SIngapore High Court Debates Homosexuality Bill

[Guest fountainhall]

There is a case before the Singapore High Court that once again brings into question a law on the city-state’s statute books. The case was taken out by a gay couple who challenge the constitutionality of the notorious section 377A of the Penal Code which prohibits sexual relations between men. This, of course, is a handover from colonial days and the similar law brought in during Victorian times in Britain. The law does not include women, as Queen Victoria is alleged to have believed it was not possible for a woman to have have sex with another woman!

Despite the fact that the UK repealed the law some time ago, and that most former UK colonies have done likewise – Hong Kong finally got rid of it more than 20 years ago – Singapore keeps it on the statute books.

During the case which was heard on the 14th, Singapore’s Attorney General vigorously opposed the plaintiffs’ cases. Two elements of his case were –
 

 

the Attorney-General submits that s 377A has the clearly-stated purpose of reflecting public morality. This is based on the fact that the majority of Singaporeans still find homosexual acts unacceptable, as reflected in Parliamentary debates . . .

The AG also argued that the Court should find section 377A constitutional under Article 12 of the Constitution because sex between men poses a substantially higher likelihood of transmission of sexually transmitted infections as compared to sex between women which has "much lower" risks . . . there is a scientifically-established difference between the public health risks associated with sex between men and sex between women. The former poses a substantially higher likelihood of transmission of sexually transmitted infections such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”), as well as posing other health risks. By contrast, there have been no documented cases of HIV transmission arising from sex between women and the health risks associated with such acts are generally much lower.”

With Singapore’s democratic system so heavily skewed towards the ruling People’s Action Party, talk of the outcome of parliamentary debates has to be something of a farce. Despite the fact that at the last General Election 40% of votes went to the Opposition, the PAP was swept back to power with 81 out of 87 seats. Indeed, the PAP has been continuously in power since 1959.

But the implication that sex between men poses “a substantially higher likelihood of transmission of sexually transmitted infections than sex between women” must surely be questionable and implies a degree of promiscuity that is not necessarily there is some relationships. What if men and women are in monogamous relationships? What if one women in a relationship plays around from time to time?

 

The AG’s statement is bollocks.

 

http://www.fridae.asia/newsfeatures/2013/02/14/12237.singapore-high-court-hears-challenge-of-anti-gay-sex-law

[Guest abang1961]

I am a born and bred Singaporean.

You are correct to mention that despite losing 40% of the votes, the ruling party still manages to win more than 90% of the constituency.  However from that election in 2011 till now, things had been spiraling downwards for the government.  They lost another seat during a recent by-election.

 

The men in the street are no longer satisfy with the rising cost of living and the influx of new citizens.  It is rather sad that there was even a White Paper to bring in more foreigners to boost the numbers.  The question in my mind is that are there sufficient housings, trains and bus service and jobs for every one?

 

I live in a 3-bedroom apartment in an opposition ward for 27 years before it fell to the ruling party by a mere 114 votes.  Granted my constituency has only about 15000 eligible votes, it will be a mammoth task for the elected member to repeat this feat again.

 

Many locals are unhappy.

Many gays are unhappy.

So, many gay locals are deciding to exercise their rights to vote against the government in the next election, due in mid-2016.

 

Such talks on gay rights are often swept underneath the carpet and gay scenes (like those in Brothers and Sisters) were heavily edited out.  Perhaps that is the reason why they would never ever show gay themed movies on national television.

[Guest fountainhall]

I see thee was a rare public demonstration yesterday to protest the government's immigration policies. WIth more than 4,00 attending, it was apparently one of the largest ever non-election rallies in Singapore.

 

I remember when I was there for Kevin Spacey's "Richard III", every taxi driver I encountered complained about rising prices and blamed immigration from China.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21485729

[Guest fountainhall]

The judge in the case before the Singapore High Court in which two gay men who have been partners for 15 years are trying to get section 377A of the Penal Code struck down has ruled against the first part of the legal challenge.

