(Photo: Wikimedia Commons, unknown author)
By Madeleine Baxter – Contributor
Waves of glee and joy flourished across Singapore during the annual National Day Rally on 21st August 2022, as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong declared that Section 377A of the penal code, which prohibited sex between men, would finally be repealed. Hailed as a landmark decision for equality and tolerance in the Southeast Asian city-state, many have become hopeful that it will contribute to the destigmatisation of homosexuality. However, Lee’s simultaneous refusal to legalise same-sex marriage has caused activists to question the true nature of this victory for LGBTQ+ rights.
Section 377A, introduced in 1938 under British colonial rule, outlawed sex between consenting male adults, as well as other sexual acts deemed to be “against the order of nature” regardless of sex or gender. In 2007, parts of Section 377A concerning certain sexual acts between heterosexual adults, such as anal and oral sex, were repealed, but the criminalisation of these acts between homosexual men was retained. It was instead announced that the law would become de facto and would not be proactively enforced by Singaporean authorities.
Lee justified this by asserting that attempts by activists to fight for the legalisation of gay sex would be met with stronger resistance from religious conservatives, subsequently generating more hostility towards the LGBTQ+ community. This claim was met with widespread criticism, with many arguing that Lee was far more concentrated on sustaining the support of his traditionalist voters rather than expanding and protecting the rights of queer citizens.
15 years of exhaustive campaigning and lobbying later, things finally seemed to have changed – at a first glance that is. In his National Day Rally message to the people, Lee said he believed that legalising gay sex was “the right thing to do” and hoped that it would “provide some relief to gay Singaporeans”. He also acknowledged how several other Asian nations had already repealed similar laws and that this would bring Singapore into line with the current social climate.
Although the retraction of this law will ease some of the pressure experienced by LGBTQ+ folk throughout the country, Lee affirmed that his government did not intend to permit constitutional challenges which would legalise same-sex marriage. He avowed that “even as we repeal Section 377A, we will uphold and safeguard the institution of marriage”, further adding that the content allowed to be televised or taught in schools will also not change.
Lee’s persistent efforts to exclude same-sex couples from marital conventions have come under fire from numerous human rights groups, who say that this continues to perpetuate prejudicial notions that LGBTQ+ citizens are not entitled to equal rights. Activists now fear that strict heterosexual definitions of marriage, pushed by religious and sectarian groups, will become enshrined in the country’s constitution.
Many view the decision to rescind Section 377A as a warped display of virtue signalling and a classic case of one step forward, two steps back. It should also be noted that there have been no known convictions for consensual sex between adult males in Singapore for decades, even before this law became de facto. So is this really a groundbreaking milestone, or simply a compromise which will allow Lee to maintain his conservative base?
For now, it remains unclear as to whether the abolition of Section 377A will materialise as a steppingstone to further emancipation, or ultimately prevail as a quick fix solution to subdue calls for same-sex marriage equality. In the words of openly gay Singaporean lawyer Remy Choo Zheng Xi, “discrimination did not start with 377A and is not going to end with 377A”.
The York Politics Review 