Tag Archives: Section 377A

Min Shan tried to assure Singaporeans that sexual orientation do not influence policies. But why is 377A still around?

The question now lies on how such rights can be introduced into this otherwise conservative nation and why it took this long for any reasonable discussion in void decks or social media to occur.

Singapore's universities have become more Lesbian Gay Bi and Transgender (LGBT) friendly, but they are still far from ideal, says a commentator on LGBT rights in Singapore. With the failure of LGBT groups to abolish Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalizes sexual intercourse between men and government restrictions on foreign corporate funding for Pink Dot, LGBT activists face an uphill battle.

The biggest threat or violence against the LGBT community in Singapore, however, does not come in the form of an automatic weapon. For now, at least. It comes in the form of state-sanctioned threat of violence, by way of a 2 year imprisonment term for the criminalization of their private, consensual exercise of their right to love under s377A of the Penal Code. If we genuinely want to protect the LGBT community against threats and violence, let us start by removing the legal, punitive threat of violence that is currently entrenched against them in our Penal Code. For your kind consideration.

There is no point in contesting any of this, guys, straight or otherwise. We’ve got a long way to go before we even reach AWAREness standards. But for gay men, how about taking it one step at a time? Challenge the mandatory jail time on 377A. Get it knocked down to a fine per time. You see, it adds up. Take it as a tax for making the government tlose potential GST-paying, CPF contributing citizens.

Yeshu Aini, a local religious person, said: “My entire life is in disarray. I have all along been an Apple fan and bought the iPhone 5 and 6 that were developed under Tim Cook’s charge. Therefore, I have been directly contributing to sin by financing it and this has allowed homosexuality to thrive.” “No wonder this latest 5.5-inch iPhone 6 feels so good in my hands. It is because this is the average length of the male anatomy.”

Community groups representing the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community on Thursday (Oct 30) called the ruling by the Court of Appeal on Section 377A of the Penal Code "a narrow interpretation" and "unacceptable". This comes a day after the nation's highest court ruled that a law which criminalises sex between men is constitutional, and did not infringe on the rights of the people who filed two separate appeal - Kenneth Chee Mun-Leon, Gary Lim Meng Suang, and Tan Eng Hong.

“All that the court can — and must — be concerned with in these circumstances is whether any fundamental rights under the Singapore Constitution ... have indeed been violated. While we understand the deeply-held personal feelings of the appellants, there is nothing this court can do to assist them,” the judge said. “Their remedy lies, if at all, in the legislative sphere.”

Their argument is that Section 377A infringes their rights to equality under Article 12 of the Constitution and violates their rights to life and personal liberty under Article 9. The Attorney-General’s Chambers, however, asserts that the provision does not breach the Constitution.

Every gay man has a coming-out story, but I believe in a coming-out place, a place which links us to our rite-of-passage point at Tanjong Pagar; a place which reminds us that, before our collective memory in the gay space of Tanjong Pagar, we each have a space that is unique to our own gayhood.