Will Singapore's Decriminalization of Gay Sex be a Catalyst for SEA's Fight for Queer Rights?
With Singapore’s government being predominantly conservative, national policy and rules on sexual orientation have always been a part of discourse between the government and the public. Though Singapore has always had a strong stance on the crimilization of same-sex relations, the past few months have brought about changes for individual freedoms and liberties.
For over 80 years, sexual relations between men has been deemed as a crime in Singapore. A law developed under British colonial rule, section 377A of the penal code enforces that consenting males who are involved in acts of “gross indecency,” which implies sexual intercourse, would face up to two years of imprisonment. In August 2022, Singaporeans welcomed the announcement to repeal this discriminatory law against the queer community.
The Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, repealed the 84-year-old discriminatory law against gay Singaporeans during a televised national rally speech as a way to appease a wider audience. Lee accepted that people in the LGBTQ+ community are citizens of the nation and therefore what they do in private should not be a basis for criminalization. However, in the same speech, not only did he say that the repeal process should be “in a controlled, carefully considered way,” he also wanted to strengthen Singapore’s marriage laws so as to reinforce that it should only be between a man and a woman.
Therefore, the motivation behind the decision to repeal the criminal code is uncertain; was it due to queer rights finally being recognized by the government, or merely because the act of sex is a private matter and thus its nature is not robust enough to be criminalized?
Singapore’s history with queer rights have long been tumultious, more often than not leading to adverse consequences and further restrictions for the queer community. An example that would illustrate the gravity of this is the 1993 police entrapment of gay men. Posing as gay men, police officers in Tanjung Rhu would interact with men they suspected to be gay and flirt with them, one even suggested sex in a nearby area. When the victims agreed, they were led into a trap where other police officers came and arrested them. Although section 377A of the penal code was still in place at this time, the men were arrested not under this law. Instead, the officials found a way to charge the men for outraging their “victims’” modesty. They were arrested for up to six months and received a more extreme punishment, caning, meaning they were beaten with a cane multiple times.
With incidents such as the 1993 entrapment, it is evident that Singaporean government’s relationship with queerness has been hostile. Singapore’s communitarianism, which prioritizes the community rather than the individual, may have played a role in making it more difficult for citizens to express their individualism without backlash. Even with strong activist movements like the Pink Dot, Singapore has been slow to see change. Hence, the repeal of 377A came as a surprise to many, especially after a 2013 speech where Lee expressed his opinion to “agree to disagree” when it comes to gay rights. Moreover, he was seen as apathetic when he revealed that laws regarding the LGBT community will remain unchanged for many years. Ultimately, his decision to repeal the criminal code this year may not have been done purely for moral righteousness.
Citizens of Singapore, while overjoyed, were also concerned about what it might mean for their future. It was a big compromise from the government’s side, yet people couldn’t help but question whether or not it was a double-edged sword. Was it a decision to further silence them, accepting that it was the best they could get as a form of incentive to adhere to marriage laws along with other unjust regulations?
Nevertheless, despite the questionable motives, the decision is a win and a step forward for Southeast Asia considering the strict rules still imposed in many parts of Southeast Asia and Asia at large. In Malaysia, a similar law to 377A is still in place, but instead of two years, citizens could be charged to 20 years in prison. In Japan, same-sex couples do not have the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples, including not being able to inherit a house.
The televised speech has impacted other countries in Southeast Asia as well. Some neighboring countries have mirrored Singapore and have seen similar developments, whether it be coincidental or directly inspired by Singapore. Thailand, a country whose state government overlaps with religion and is closely related to the military, has also made some changes this year. After calls of political reform were made since 2020, several bill drafts on same-sex marriages and rights have been passed. While there are still no laws that protect the queer community, this is also a small step in the right direction for human rights.
Looking at patterns of some Asian countries in recent years, Singapore could become a catalyst that pushes more countries to follow suit in the near future. At any rate, deeply rooted ideologies, state religions, and strong beliefs will still be fairly influential to policy-making processes. Especially for conservative countries, decisions will be driven by the need to satisfy the state. Lee once stated that he would prefer to not alter laws because “it’s always been there.” This would certainly be the case for many leaders, but if a fairly conservative country like Singapore could accomplish it, there may just be a possibility that others would do the same.
In any case, the unclear reasoning behind the contradictory remark of Lee Hsien Loong continues to be an issue. As we see progress being made in other countries, we must always examine it and ask ourselves if they did so simply to silence us with temporary satisfaction or if our voices have truly been heard.
MOST RECENT ARTICLE
