TNP: Heated debate over gay law, if it's not enforced, why keep it? (Oct 24)

The Electric New Paper :
Heated debate over gay law
If it's not enforced, WHY KEEP IT?

THERE'S no question about it - it's illegal to have gay sex in
Singapore, whether in public or private.
By Low Ching Ling

24 October 2007

THERE'S no question about it - it's illegal to have gay sex in
Singapore, whether in public or private.

But how often has Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises
such acts, been used to punish two consenting men who have sex in
their own homes or in a private space?

Lawyers say it's unheard of.

The Government has said it would not actively prosecute people under
Section 377A.

Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, Senior Minister of State for Home
Affairs and Law, reiterated this point in Parliament yesterday when he
said the Government would keep the status quo.

But those who have called for the law to be abolished have asked: Why
keep it if it's not enforced?

Mr Siew Kum Hong, who tabled a petition asking for the law's repeal,
said the Law Society had noted that keeping the law is 'out of step
with legal norms in the modern law'.

He also quoted NUS law professor Michael Hor as saying: 'The moral
force of the criminal law is blunted if there are crimes which are,
the Government assures the public, never to be enforced.'

MP and lawyer Hri Kumar asked: 'If the intention is not to do anything
at all, then what is the purpose of having the law? Does it not hurt
our credibility that we have laws that are toothless?'

But is Section 377A purely symbolic?

Prof Ho disagreed. He said it has been used to prosecute grown men who
had sex with underaged boys.

Mr Kumar said that between 1988 and 2003, there were eight convictions
under Section 377A. Two convictions were for the same incident.

He added: 'It has not been invoked in respect of consensual sex since
1993. So this law is rarely applied, or if applied, it applies to
minors or to acts in public.'

MP Christopher De Souza pointed out that enforcement alone cannot test
how effective a law is. 'For example, to attempt suicide is an offence
in Singapore. Yet, how many people are prosecuted for it? I dare say a
negligible percentage of those who do attempt suicide,' he said.

'Yet, the offence remains on the books even after this amendment
because it conveys the message that we do not want people taking their
lives.

'Will that message become weaker if the offence is taken off the
books? Yes.'

HARM OR NO HARM?

Does repealing Section 377A harm society? This was also one of the
main points of the debate in Parliament.

Mr Siew pointed out that the Home Affairs Ministry had said the Penal
Code review was intended to make the Code 'more effective in
maintaining a safe and secure society in today's context'.

But, Mr Siew added, Section 377A criminalises gay sex even behind
closed doors.

'How does the private sexual conduct of consenting adults make
Singapore unsafe or less secure?' he asked.

He argued that criminal law should be used for activities that harm
others.

'Instead, (the Government's) reasons for retaining 377A are that the
majority of Singaporeans disapprove of homosexuality, and so 377A
should be retained to reflect, or 'sign-post', this majority view of
Singaporeans,

' he said.

'But reflecting the morality of the majority is not a stated aim of
the Penal Code. Nor is it an accepted objective of the criminal law.'

But MP Indranee Rajah had a retort.

'What about the distribution of pornographic material? You could, if
you wanted, to take the same argument, say the distribution of
pornographic material has nothing to do with a safe and secure
society,' she said.

'It's not a threat to a person or to property. But all of us recognise
or accept that the distribution of pornographic material should be
regarded as an offence.

'When we look at the safety and security of Singapore, we also look at
the question of public morals, public decency, public order.'

Mr De Souza said the repealing of Section 377A would have other
consequences on society such as the push for legal gay marriages,
adoption of children by gay couples, spousal rights and effects on the
education of the young.

Ms Indranee called for a compromise between the majority and minority
groups.

'Once you have different groups living in a society, you have to
accept there will be some restrictions on behaviour...

'One group says, 'I want this.' Another group says, 'No, I want that.'
How do you decide?

'You have to come down to a decision one way or another, and in most
cases, you will go with the majority view. Unless there is a reason to
protect the minority position.'

ST: Decriminalising Gay Sex (Oct 23)

Oct 23, 2007
DECRIMINALISING GAY SEX

Take views of majority into account, say four MPs
Most S'poreans do not condone homosexual acts, so Section 377A should
be retained

By Keith Lin

FOUR MPs of the People's Action Party yesterday spoke out against
repealing a law that makes gay sex a crime.

Their main point is that the majority of Singaporeans do not condone
homosexual acts.

MPs like Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC) also argued
that scientific studies that tried to prove a genetic basis for
homosexuality are now called in question.

He also warned that repealing the law will have damaging implications
on society.

'How will we cope in Singapore where traditional definitions of
'family and marriage' have been the bedrock of HDB policies?' he asked.

The PAP MPs were attacking a citizens' petition read in Parliament by
Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong.

The petition called on the Government to repeal Section 377A, which
makes it a crime for men to have sex with each other, whether in
public or private.

In opposing it, Mr de Souza said such a move will be seen as an
endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle.

'As a result, homosexual lifestyles no longer remain private, but
travel into spheres traditionally reserved for heterosexual couples.'

This, he warned, will have far-reaching consequences, such as rocking
the institution of marriage and paving the way for same-sex couples to
adopt children.

'Do we want our family-centric culture and the traditional definition
of 'family' to be threatened?' he said.

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar GRC) noted that most Singaporeans
still view homosexual acts as wrong.

She noted that Mr Siew had made the point that such acts as slavery
and discrimination against racial and religious minorities are often
legitimised by prevailing notions of public morality.

This, said Ms Indranee, 'exactly proves the point' that societies
evolve with time.

For instance, racial and religious discrimination are regarded as
wrong in Singapore. But there are societies that continue to view them
as correct practices.

'The point is, what does our society want for itself? In this case,
the public reaction has shown that the majority of Singaporeans do not
agree with or accept homosexual behaviour.'

For every person who had supported the petition, there were many
others who had thanked her and other MPs for keeping the law intact,
she said. Hence, laws in a secular state like Singapore have to
reflect the majority's view, she added.

Expressing similar views, Mr Alvin Yeo (Hong Kah GRC) pointed to a
recent Straits Times report on a Nanyang Technological University
survey. It shows seven in 10 people here frown on homosexuality.

'The law stands not just as a boundary line of what conduct will or
will not be prosecuted, but as a moral compass of what we stand for,'
he said.

'It is a benchmark of our values and our beliefs, not just a reference
book to determine when we can sue and when we can be sued.'

To Mr Siew's point that repealing Section 377A is a sign of equality,
Mr Yeo argued that equality 'cannot be looked at in vacuum'.

One's rights must be measured against the values and beliefs held in
society, he said.

Mr Yeo urged gay lobbyists to be patient and give the issue more time,
instead of letting it divide society.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah GRC), who spoke in Malay and English, warned
against allowing the debate on Section 377A to overshadow the 360
offences covered by the Penal Code review.

He urged MPs to spend more time examining other issues related to the
Code's review, so that most Singaporeans may stand to benefit from the
entire package of proposals.

klin@sph.com.sg