Decriminalising homosexuality in Singapore: political responses from the perspective of secularism and electoral pragmatism

ABSTRACT

Singapore’s Section 377A criminalises sex between men, making it punishable by up to two years in prison. Over the years, there have been calls to repeal the law and decriminalise homosexuality, citing human rights, access to health care and social support. However, opponents argue that it goes against traditional and religious values and would lead to a breakdown of social order. The article explores the issue of, and the political responses to, decriminalising homosexuality from the perspective of secularism and electoral pragmatism and the implications of decriminalisation for the country’s future.

KEYWORDS:

• Section 377A
• decriminalisation
• homosexuality
• Singapore
• LGBTQ+

Introduction

Decriminalising homosexuality in Singapore has been debated and discussed for many years. Section 377A of the Penal Code criminalises sex between men, making it illegal and punishable by up to two years in prison. The law has existed since 1938 until the law was abolished in 2022 (Lieu & Yu, 2023). Decriminalising homosexuality has been a point of contention between conservative and progressive voices in society (Rajah, 2017).

Over the years, there have been growing calls to repeal 377A and decriminalise homosexuality in Singapore (Baey, 2021). Advocates argue that it is a fundamental human right to love and engage in consensual sexual activity with whomever one chooses, regardless of sex (Chen, 2013; Lazar, 2017). They argue that criminalising homosexuality only perpetuates stigma, discrimination, and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, and other (LGBTQ+) individuals, making it harder for them to access health care, education, employment, and social support. In addition, the criminalisation of sex between men can have a chilling effect on the rights of other marginalised populations, as it sends a message that the state has the power to regulate and control individuals’ consensual sexual behaviour. This can lead to the targeting of other individuals who do not conform to traditional gender norms or who engage in non-heteronormative relationships, further perpetuating systemic discrimination and oppression. On the other hand, opponents of decriminalisation argue that it goes against traditional and religious values and would lead to the breakdown of the family and social order (Chan, 2013; Lazar, 2017). They believe homosexuality is a deviant behaviour that should not be encouraged or normalised in society. They also argue that decriminalisation would lead to a slippery slope towards legalising same-sex marriage, adoption, and other forms of LGBTQ+ rights, which they deem as a threat to social stability and moral values.

In recent years, the issue of decriminalising homosexuality has gained momentum in Singapore, with more people speaking up in support of LGBTQ+ rights. In 2018, India’s Supreme Court struck down a similar law that criminalised homosexual behaviour, leading to renewed calls for Singapore to do the same (Radics, 2021; Wieringa, 2019). However, the Singapore government, at that time, remained firm in its stance, arguing that the law was necessary to reflect society’s conservative values and maintain social order (Chen, 2013). In this article, we will explore the political responses of the leaders of the People’s Action Party (PAP) to the issue of decriminalising homosexuality in Singapore from the perspective of secularism and electoral pragmatism. We will examine how the government’s position on this issue is shaped by its electoral considerations and how it responds to the country’s changing social and cultural landscape.

The 2007 debates on the repeal of Section 377A in Singapore

The former and original Section 377 was commonly known as the unnatural sex law. The law initially codified in the British Empire as Section 377 in the Indian Penal Code, prohibited sexual penetration between two individuals of any gender if it did not result in natural sex – penile-vaginal intercourse – that led to procreation (Lieu & Yu, 2023).

Singapore was a British colony in the Far East. Unlike Hong Kong where there has also been a common law jurisdiction since the British rule in 1841, Singapore adopted the Penal Code, which is a relatively common law in civil law jurisdictions. The Straits Settlements Penal Code 1871 was practically a re-enactment of the Indian Penal Code, enacted in 1860. In 1938, Section 377A was added to the sub-title ‘Unnatural offences’ in the Straits Settlements (Gupta, 2008). Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code criminalised sexual intercourse between men, categorising it as an offence of ‘gross indecency’ that could result in a maximum sentence of two years in prison (Gupta, 2008). This law remained in effect after Singapore’s independence in 1965.

