On Sunday, 21st August 2022, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced that Section 377A (S377A), a controversial and colonial law that criminalises sexual activities between men, would be tabled in Parliament for repeal. Additionally, amendments in Singapore’s Constitution would be done to ensure that Parliament will have the prerogative to define marriage. This will ensure future conversations on marriage equality will be held in Parliament, and not in the courts.
A few months later, on 29th November, Singapore’s Parliament repealed S377A while including the constitutional amendment to allow Parliament to have the prerogative to define marriage.
This is a monumental decision in Singapore’s history.
The announcement has certainly drawn mixed reactions from Singaporeans. Many, especially those within the LGBTQ+ community and activists within civil society have expressed optimism at the announcement of the repeal. Others have raised concerns about amending the Constitution and some have even expressed dismay with the repeal.
Public Opinions
Blackbox polled 650 Singaporeans aged 18 years and above following the National Day Rally 2022 and found that the PM’s announcement about the Government plans to repeal S377A of the Penal Code appears to be accepted by a plurality of Singaporeans, while 34% were neutral about the subject. This is expected as the repeal would have no real repercussions on most Singaporeans.
However, there were noticeable generational differences. Singaporeans aged 18-24 years and 25-34 years expressed strong support for the repeal at 26% and 31%. Fewer older Singaporeans aged 35-49 and 50 years and above (34% and 35% respectively) were supportive of S377A’s repeal. Younger Singaporeans are typically characterised as being less conservative and more open and sympathetic of LGBTQ+ issues.
Despite the differing views on repealing S377A, Singaporeans remain largely sceptical on gay marriage. 55% of Singaporeans were personally not supportive of gay marriage. Again, older Singaporeans expressed more scepticism of gay marriages while younger Singaporeans viewed them more favourably (over 50% support).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, 66% of Singaporeans were favourable of the Constitutional amendment announced to ensure Parliament has the prerogative to define marriage – as only being between a man and woman – with the decision being popular among both older Singaporeans aged 50 and above, as well as ethnic Malays. The latter is unsurprising as most Malays are Muslim and homosexuality is regarded as a sin in Islam. The Mufti of Singapore, Dr Nazirudin Mohd Nasir has made statements addressing the issue, welcoming the protection of marriage’s definition but also reminding the community that “religious values of compassion and kindness demand of us (Singaporean Muslims) to not turn away from them (LGBTQ+ community)”.
The Legal Challenge
Perhaps one of the catalysts for the repeal of S377A could lie in the legal challenges against the law. To date, there have been numerous challenges against S377A in Singapore’s judiciary system. All have failed.
The failure seen in Tan Seng Kee v AG (28 February), however, is interesting. The challenge against S377A was dismissed but the courts had found something peculiar. In the judgement set out by Singapore’s Court of Appeal, it was commented that S377A may fall foul of Article 12(1)’s right to equality depending on what the law’s purpose is. In layman terms, the law is problematic as it criminalises men-men sexual activity but not women-women. This required Parliament, the institution that develops laws in Singapore, to correct this issue. A repeal was the solution.
What’s Next?
For those within the LGBTQ+ community, the repeal will not be able to make up for the years of abuse and dehumanisation many within the community faced due to their sexual orientation. However, it is important to recognise that progress, albeit slow and perhaps even ‘small’, has been made towards equality.
Leaders within civil society now need to consider other aspects after repealing S377A. How does the repeal impact social policies such as housing, depiction of LGBTQ+ communities in media, education and civil unions? Many social policies include references to traditional family units and marriage (i.e., a legal union between a man and a woman).
For example, married or soon-to-be married couples are eligible for a brand new 5-room BTO flat. Singles can only get a 2-room Flexi flat in non-mature estates. Members of the LGBTQ+ community are likely to fall into the singles category since gay marriages are not ‘a thing’ and also not recognised in Singapore. Another housing disparity is the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant which is only eligible for traditional family units such as married couples, multi-generational families, or single-parent families with children. Again, the LGBTQ+ community are locked out of such grants.
There are real consequences on the wider Singapore society. And while Singaporeans may be willing to end discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community, such willingness may disappear if it means not getting that BTO flat for example. This may explain Singaporeans’ hesitation towards gay marriages.
One of the important lessons from this debate about S377A is the importance of communication. Religious organisations, particularly the Christian and Muslim organisations, have been against the repeal. This is understandable as homosexuality is a sin in their faiths, and a repeal does pose an existential challenge to their world views.
However, it is concerning that the messaging from religious leaders has been lacking both empathy and evidence. Beyond moralistic arguments, little else has been presented as reasons to keep the law in place. Arguments that repealing the law may lead to a breakdown in family and society structure have been weak and lack data. Meanwhile, LGBTQ+ activists have demonstrated the real effects S377A has on the community. Religious leaders should find better ways to reach out and present their views in a more sympathetic manner, especially to those of other faiths and belief systems.
The Ageing Population Trap
Another critical aspect of S377A’s repeal is the potential evolution of Singaporean society towards social issues such as LGBTQ+ rights. It will be tempting to develop policies more in-line with Singapore’s conservative-leaning older generations, especially with the country’s ageing population. That line of policy thought has been seen in other ageing countries such as Japan and South Korea with detrimental effects on society. Younger Japanese, for example, are far more politically apathetic, disconnected from social and economic issues and unwilling to participate in civil society.
Today’s Singaporean youth will be tomorrow’s adults and critical stakeholders in Singapore’s future. Uncomfortable conversations such as marriage equality, the role of religion and belief systems in public policy, and liberal views on social issues cannot be avoided. The millennials and Gen Zs of today are significantly pro-repeal and leaning towards more liberal attitudes. These views need to be included moving forward.
Food For Thought
Singapore is home to over 5 million people. The city-state is a cosmopolitan environment awash with a variety of cultures, beliefs and opinions. People have a right to their beliefs, but it should not compromise the well-being of others. Repealing a law that has been divisive in recent years and serves no purpose is an important step. It is hoped that Singapore can now move on and continue building an inclusive society for all.
Repealing S377A has been a divisive issue for many Singaporeans. To understand how governments, civic society leaders, social activists and religious leaders can comprehend the complexities of today’s social issues, get in touch on connect@blackbox.com.sg
Author: Blackbox Research Team
Comments