Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam came out Sept. 8 to comment on 377a again, as he explained which institution is responsible for the amendment or repeal of Section 377a.

Shanmugam told The Straits Times:

"Whether you decide to keep it, whether you decide to repeal it, amend it. It's a matter for the parliament. As I said earlier, that public policy-making, depending on the legislation, public opinion is often relevant."

This is the second time in two days that Shanmugam had to discuss 377A of the Penal Code.

377A is the law that criminalises sex between adult men.

Shanmugam was also asked whether Section 377A can be challenged again in Singapore courts.

Shanmugam said that "technically, it is possible for people to bring a challenge and there are rules, jurisprudence on how such challenges will be dealt with by the Courts”.

[related_story]

He noted that Section 377a was challenged a few years ago in 2014 for being unconstitutional.

But the Supreme Court decided that it was constitutional and the challenge was declared invalid by the court.

However, Shanmugam emphasised that the change in legislation would be a matter for the Executive and the Parliament.

He added:

"The Executive (consisting of the Cabinet) proposes and Parliament decides, and usually, depending on the legislation, public opinion can be relevant."

Petition to keep 377a garnered more than 30,000 signatures

In his remarks a day before, Shanmugam highlighted that Singaporeans were deeply split on the issue.

He noted that the majority “opposed to any change over Section 377A”, with a “growing minority” who wants it to be repealed, adding that the government “was in the middle”.

In fact, an online petition has been started to “keep Penal Code 377A in Singapore”.

The petition has gathered more than 30,000 signatures in the span of a day.

In contrast, an online petition for CareShield Life premiums to be equal for men and women has gathered 12,000 signatures, while the e-petition calling for Singaporean footballer Ben Davis’ NS deferment has garnered 10,000 signatures.

Petition's purpose

In keeping the penal code, the petition aimed to convey to future generations that only marriage is the acceptable norm between a man and a woman.

It argued that the repealing of 377a would begin to normalise homosexual behaviours as a societal norm and lead to a greater push for other LGBT rights here.

The petition also said that the vocal minority should not impose their values and practices on the silent majority who are still largely conservative.

" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">