. . . the judge concludes that while anal and oral sex in private between a consenting man and woman is considered "acceptable," the same conduct was "repugnant and offensive" when carried out between two men, "therefore no reason to strike down... s 377A... as arbitrary or discriminatory.

 

. . . In my judgment, the object of s 377A is clear. It criminalises male homosexual conduct that is not acceptable in our society.                                                                           

 

In a statement, the two plaintiffs said –

“Having been together for 15 years, it is disheartening that we are criminals in the eyes of the law because of a segment of society that will not live and let live, but insist on pushing their version of religion and morality on us.

 

“We believe that most Singaporeans do not believe that gay people should be jailed for something they can’t change, and we believe that an equal and fair Singapore is worth striving for. We have received many supportive messages since this began, and we ask that people continue to come together as we work towards a Singapore that everyone can truly call home,” they added.

 

http://www.fridae.asia/newsfeatures/2013/04/10/12289.singapore-high-court-upholds-anti-gay-sex-law

[Guest fountainhall]

There is an excellent and well-argued article on the fridae website concerning yesterday’s court decision not to repeal Article 377-A of the Criminal Code.  It is written by a Singaporean artist, writer, curator and co-founder of EtiquetteSG (www.etiquette.sg), Singapore's first annual arts event focused on feminist issues.

 

The points she makes are similar to those made in other similar situations. But I believe they are worth repeating here.

 

The lead-up to this court case was nothing new: religious leaders encroaching upon secular society, political leaders hurting their behinds on fences, slippery-slope arguments pivoting the fate of an entire nation’s moral fabric upon whether or not the sex lives of homosexual men continue to remain criminalized – a claim so baseless that it would be laughable if the inanity of its constant regurgitation was not so mind-numbing. Oh, and let’s not forget the 377A-suporters who petitioned the government to invest taxpayer money into “conducting a comprehensive study into the ill-effects of promoting homosexuality in culture”. Er. Right. Because honest socio-cultural inquiry involves conducting a “comprehensive study” based on conclusions one has already come to.

 

If this is the level of discourse Singapore is leaning towards, then our aspirations to become a first-world nation – a nation of compassionate hearts, critical minds and progressive debate – is doomed.

 

And if the ill-will and ignorance propogated against queer people online prior to this court case, is not reason enough to repeal 377A, I don’t know what is. The fact that a senior pastor responded to the debate with what sounded pretty much like a battle-cry, set alarm bells off in many heads: He told his church that “we must not be oblivious to our responsibility as an army to push back the powers of darkness”, that the church “must get herself into battle footing, and be battle-ready”, that "the first salvo was fired", that “churches are beginning to mobilise themselves”, that “the war will be winnable” and that “the church will arise victorious”.

 

If one religious community had raised this "war-cry" against another, I am pretty sure that the law would have intervened in half the time it took him to take the incriminating evidence of his own violent imagination out of his post. But because it was a rally-cry against equal rights for homosexuals, no action has been taken and his “apology” has seemed to suffice. Double-standards?

 

. . . The trouble is that 377A is not just about criminalisation of homosexual sex. It is a symbol that says, yeah, it's legitimate, based on sexual orientation, to deny a graduate a teaching job, to deny a teenager a role model on television, to tell someone that they are less of a legitimate human being. It is sends a message to the public, telling them that it is ok to label someone else, not of your sexual orientation a faggot, dyke, ah qua, sinner, deviant, sick because technically, they should be in jail anyway. It is a symbol that says it is legitimate for religious leaders to position satire as fact and demonise an entire community by claiming that gay men want to "sodomise your sons". It validates and is rooted in the very same violence that drive gay teens to suicide, drives wedges between parents and children, leads to pretend marriages that end in shambles. It is a statute that effectively institutionalises inequality.

 

I hope some will take the trouble to read the whole article here –

 

http://www.fridae.asia/newsfeatures/2013/04/10/12290.not-prepared-to-wait