On 6 May 2011, Singapore underwent its first-ever Universal Periodic Review (UPR) by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva – the only universal mechanism that reviews the human rights situation in all 192 UN Member States once every four years. A second hearing has been scheduled for September 2011. At the first hearing, only states have a right to question Singapore while civil societies can do so at the second hearing.
As noted by Fridae's legal columnist in "Will Singapore’s equal rights record withstand United Nations examination?", Singapore's official national report to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review did not mention section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code that criminalises sexual relations between men.
There were a total of 19 submissions, five of these were joint submissions. The number of parties which submitted numbered 27. Of these, 17 were by Singaporean organisations and 11 by international NGOs, like Amnesty International. Of the submissions by Singaporean civil societies, only People Like Us and COSINGO referred to s377A and discrimination of LGBTQ rights. (COSINGO is the acronym for Coalition of Singapore NGOs, spearheaded by MARUAH.)
At the session on May 6, several countries including UK, France and Canada amongst others queried Singapore's continuing criminalisation of male gay sex to which a Singapore delegate Sng Siew Ping, Director (International Relations), Ministry of Home Affairs, responded saying:
"The issue of sexual orientation raised by France and UK, and in advance by Canada, Ireland and the Netherlands. My delegation is aware that sexual orientation is also a controversial issue in UN bodies including the present one.
"In Singapore, people are free to pursue their interests and lifestyles. Recognition and success is based on merit and not on factors such as sexual orientation. In the area of employment, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices promotes and educates employers and the general public on fair and responsible employment practices. Our legislation also allows those who feel that they have been unfairly dismissed including on grounds of sexual orientation to appeal to the Minister for Manpower to be reinstated. Yet we recognise that much of Singapore society remains conservative social mores and mindset cannot be changed by legislation alone. In recent times we had robust parliamentary debates in Singapore on whether to decriminalise certain homosexual acts. On this let me assure the UK and clarify in particular that what is being criminalised is not gay Singaporeans but homosexual acts between men. Now an extensive public consultation was held and the matter was considered at the highest political levels, it was not taken lightly and in the end it was decided to leave things be. The Singapore police has not been proactively enforcing the provision and will continue to take this stance.
"To answer the delegate from Canada, no action is taken against consenting adult males who may have relations unless their conduct breaks other laws, for instance laws against indecent public behaviour or paedophilia. [Editor's note: But how will any relations between 'consenting adult males' ever involve paedophilia?] The reality is that LGBT people in Singapore do not have to hide their sexual orientation for fear of losing their jobs or for fear of prosecution by the state. They have a place in our society and are entitled to their private lives."
Singapore's national report, compilation of UN information, summary of stakeholders' information, questions submitted in advance and soon to be released outcome of the review can be read here (or here, select 'Singapore' under the 'UPR by Country' pull-down menu) .
The Permanent Mission of Singapore, Geneva can be contacted via singpm_gva@sgmfa.gov.sg.
Advance questions to Singapore
Canada: Singapore does not provide protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and still criminalizes sexual relations between men under Section 377A of the Penal Code which includes a mandatory jail sentence for those convicted. While the Prime Minister has said Article 377A is not “proactively enforced”, what does this mean for homosexual men in practice? Furthermore, what non-discrimination protections, including in the area of employment, are in place for members of the LGBT community?
Ireland: Ireland welcomes the comments of the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance on the notable peaceful coexistence of the diverse communities in Singapore. Ireland notes that there are some concerns that anti-discrimination laws do not provide adequate protection for: persons encountering discrimination which is not specified in law, the disabled, persons belonging to the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender community, pregnant women and foreign women married to Singaporean nationals.Has Singapore examined these issues and will it amend current legislation as required to implement protections for these persons in law?
Netherlands: Will Singapore maintain criminal sanctions against sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex? Does it intend to repeal the relevant legal provisions (ref para 28 of the summary report prepared by the OHCHR in accordance with para 15C.)
Other commonly asked questions pertained to ratifying the human rights treaties to which Singapore is not yet a party, human trafficking, detention without trial, death penalty and corporal punishment, control of the media sector/press freedom, rights of women and establishing an independent electoral commission in line with international standards.
