Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg

In his Committee of Supply speech on Thursday (Mar. 3), Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam said that social attitudes toward homosexuality have gradually shifted since 2007 but noted that a "large majority" of people want to "preserve the overall tone of our society" such as a traditional view of marriage being between a man and a woman.

People's Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament (MP) Derrick Goh, had asked about the government's position on the Court of Appeal's judgement on the constitutional challenge to Section 377A of the Penal Code, a law criminalising gay sex between men.

S'pore takes "live and let live" approach

In Parliament on Thursday, Shanmugam harkened back to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's 2007 speech in Parliament about Section 377A, in which PM Lee said that Singapore should strive to maintain a balance by "uphold[ing] a stable society with traditional heterosexual family values, but with space for homosexuals to live their lives and to contribute to the society".

"Among them are some of our friends, our relatives, our colleagues, our brothers and sisters, or some of our children, our kith and kin."

"This remains our stand today," Shanmugam said, saying that these are "deeply divisive issues".

He also said that the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) is "looking at the judgement carefully".

He added that Singapore has a "live and let live" approach and that the government does not proactively enforce 377A even though it's technically a law. The AGC takes a similar approach, he said.

"We seek to be an inclusive society, where mutual respect and tolerance for different views and practices are paramount."

Shanmugam stated that under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, any attack on an LGBT+ group or person because of their LGBT+  identity is considered an offence "and will not be tolerated".

"LGBT+ individuals are entitled to live peacefully without being attacked or threatened."

Similarly, he said that attacks on any group based on their religions or religious beliefs are also unacceptable, even if those beliefs "run counter" to "values held by LGBT+ groups".

Social attitudes have shifted gradually

Singapore's emphasis on gradual evolution and traditional families has remained constant, Shanmugam stated.

However, he said, social attitudes toward homosexuality have gradually shifted since the 2007 Parliamentary discussion.

He acknowledged two different viewpoints, both of which he said are "valid and important":

1. Many members of the LGBT+ community feel that their experiences of being rejected or hurt by those around them — including friends, families, schools, and companies — are not recognised or even often denied.
2. A "large majority" wants to "preserve the overall tone of our society — in particular the traditional view of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that children should be raised within such a family structure".

This second group is not necessarily concerned with Section 377A, and many even support the decriminalisation of gay sex between men, Shanmugam claimed. Instead, this group is concerned about the issues of marriage and family.

He stated that policies need to evolve to keep "abreast with such changes in views" and that legislation also needs to evolve to support updated policies.

"The government is considering the best way forward," Shanmugam shared.

"We must respect the different viewpoints, consider them carefully, talk to the different groups, and if and when we decide to move, we will do so in a way that continues to balance between these different viewpoints and avoids causing a sudden destabilising change in social norms and public expectations."

Decisions about Section 377A stay within democratic space

Shanmugam pointed to successive court judgements over the years, which have found these to be "highly contentious social issues and within the province of Parliament".

"The heterosexual stable family remains the stable norm, and the current legal position reflects our society's norms, values and attitudes. That's what the courts have said."

He added that in the latest court judgement on Monday (Feb. 28), the court noted the "unique" compromise that Singapore has struck with Section 377A, which "strikes a balance between preserving the legislative status quo while accommodating the concerns of those directly affected by the legislation".

Shanmugam said that the court recognised that the reason this was done by the government was to "avoid driving a deeper wedge within our society".

He echoed the court's note that the government aims to keep decisions about Section 377A "within the democratic space".

"Socially charged issues, such as Section 377A, call for continued discussion and open-ended resolution within the political domain where we can forge consensus rather than in win-lose outcomes in court.

In this way, we can accommodate divergent interests, avoid polarisation, facilitate incremental change."

Finally, he shared that the court had highlighted the importance of "creating space for peaceful coexistence amongst the various groups especially since the balance between the various interests around Section 377A has grown more delicate".

"These opinions align with the approach that the government has taken in dealing with Section 377A and that it intends to take as it considers the changes in our social landscape since 2007."

Background info

On Feb. 28, the Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss three men's challenges to Section 377A of the Penal Code.

Johnson Ong Ming, Roy Tan Seng Kee, and Bryan Choong Chee Hoong had mounted the challenges in the High Court in November 2019, and all three challenges were dismissed by High Court judge See Kee Oon on Mar. 30, 2020.

The men then appealed against the High Court's decision with the Court of Appeal, the highest judicial court in Singapore.

Through Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who delivered the 152-page written judgement on behalf of a five-judge panel, the Court of Appeal said the appeals are "not about whether Section 377A should be retained or repealed", as this was "a matter beyond our remit".

The Court of Appeal said that the right to express one's sexual identity, even in private, is not an expressed constitutional right. It agreed with See that Section 377A does not violate Article 9(1) of the Constitution of Singapore, which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with the law.

Follow and listen to our podcast here

Top photos via Facebook / Pink Dot SG and CNA.