The repeal of Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code has been a topic of heated debate in the country for many years. In 2007, this debate on repealing 377A came to the fore when the government of Singapore considered whether to repeal Section 377. The debate over Section 377A was characterised by deeply entrenched views, with critical actors taking strong positions for and against its repeal. Many members of the PAP, the ruling party in Singapore, opposed the repeal of Section 377A, such as Cynthia Phua, Muhammed Faishal Ibrahim, and Seah Kian Peng (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022). Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, also the party leader of the PAP, expressed his views that society was not ready to repeal Section 377A and hence withdrew the repeal motion from the Parliament (Abdullah, 2019; Huat, 2008). However, there were other politicians within the PAP who supported repeal, such as Baey Yam Keng and Charles Chong (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022).

Several factors influenced the positions of politicians on the repeal of Section 377A. One of the most significant factors was public opinion, which was divided on the issue. According to a survey conducted in 2005 by the Nanyang Technological University, 69% of Singaporeans had a negative perception of homosexuality, whereas only 23% viewed it positively (Mokhtar, 2018). The figures remained relatively similar in 2010, with 64.5% of respondents expressing negativity and 25% showing positivity towards homosexuality (Mokhtar, 2018). An Institute of Policy Studies poll in 2013 also reported that over 78% of Singaporeans opposed same-sex relations (Shen, 2014).

Another factor that influenced the debate was the role of religion. Religious organisations shaped public opinion, particularly among older and more conservative Singaporeans, in the debate on repealing 377A in 2007, with many opposing the repeal of Section 377A on moral grounds. The Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association and the National Council of Churches of Singapore both cited their respective religious teachings as reasons for their support of the law (Harian, 2007; Tan & Lee, 2007). The Methodist Church of Singapore also expressed its disapproval of homosexuality (Solomon, 2007). However, some independent churches, like the Free Community Church, supported the repeal of Section 377A (P. Goh, 2007). In addition, the PAP’s position on the repeal of Section 377A was also influenced by the party’s conservative values and the need to maintain social cohesion. For instance, members of parliament (MPs) Cynthia Phua, Ong Kian Min, and Seah Kian Peng justified their endorsement of the legislation by referring to their religious convictions (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022). However, it is worth noting that Charles Chong, who supported the repeal, is a Roman Catholic.

It is worth noting that while the role of religion was significant in shaping public opinion and influencing some Members of Parliament, the views and stances of leaders of Buddhism and Taoism were not publicly stated during the debate. In traditional East Asian culture, there is a history of accepting male same-sex relationships as a non-mainstream sexual behaviour, rather than something that is considered sinful or against religious teachings. For example, Thailand, which has a large Buddhist population and a significant number of transgender individuals, is often seen as a country that is tolerant of gender and sexual diversity (United Nations Development Programme, 2014). In Chinese traditional culture, there are even stories and specific terminology that depict male same-sex relationships, such as those found in the Han Feizi, Mozi, and Book of Han. Therefore, the opposition to the repeal of Section 377A in Singapore does not necessarily stem from traditional cultural values, but rather from the values of Abrahamic faith-based organisations, as seen in the strong opposition from Muslim and Christian communities.

After a lengthy discussion, the Penal Code was amended to decriminalise ‘unnatural’ sexual conduct between two consenting adults in private, regardless of their gender (Sanders, 2009). However, Section 377A, which criminalises sexual conduct between men in public or private, was left intact (Sanders, 2009). The government argued that the law was necessary to reflect Singapore society’s prevailing social norms and values (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022). The government also asserted that it would not actively enforce the law except in cases of public sex or other forms of misconduct (Abdullah, 2019). The decision disappointed civil society groups, who argued that it was a missed opportunity for Singapore to become more inclusive and tolerant (Abdullah, 2019; Chen, 2013). However, the debate over Section 377A continued, with civil society groups like Pink Dot, Ready4Repeal, and Heckin’ Unicorn pushing for its repeal in subsequent years (Abdullah, 2019). Since then, there have been several attempts to challenge Section 377A through the courts, such as Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General (2011), Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General (2013), and Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General (2013), a constitutional challenge brought by Lim Meng Suan and Kenneth Chee Mun-leon, the plaintiffs argued that 377A violated their right to equal protection under the law (Lum, 2014). However, the Court of Appeal upheld the law, stating that it was a matter for the legislature to decide (Lum, 2014). Since this article focuses on the PAP’s political response to 377A, it does not discuss these legal controversies in detail here.

The 2022 debates on the repeal of Section 377A

In his National Day speech on 21 August 2022, the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, made a significant announcement stating that the government would revoke Section 377A of the Penal Code (Lieu & Yu, 2023). This particular law criminalises sexual conduct between men. The decision came as a surprise not just to Singaporeans but also to the rest of the world (Lieu & Yu, 2023). The news also caused a buzz throughout the country, particularly among gay men subjected to this law for many years.