列印版本
RSS Feed: 
讀者回應
"but hey boys, we won't enforce it..."
What?
Is the Singapore Govt. afraid that their police boys will meet some cute gays fucking and join in?
Nuh!
They just are afraid of universal rights... just like many other countries...
What a lot of bullshit. The Singapore Govt. is disingenuous...
At the U.N., I would have been more blunt... and used the same language as I have used here... just goes to show that diplomats won't rock the world! They just have a polite dance with wank words... their jobs aren't elite...
singapore need pressure from other countries to wake up their idea.
What utter, utter nonsense. It is a Government's duty to drive forward social change, and to create a progressive, inclusive and just society - not to hide behind the convenient excuse of "B... But some people wouldn't like it if we did that..."
After all, Legislation alone is not sufficient to change the mindsets of Some sections of society - then you get off your lazy asses and roll-out a series of Social Campaigns, ranging from television and print media advertising to setting up Outreach workers, school co-ordinators, and so on. In other words: You work With the People, rather than hiding Behind them.
This is a Government's sacred duty - not always to look at the status quo, but to consider what is Right, and to work to create a better society. Hiding behind the excuse of what some Singaporeans are 'prepared' to accept - when the world knows damn well how quick Singaporean police are dispatched to silence 'troublemakers' - just doesn't cut it; not at the UN, not with Singaporeans I know, and not with Me.
________________________
As a side note - Good, I'm glad to see that my country, Ireland, also asked the Singaporean delegation what it was doing about improving the lot/rights of a wide range of people, and not just querying gay rights/equality.
Again, Singapore isn't exactly known internationally for treating women as equals, so I hope that some niggling questions from my counterparts at the UN persist with questions about the rights of foreign women married to Singaporeans, and so on.
Irish people are often cranky, bad-tempered and insistent - then again, that's why we have the likes of Mary Robinson, and others, 'meddling' in human rights around the world. I'm lazier; I just settle for random meddling on websites... ;-)
Having a law and not enforce it is farcical. It's not a defence. If a law is not enforced, its likely to be antiquated and wrong.
Conservatism is not an excuse to discriminate. Might as well shun technology as witchcraft and continue living in a cave.
Wonder when Malaysia's turn in the UN would be?
Will this stance be legislated and enforced? If the police pull this old law out to discriminate against suspected homosexual activity, will they be legislated to not do it and by such be breaking the law themselves? What is their definition of proactive?
To be blunt and paraphrase PM Trudeau, "The government does not belong in the bedroom of its citizens." Trust your own people and remove that provision. An indecent act is an indecent act, orientation of their sexuality is not the issue, the act is, and that is already covered in the law. The mere presence of the provision in itself is blatantly discriminatory.
"Recognition and success is based on merit and not on factors such as sexual orientation. In the area of employment, the Tripartite Alliance for fair employment practises promotes and educates employers and the general public on fair and responsible employment practises."
Well, a couple of weeks before, just prior to the recent elections campaign, then caretaker Minister of Community, Youth and Sports, Vivian "Rainbow Coalition" Balakrishnan and his GRC team issued a statement that was basically a bid to thwart Singapore's first openly gay politician, Dr Vincent Wijeysinghe, in his attempts for political office.
If the seeking of political office is seen, correctly I would think, to be a seeking of employment, how is it that a government that claims to already have had in place a 'Tipartite Alliance for fair employment practises promotes and educates employers and the general public on fair and responsible employment practises' managed to be the same ones to try and derail Dr Wijeysinghe's bid for office?
All because Dr Wijeysinghe is gay.
Futher, this delegation claims that:
"In recent time, we had robust debates in Parliamentary debates on whether to decriminalize certain homosexual acts."
Yet, it was Vivian Balakrishnan and his team who posed the question on whether Dr Wijeysinghe was harbouring a "Gay Agenda" that he or the Singapore Democratic Party were planning to pursue in Parliament if elected.
All this while 4 straight men, three of Vivian Balakhrishnan's PAP colleagues - Hri Krishnan Nair, Charles Chong and Baey Yam Keng - as well as PAP-appointed NMP, Siew Kum Hong, spoke up in support of gay rights in 2007. It would seem that only straight men are allowed to pursue a "Gay Agenda" in Parliament but not gay ones; gays can only get our rights under the auspices of straight men's charity.
