Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said on Thursday (Mar 3) that the government is carefully considering the best way forward on Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men but would not be proactively enforced.
Mr Shanmugam was responding to Mr Derrick Goh (PAP – Nee Soon GRC), who asked about the government’s position on Section 377A following a recent Court of Appeal ruling.
The judgement released on Feb 28 indicated that the apex court ruled the law would stay on the books but can’t be used to prosecute men for engaging in gay sex.
During the debate on the Ministry of Home Affairs budget, Mr Shanmugam noted that public policies need to evolve to keep abreast of changes in views in society, with legislation evolving to support updated policies.
He cited a speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in Parliament in 2007 highlighting the government’s goal of becoming a “stable society with traditional heterosexual family values but with space for homosexuals to live their lives and contribute to society.”
PM Lee added that “Among them are some of our friends, our relatives, our colleagues, our brothers and sisters, or some of our children… our kith and kin.”
Mr Shanmugam said that the government retains the same stance on the matter.
“These are deeply divisive issues; that is why we take a live-and-let-live approach,” he added.
Mr Shanmugam said that the Attorney-General’s Chambers (ACG) is looking at the latest judgement carefully as it was on a challenge against a High Court decision in 2020.
He was referring to the dismissal of challenges brought by three men who argued that Section 377A violates their constitutional rights and should be struck down.
A five-judge panel led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon ruled that the law was “unenforceable in its entirety” until the Attorney-General of the day allowed a change in the prosecutorial policy.
However, Mr Shanmugam said that since 2007, social attitudes towards homosexuality have gradually shifted.
“One of the things that upset the LGBT+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community is that many feel that their experience of being hurt or rejected by their families, friends, schools and companies is not recognised; indeed often denied,” he said.
At the same time, a large majority want to preserve the overall tone of our society, in particular the traditional view of marriage as deemed between a man and a woman.
“Their concern is not Section 377A per se, but the broader issues of marriage and family. Many amongst this group also support decriminalising homosexual sex between men,” he added.
Mr Shanmugam admitted that both viewpoints are valid and important.
“The government is considering the best way forward. We must respect the different viewpoints, consider them carefully, talk to the different groups… and even 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,” he said.
He used the latest judgment as an example, where the Court noted that the compromise which Singapore has struck, in respect of Section 377A, was unique and described the approach as one that preserves the legislative status quo while accommodating those concerns which are directly affected by the legislation.
“The Court recognised that the Government did this in order to avoid driving a deeper wedge within our society,” he said.
“It also noted that Singapore’s approach seeks to keep what to do with Section 377A within the democratic space.” /TISG