ST: Petition to repeal gay sex law sparks heated debate (Oct 23)

Oct 23, 2007 Petition to repeal gay sex law sparks heated debate NMP's stand that Section 377A is discriminatory elicits rebuttals from MPs By Peh Shing Huei PARLIAMENT yesterday felt the intensity of public sentiments over gay sex when it sat to discuss changes to the Penal Code. Senior Minister of State for Law Ho Peng Kee announced wide-ranging amendments, including tougher laws against paedophilia and racial and religious slurs. But the House's attention turned very quickly to Section 377A. This section deems sex between men a crime. The Government has decided to retain it, even as it removes Section 377, the law banning oral and anal sex between men and women. At the start of the sitting, Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong presented a citizens' petition to repeal Section 377A. Said the lawyer in an impassioned speech: 'Why should it be any different when those acts are performed between adult men? What is the differential factor that leads to harm? There is none. There is no harm that would be recognised by the criminal law. But other parliamentarians of all persuasions - from the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) to the opposition Workers' Party (WP) and a fellow NMP - disagreed, with varying degrees of forcefulness. Five PAP backbenchers, four of them lawyers, supported the retention of the law on grounds that society was not ready for a change. Said Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar GRC): 'I can tell you that for every one of those (people who signed the petition), there was someone who e-mailed us as Members of Parliament to say, 'Do not repeal. Keep it. We thank the MPs, we thank the Government for keeping this law'.' Taking up the point on the wishes of the majority, Mr Alvin Yeo (Hong Kah GRC) said that the laws must reflect their position, as he cited a recent survey which showed that seven in 10 Singaporeans frowned on homosexuality. Both he and Ms Rajah also argued that the petition's call for equality had to be put in context. It did not mean that homosexuals would be discriminated against before the law, but just that this particular law was as a result of society's choices. Said Ms Rajah: 'I don't think we want to have a situation where we demonise homosexuals. We certainly do not want to regard them as anything less than Singaporeans. 'But the point is, what does our society want for itself?...Once you have different groups that live in a society, you have to accept that there will be some restrictions on behaviour.' While agreeing that a majority want the law to stay, Mr Hri Kumar (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) took issue over the lack of clarity and inconsistency of Section 377A. Even though gay sex was banned, he noted the Government's position that it would not actively enforce the law and that it allowed gays in the civil service. He asked: 'So what is the message we are sending? Are we for or against it?' WP chairman Sylvia Lim said that her party could not reach a consensus after lengthy discussions, and thus opted for the status quo. Amid the nays to the repeal, a visibly distraught NMP Thio Li-Ann got many thumping their seats as she launched a fiery rebuttal of the pro-repeal arguments. Warning the House that the repeal call was the typical first step to other demands such as for same sex marriage, the law professor said that the law should remain as homosexuality is immoral. Making her disdain plain, she described homosexuality as a 'gender identity disorder' and anal sex as akin to 'shoving a straw up your nose to drink'. While Mr Siew argued that the repeal was about 'fairness, justice and non-discrimination', Professor Thio argued that Section 377A did not breach the constitutional guarantee of equality for citizens. 'While all human persons are of equal worth, not all human behaviour is equally worthy... In criminalising acts, we consider the wrongfulness of the act, the harm caused and how it affects the good of society,' she said. The debate continues today. shpeh@sph.com.sg