Vivian Balakhrishnan is of course a Christian; he attends the Barker Road Methodist Church which, along with the Wesley Methodist Church and many other Christian churches, are known as Christian Taliban Central, and a headhunting grounds for the ruling PAP.
As for this article, despite what was said I do know people who have lost their jobs or feel totally unsafe in letting their bosses know of their sexuality.
And yes, an extensive discussion was held to discuss the law and the outcome was the heterosexuals can now legally practise sodomy but not the gay men. GO FIGURE!!!!
As gay Singaporeans, many (most?) of you want Singapore to respect homosexuality as an acceptable and fully enfranchised segment of society. Yet, how many of you speak-up directly for the rights you believe are owed you? I don't find the government's actions nearly as disturbing as that of it's gay, mostly silent citizenry. People that leave it to someone or everyone else to be responsible for their rights may eventually get those rights, but I wonder if they really deserve them if they haven't tried to earn them through their own activism and engagement.
To be sure, I think about my own place in this somewhat sick system; I fully want and support marriage rights in my own country, but have never engaged directly in support of this right. Bitch, moan, Bitch moan....ahhhhhh that's right, I'm gay; it's in my genes to do this (and quite possibly nothing more).
Yes, there are now 6 opposition MPs in Parliament. But they are all from the WP, the party that is most like the PAP and the party that refuses to take a stand on the the repeal of 377a and beyond.
I have no idea why even the LGBT community speaks supportively of such a despicable party.
I hope our community will just grow up and examine the differences among the opposition parties in Singapore. They really, really, really are not the same. The SDP and to a lesser extent, the RP are the only gay friendly parties in Singapore.
I hear you. Actually, I am one Singaporean gay man - based in Canada - who does make myself heard in the more 'mainstream' online venues.
But yes, I am also appalled at the fact I am the ONLY one who consistently does, not counting Alex Au who must necessarily maintain his tack. Which is why I will definitely join in your chiding of LGBT Singaporeans when you say, "I don't find the government's actions nearly as disturbing as that of it's gay, mostly silent citizenry."
Thank you.
I agree with you. That why despite the election this year is remarkable, I am not optimistic about it at all.
As for the gay community in Sg, honestly I don't spend much time with them or in the gay scene.
I face more discrimination within the community then the general public. I tend to hang out with my straight frens and colleagues; they have no issues with me being gay at all.
Been lucky enough to feel safe to be out at work and it has no impact on my career. I am not an activist in that sense but I just go about my life to show the community at large that we are all the same.
Why do straight people have to make so many assumptions about gays, when in actual fact they don’t have any idea what so ever about gay or lesbian issues. How would straight people feel if gays made fleeting comments and assumptions about them???
Enough of all this political white-wash – PLEASE!
Or simply saying that your presence as a homosexual will be safe as long as you don't move at all.
Give me one Singaporean gay man who's never committed a homosexual act and I'll give you a pot of gold !
The fact is Singaporean gays ought to be eunuchs to be within the law (enforced or not). Dream on, Delegate.
Curiously enough, I don't engage society-at-large about being myself - any more than society-at-large seems interested in somehow being in My face. It is what is is; I am what I am. After all, if I went around trying to make everyone aware that "I'm Gay! Deal with it!" I think I'd soon have to start adding: "And I'm right-handed! And I'm a Pisces, but I don't believe in that! And I'm terrible at Sudoku! And I'm not very good at hoovering the floor!" You know, all the Other things that define me - seeing as 'just' being one of [Sigh, Pause] The Gays is certainly Not the thing that I use to define 'me'. And? Is that it? Oh...
As for engaging with Society about the 'lifestyle' that I lead? What? Err... okay... if anyone would like me to bore them to tears by talking about my interest in photography, the best way to use Photoshop, or to hear my views on the importance of apostrophes, or if you'd like to know why I really liked Red Dead Redemption on my XBox, and why I'm looking forward to LA Noire next week, etc, I'm happy to talk at length. But I'm not so sure that my 'lifestyle' is anything special - in fact, I thought I was just another person, with the same, average life as most others.
Perhaps not.
