed some light on why Section 377A was enacted. A 1940 report to the British Government official responsible for the administration of Singapore reveals a direct link between the enactment of Section 377A and the colonial administration’s concerns about its Singapore officials’ extensive use of male prostitutes at that time. The 1940 report details disciplinary action taken against government officials in 1938 – the year that Section 377A came into effect. This suggests that Section 377A was designed to regulate and control prostitution rather than what was happening in private between consenting adults, but the reality of this law has been the criminalisation of gay men.

Reader's Comments

Be the first to leave a comment on this page!

Please log in to use this feature.

Select News Edition

Featured Profiles

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

Like Us on Facebook

Partners

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement