Over the years, Section 377A, which criminalises sex between men, has been a subject of contentious debate in Singapore.
On Saturday (30 Jul), Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said the government is considering the next steps for Section 377A while looking at how it can safeguard Singapore’s current marriage position.
Source: The Straits Times on YouTube
This includes protecting the legal position on marriage against challenges in courts.
On Saturday (30 Jul), Mr Shanmugam spoke to reporters at Tzu Chi Humanistic Youth Centre, saying the government is looking at how to make changes to the law while safeguarding Singapore’s marriage position.
Authorities have been in discussions with different religious leaders, grassroots leaders, Singaporeans from all walks of life, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) groups.
They gathered that many agree gay sex should not be criminalised. However, Mr Shanmugam said most voiced concerns about decriminalisation leading to other major changes.
Particularly, most wanted the current position on marriage – between a man and a woman – to be retained.
In the same vein, people did not want policies that reference the definition of marriage to change.
He shared that the government understands this. They are trying to strike a balance. Hence, authorities are now considering what to do with Section 377A and how to safeguard the current legal position of marriage from being challenged in courts.
This is in reference to how Section 377A was challenged in a series of cases.
Mr Shanmugam said these matters should be discussed and decided in Parliament rather than in the courts.
Previously on 23 Jul, Protect Singapore Townhall, which called for the protection of marriage and family in light of the government’s consideration of repealing Section 377A, was organised. Over 1,200 people attended the event.
Subsequently, police reports were lodged. However, authorities said no action would be taken against the organisers, and the gathering did not break laws.
During the same interview, Mr Shanmugam explained the decision, referencing how Pink Dot was held on 18 Jun, with many speeches and calls to action.
Similarly, the Protect Singapore townhall organisers had also exercised their rights.
“My ministry has looked at it. Protect Singapore didn’t break any laws in holding the townhall. We will step in if there’s incitement, attacks, or running down of any groups by either side,” he said.
Our duty is to protect the safety of everyone.
As both sides seek to be heard, more such events can be expected. After all, if one side pushes, there will be a push back, as seen in many countries.
In Singapore, this can tear our social fabric apart and cause much harm, said Mr Shanmugam.
Hence, authorities are calling for moderation — to move carefully and “not push positions which can damage society”.
Mr Shanmugam said,
We have to deal with the issues with an open mind and open heart. Avoid exteme positions and avoid extreme demands.
As Singapore moves forward, he stressed that we must try and be united and work on our differences calmly for the country’s sake.
Despite not being proactively enforced, Section 377A has long remained in the Penal Code to maintain the country’s social cohesion and let the situation evolve naturally.
Nonetheless, as sentiments shift, it’s good to see that authorities have put more thought into the matter.
No matter the outcome, let us have some faith that the government is doing its best to balance views from both sides of the divide.
Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.
Featured image adapted from The Straits Times on YouTube and Jason Wong on Facebook.
Especially when you look down from upstairs, it looks even more like a cemetery.
The victim jokingly threatened to hack the assailant, so the latter decided to get ahead…
He began serving time at age 14 after being convicted of murdering his employer.
The 21-year-old had only recently graduated from university.
Besides the boy, a 33-year-old car driver and a 61-year-old male taxi driver were also…
She was driving her daughter to school when the accident occurred.