The PAP’s attitude towards the repeal of Section 377A in 2022 differed significantly from 2007. Apart from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s public support for the repeal, other high-profile members of the PAP also backed the move, such as Minister for Law and Home Affairs Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam and Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and the Environment Baey Yam Keng (Lieu & Yu, 2023; Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022). MPs who opposed the repeal in 2007 also supported the repeal this time, such as Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, Christopher de Souza, and Seah Kian Peng. However, it is worth noting that most of the PAP members supporting the repeal of Section 377A were likely subject to pressure from the PAP, as the party did not lift the party whip. Meanwhile, the opposition party Workers’ Party did lift it, resulting in two of its MPs – Gerald Giam and Dennis Tan – voting against the repeal (Y. H. Goh, 2022). Indeed, before Lee Hsien Loong’s unexpected announcement to repeal 377A, there were still conservative factions within the PAP who were opposed to the repeal. One such example is Seah Kian Peng, who in 2007 stood against the repeal of 377A. On 10 March 2022, Seah raised questions in Parliament about the Ministry of Social and Family Development’s stance on Section 377A, a week after Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam spoke about the evolving societal views towards family, marriage, and 377A on 3 March 2022 (Lean, 2022). We could expect that if the PAP had not lifted the party whip, some Members of Parliament would have opposed the repeal of Section 377A (Y. H. Goh, 2022; C. J. Tan, 2022).

The 2022 debates on the repeal of Section 377A also differed significantly from the 2007 debates, which saw a much more substantial pushback from conservative and religious groups. In 2007, a petition calling for the retention of the law received over 15,000 signatures; there were public protests and rallies both for and against the repeal (Yang & Tulsi, 2023). In contrast, the 2022 debates were characterised by a more nuanced and inclusive discussion, with greater recognition of the rights and dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals (Ishak & Lean, 2022). Although the Alliance of Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches of Singapore opposed the repeal and urged that the party whip be lifted during the parliamentary vote, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore, Sikh Advisory Board, and National Council of Churches of Singapore agreed to the acceptance of LGBTQ+ people (Ishak & Lean, 2022). This shift in stance indicates that the debates surrounding LGBTQ+ issues were conducted in a more respectful and measured way, reflecting the changing attitudes of Singaporeans towards these matters.

The Singapore government, indeed, was concerned that repealing Section 377A would cause a significant backlash from conservative Muslim countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region such as Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei, as well as conservative organisations, religious, and ethnic groups within Singapore (Lieu & Yu, 2023). Therefore, as a compromise, the Singapore Parliament passed an amendment to the Constitution to modify the current definition of marriage, officially recognising that marriage is ‘between one man and one woman’ only. This not only responded to Singapore’s conservative forces and minimised the impact on society but also assured neighbouring Muslim countries that their citizens could not use the law to practice same-sex marriage in Singapore (Lieu & Yu, 2023).

Overall, the response of religious groups in 2022 towards the 377A issue appears less extreme than in 2007. This could explain why the senior leaders of the PAP decided not to lift the party whip this time. However, as Singapore is considered a secular state, it is worth considering how we should evaluate the political stance and reaction of the PAP’s senior leaders on this matter.

Understanding secularism, electoral pragmatism and political responses to the repeal of 377A

Secularism refers to the idea that the government should remain neutral and impartial on matters of religion and should not use religious beliefs to influence public policy (Asad, 2003; Iqtidar, 2011). In a secular state, the government’s role is to serve the public interest and protect the rights of all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs or practices (Abdullah, 2019). This means that the government should not favour one religious group over another and should not use religious doctrines to justify its policies. Understanding secularism is crucial in the context of the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Singapore because the issue is closely tied to religious beliefs and moral values (Abdullah, 2019). The majority of Singapore’s population is Buddhist, Taoist, or Christian, and many religious leaders have spoken out against decriminalisation (at least before 2022), arguing that it goes against the teachings of their respective faiths (Chen, 2013).