1. It criminalizes gays act but not gays. This is certainly true. But according to Naz Foundation case judgment when there is a group of people targeted under a law, that law is discriminatory as towards that group, i.e. gay community. As such, the arguments to rebut this is the discriminatory provision.
2. Please refer to that arguments. - Check out my journals. Lolz!
3. One point we must be in par of discussion : The function of law now, is to imply a view that secular state does not infringe the privacy sphere, of which private morality is concerned. Such view is important as repealing s.377A in Singapore will imply this view.
Btw, comparatively, Malaysia is pathetic as the UN does submit an periodic review to it, but it does not even show any progress from Malaysia. In fact, justification is given in the submission as to why the penal law is still enforced in Malaysia.
The recent General Election 2011, saw the true ugly colors of the PAP and its ruthless intention to replace dissenting votes with liberal immigration policies to any foreign labour in the guise of attracting top foreign "talent" (namely from: China, India, Philippines, Myanmar..etc). Many PAP fouls reported, like manipulating state press to discredit Oppositions unfairly, flouting elections rules, were brushed aside and threats of regret and repentance, were leveled at its citizens brave enough to vote for the oppositions. Shameless dictatorship that even Hitler would cringe.
So how do our LGBT brothers and sisters in Singapore defend for their LGBT rights when even their very basic survival and birthrights are being threatened now by high unemployment of natives (many PMET jobs given to lesser foreign labour without merit-questionable qualifications, fake degrees, uncredited Institutions of learning in their own homeland in India, China..etc), blatant government harassment, displacement of national resources, high cost of living, housing...etc.
Moreover, what the Singapore government is ruthlessly pursuing now is nothing short of social GENOCIDE of its native citizens, crimes of such magnitude is worthy of State executions for traitors against its citizens and nation.
The abyss evil of the Singapore ruling party is way too long, dark and deep for discussion here. You can read more if interested at these 2 sites (if not blocked again)-The Temasek Review and The Online Citizen.
What normal & straight a person would even bother to drag an audience through the wonders of bareback breeding to, a metaphorically stuffing of a straw up one's nose, to drink water, to illustrate sodomy; unless, of cos, as widely proven and observed otherwise, that these are very VILE, closeted self hating gays and lesbians themselves.
Believing such blatant hypocrisy is tantamount to saying that hyenas and cheetahs would go on hunger strikes just cos the lions now announced that they would become vegans. Wouldn't that mean good news & more game for other meat eaters instead of turning haters? Go figure.
As far as I am aware, th owner recieved no compensation either for a breach of rights.
Are they saying homosexuals have no rights to sex?
This thing about police has the right to prosecute gays in "indecent public behaviour", who is to say what is 'decent' and 'indecent', and what becomes 'public' and 'non-public'?
If the police turns up in your bedroom and sees you having sex with other man, does it then becomes "public" because they police is present, or only becomes public when he joins in? How do you define "decency"? For example, does having sex without removing your panties considered indecent or decent?.... Is swallowing or smelling cum indecent? how come straight people swallow and not gays? How about putting fingers into the arsehole, if you put only one finger in, is that indecent, you might just want to scratch it because of an itch? How about straights who enjoy fucking arseholes and putting toys up there, so that is decent?
Are they saying homosexuals have no rights to sex?
This thing about police has the right to prosecute gays in "indecent public behaviour", who is to say what is 'decent' and 'indecent', and what becomes 'public' and 'non-public'?
If the police turns up in your bedroom and sees you having sex with other man, does it then becomes "public" because they police is present, or only becomes public when he joins in? How do you define "decency"? For example, does having sex without removing your panties considered indecent or decent?.... Is swallowing or smelling cum indecent? how come straight people swallow and not gays? How about putting fingers into the arsehole, if you put only one finger in, is that indecent, you might just want to scratch it because of an itch? How about straights who enjoy fucking arseholes and putting toys up there, so that is decent?
I would comment further, but coming from Singapore's northern border nation, it'll be too much like the pot calling kettle black.
On this account, I think she did a fine job.
As for the government suggesting that the people are not ready for change, geee.. I think the recent election just affirmed that the government really doesn't listen to the ground enough. They probably want to wait for the next election when a stronger opposition will help garner a strong opposition representation in Parliament.
