377A. Sound like anything familiar? Perhaps if you've read the recent papers on the gay community submitting a parliamentary petition via NMP Siew Kum Hong, you'd realise the debate on whether S377A of the Penal Code (which prohibits homosexual male acts) should be repealed. Interestingly enough, this has started off quite a big issue with online petitions such as Keep 377A and Repeal 377A respectively.

So before sharing what I feel about the issue, here's whats currently written in our little island's law books:

The Singapore Penal Code, Chapter XVI (Offences Affecting the Human Body)states that:
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 377A (Outrages on decency) states that:
Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

Perhaps just thinking about it, the current 2007 review resulted in the repeal of section 377. However, 377A leaves much to be debated about, in the context of the Singaporean society. Singapore is still, a rather conservative society. Taking a look at the HDB rulings and even baby bonus commisions, it is evident that we still firmly believe in the fundamentals of the whole family being the basic unit of society. However, with the increase of reported underage sex offences and despite having such rulings in place, the moral degeneration of Singaporean teens throw the moral values our laws claim to uphold in a questionable position.

Thinking about this section of the law in terms of practicality, personally I don't see how the law of criminalising all other non-penetrative sexual acts between men would be carried out. With this law being applied in the cases of mutual masturbation, genital contact, I don't see how such acts are going to be tracked down and in that sense condemned and charged for (unless we're talking about a replay of police entrapment tactics. Do we really not have more important issues regarding national security to deal with?) The only practical use of such a law would possibly in lewd behaviour without direct physical contact. However, when in common consensus on the act itself, where do we draw the line in such vague terms of the code? Somehow it just seems to me that this law has been put in place to affirm Singapore's stand on a conservative society but not having much purpose and effect in terms of practicality and effectiveness when it comes to the issue of homosexuality.

Once again looking at the issues presented on 377A, the crux of the debate in the words of religious advocates and pro-family activists is the erosion of the wholesome family unit as well as the moral values that lie close to the heart. With the consequential impact of the institution of family, mainstreaming the homosexual lifestyle could even lead to the redefinition of marriages. Holding the stand that statistics from a recent NTU study revealed that almost 70% of Singaporeans expressed negative attitudes towards lesbians and gay men, the problem here lies in the sentiments of the majority - whether the belief in the traditional environment that espouses healthy family values or on sexual minorities deserving respect and similar rights.

Its pretty ironic that we pay special attention in ensuring minorities rights are given, yet ignoring our society's sexual and social minority, but the issue of 377A has definitely brought to light the need to acknowledge the prescence of the homosexual community in Singapore. Regardless whether homosexuality in itself is a choice, ultimately this issue of liberalism in society holds into consideration the impacts of such a change in society in the clash of societal open-mindedness. Along with the need to respect personal and religious beliefs, the advocators of this issue will simply have to leave it to the government to decide whether our society is indeed ready for this change.

(Would like to hear your opinion about this matter so do comment if you've read this)

Labels: Thoughts