Singapore is considered a competitive authoritarian state, with elements of democracy alongside authoritarianism (Yu, 2022). The PAP has dominated Singapore’s politics since its independence in 1965, with a hegemonic hold on the country (Abdullah, 2018). The PAP has instilled ideologies such as meritocracy, multiracialism, and survival in the population’s psyche, shaping the country’s image (Abdullah, 2018). The PAP also promotes a secular society, and the state heavily intervenes in managing religion in order to prevent one specific religion from dominating the state. The government has enacted laws, such as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Sedition Act, to keep faith in check (Abdullah, 2019). The paternalistic approach of the PAP government is the legacy of Lee Kuan Yew, the founding Prime Minister of Singapore, whose legacy still shapes much of Singapore society (Abdullah, 2018; Yu, 2022).

Singapore often claims itself as a secular state to balance the power of different ethnic and religious groups. However, is Singapore a secular state in actuality? Despite priding itself on being a pragmatic party, the PAP has been challenged for not being entirely ideology-free (Abdullah, 2019). The party is uncompromising when it comes to issues related to core ideologies, such as race and religion. While the government has dismissed demands by the Muslim community to allow the hijab for Muslim women in frontline government jobs, it is also seen to be taking the objections of religious groups to LGBTQ+ rights seriously (Abdullah, 2019).

The PAP’s position on repealing Section 377A has evolved over time to please different ethnic and religious groups. In the 2007 debates, most of the PAP MPs supported the retention of Section 377A, citing the importance of maintaining traditional family values and protecting societal norms. However, the PAP reversed its position in 2022, favouring the repeal of Section 377A. As can be seen from the erratic position of the PAP, Singapore has no fixed position on secularism (Abdullah, 2019). On the contrary, the PAP’s political responses to the issue of the repeal of Section 377A reflect the importance of electoral pragmatism in Singapore’s political landscape (Tan, 2012). Electoral pragmatism refers to the idea that political parties make political and electoral decisions based on what is likely to win them the most votes rather than what is necessarily right or just (Tan, 2012). This concept is highly relevant to the debate on the repeal of Section 377A, as it has been a politically charged issue for many years. This change in position can be attributed to some factors in international trade and politics.

One of the most significant factors influencing the PAP’s change of position was the changing attitudes towards homosexuality in Singapore and globally. In recent years, there has been a growing acceptance of LGBTQ+ rights around the world, which has impacted Singapore (Lieu & Yu, 2023). The increasing acceptance of LGBTQ+ rights has been driven by various factors, including changing social attitudes, advocacy by civil society groups, and the emergence of a global LGBTQ+ rights movement. While conservative values have traditionally held sway in Singapore, younger generations have increasingly accepted homosexuality (C. Tan, 2015). This shift in attitudes is reflected in the government’s decision to repeal the law and the growing acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals in society (Lieu & Yu, 2023). The repeal of Section 377A is part of a global trend towards greater acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals and their rights. Many countries have been moving towards decriminalising homosexuality and legalising same-sex marriage. Apart from the Supreme Court of India’s ruling on Section 377 as unconstitutional in 2018, Taiwan became the first country in Asia to legalise same-sex marriage in 2019 (Capell & Elgebeily, 2019). Therefore, Singapore’s decision to repeal Section 377A was part of this broader trend (Capell & Elgebeily, 2019).

Another factor that influenced the PAP’s decision to repeal Section 377A was the economic and social implications of retaining the law (Lieu & Yu, 2023). Singapore is a highly competitive and dynamic city-state, and many businesses and individuals are attracted to Singapore because of its open and tolerant culture. Nevertheless, the continued criminalisation of homosexuality put Singapore at odds with many other countries and hindered the nation’s ability to attract foreign investment and talent (Lieu & Yu, 2023). Furthermore, the criminalisation of homosexuality had negative social implications. LGBTQ+ individuals were subject to discrimination, harassment, and violence, and the continued enforcement of Section 377A only served to perpetuate these injustices. Repealing the law was seen as a step towards greater equality and social justice for all Singaporeans.

On the issue of secularism, Abdullah (2019) suggested that there, indeed, has never been secularism in Singapore. On the contrary, the concept of secularism is often exploited and manipulated by the PAP based on electoral interests; Singapore’s only ruling party also often ropes in different conservative religious organisations to consolidate their votes. Therefore, Abdullah (2019) proposed a concept of ‘electoral secularism’. According to Abdullah (2019), electoral secularism refers to how politicians and political parties can use different interpretations of secularism to appeal to voters and win elections.