Anyone here wanna run for the next election?
Every action that a homosexual person does is a homosexual act, including having sex with a person of the opposite sex because that would he a homosexual act of having heterosexual intercourse, which would then be illegal as being a homosexual act. A homosexual breathing is a homosexual act of a homosexual breathing.
Perhaps a quick solution is to legislate that everyone that is attracted to persons having the same genetailia as themselves be declared a "Singapore heterosexual".That way if two "Singaporean hetrosexuals" have sex with each other, it is a "Singaporean Hetersexual" act and not a homosexual act since they are both "Singaporean heterosexuals". That way, the proponents of that stupid provision can go F*** themselves without breaking the law of commiting a homosexual act.
how's that 'fair employment', singapore?
what about the 2 years and 4 months i had to involuntarily give up for national service?
give me back that time you took away, then we'll talk.
Uhhhh, is she retarded?
All the more shameful when they consider themselves better educated and more qualified than the other politicians of the region.
Shame on you.
(1) "On this let me assure the UK and clarify in particular that what is being criminalised is not gay Singaporeans but homosexual acts between men. Now an extensive public consultation was held and the matter was considered at the highest political levels, it was not taken lightly and in the end it was decided to leave things be."
Here, the government confirms that consideration by "extensive public consultation" and at "the highest political levels" concluded that "homosexual acts between men" should continue to be criminalised.
Then there came a contradictory reply below:
(2) "To answer the delegate from Canada, no action is taken against consenting adult males who may have relations unless their conduct breaks other laws, for instance laws against indecent public behaviour or paedophilia. "
Now, if the conclusion was that "homosexual acts between men" should continue to be criminalised, why is it that "no action is taken against consenting adult males who may have relations"?
If the Singapore government's conclusion was indeed that "unless their conduct breaks other laws, for instance laws against indecent public behaviour or paedophilia", homosexual acts should NOT be criminalised, then why isn't this spelled out in the Statute?
If (2) is indeed the Singapore government's commitment to the world, and if it takes the Statute seriously enough, then it should make an amendment to S377(a) to put this commitment down in black and white. Nowhere in s377a is the condition that "their conduct breaks other laws, for instance laws against indecent public behaviour or paedophilia" mentioned.
Hence, an amendment should be made to S377a to spell out those conditions in which s377a may apply, for the benefit of doubt and to protect the integrity of the Statute. Such conditions might include a list of conduct that fall under the category of "laws against indecent public behaviour or paedophilia". They may include:
1) sex with minors under age 16
2) rape
3) intentionally infecting others with HIV.
By so doing, the lawmakers can protect the integrity of our Statute and assure the gay community that 377a is not intended to prosecute the majority of them who are harmless, but only the bad apples amongst them who pose a threat to both the gay community and the general public. I hope the Parliament could make up its mind on which segment of the gay community they really want to criminalise: all sexually active gay people, or just the bad apples amongst them?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir or Madam,
On 6 May 2011, the Singapore delegate had the unenviable position of trying to justify the Government of Singapore's treatment of gays and lesbians before the UN Human Rights Council.
While the police have been instructed not enforce the law that prohibits private consensual sexual relations between male adults of the same sex, the Government will not amend the Criminal Code out of deference to conservative values. Nevertheless, Singapore's representative maintained that gays and lesbians are protected from discrimination.
Canadian, British, Dutch, and French delegates remained unconvinced. Most of the countries with which Singapore likes to compare itself have legalized same-sex marriage or civil partnerships and provided same-sex partners with significant protections in such areas as employee benefits, pensions and immigration.
Singapore has shown the world that it is possible for people of
different cultures and religions to live in harmony. This has been
accomplished by holding high the rule of law and valuing the dignity of each person. It is time for these values to apply to gay people in
Singapore. And it is time for the laws to reflect those values.
Sincerely,
Martin G. Padgett
former Director of Communications,
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Why? -- because it would have to put some other value system on the pedestal currently held by those Victorian, British fin-de-siècle principles that sent Oscar Wilde to jail, punishing him both for being gay and Irish, as British public opinion did for most of its history, but finally gave in under pressure from civilised countries like France, when it joined the EU.
請先登入再使用此功能。