While secularism is often understood as the separation of state and religion and the privatisation of faith, many different understandings of the concept can result in radically different political outcomes (Mahmood, 2006). For example, Kemal Ataturk’s version of secularism in Turkey is very different from France’s laïcité or India’s secularism (Abdullah, 2019). Politicians and political parties are ultimately self-interested and wish to be in office. They can use the language of secularism in different ways to justify certain policies or agendas, depending on the situation and their electoral goals. The ruling party in Singapore, for example, uses secularism differently when it comes to the hijab issue and LGBTQ+ rights (Abdullah, 2019). In the hijab issue, secularism is argued to be a principled stance whereby religious demands must not override the country’s pressing needs (Zainal & Wong, 2017). When it comes to LGBTQ+ rights, however, the readiness of the conservative-religious segments of society is considered in the policymaking process (Abdullah, 2019).

Looking closer at the hijab issue, the People’s Action Party has only been concerned with the Islamic organisations’ request for Islamic civil servants to wear hijab as it relates to public affairs (Abdullah, 2019). Allowing such attire could lead to the perception that Islam dominates public affairs and affects Singapore’s founding policy of maintaining the balance between different racial and religious groups, one of the core ideological issues on which the PAP remains uncompromising (Yu, 2022). This is also a sex specific practice regulating women’s dress code. However, the PAP has no stance on the hijab itself, as Islamic MPs of the PAP can wear the hijab. Similarly, the PAP has no fixed position on homosexuality and recognises that it is a debated issue among religions, with most religions opposing it. Instead, the party seeks collaborations with these religious forces on the issue of homosexuality to gain their support during elections. Even though the PAP government abolished 377A in 2022, it also passed legislation restricting the definition of marriage to only one man and one woman to appease conservative religious forces in Singapore (Lieu & Yu, 2023).

The concept of electoral secularism acknowledges that politicians and political parties can adopt a more malleable approach to secularism than is often acknowledged (Abdullah, 2019). This is indeed a practice of electoral pragmatism (Tavits, 2007). The flexibility of the state’s position on secularism depends on whether the issue in question is related to its core ideologies or whether electoral considerations are more important (Tavits, 2007). It is critical to recognise that different societies have specific understandings of secularism often derived from their historical experiences (Mahmood, 2006). Nonetheless, the malleability of secularism should always be interrogated, as it is subject to political and electoral manoeuvring just as much as religion is (Abdullah, 2019).

The PAP has long been a pragmatic political party, and its decision to support the repeal of Section 377A was driven by political considerations (Abdullah, 2019; Tan, 2012). The party has recognised that support for LGBTQ+ rights is growing among the electorate, particularly younger Singaporeans. By supporting the repeal of Section 377A, the PAP has been able to position itself as a more progressive and inclusive political party, which may help it win over younger voters (Lieu & Yu, 2023). This also demonstrates the PAP’s long-standing practice of electoral pragmatism.

The repeal of Section 377A has significant implications for the future of LGBTQ+ rights in Singapore. While the repeal is a positive step towards greater recognition of LGBTQ+ rights, many obstacles remain to complete equality for the LGBTQ+ community (Lieu & Yu, 2023). The government has yet to recognise same-sex marriage or provide legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in the workplace or housing. Additionally, many individuals and organisations continue to hold conservative and discriminatory attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community (Lieu & Yu, 2023).

However, the Singapore government has a moral duty to make decisions based on the best interests of all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs (Tan, 2008). This means that the government must strike a delicate balance between respecting the religious beliefs of its citizens and protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022). Moreover, political responses to the repeal of 377A are crucial in shaping the future of Singapore’s political landscape. Both conservative and progressive voters closely watch the government’s position on this issue, and it can potentially sway their political loyalties. This means that political parties must carefully consider their stance on decriminalisation and the potential implications of their position on their electoral prospects.

Conclusion

The decriminalisation of homosexuality in Singapore has been a contentious issue debated for many years. The PAP’s position on the issue has evolved over time, reflecting changing attitudes towards homosexuality in Singapore, in Asia and in the Commonwealth. The government’s decision to repeal Section 377A is seen as part of a broader trend towards greater acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals and their rights. This research article has explored the political responses to the repeal of Section 377A, focusing on secularism and political pragmatism.

Understanding secularism is crucial in the context of the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Singapore because the issue is closely tied to religious beliefs and moral values. Singapore is considered a competitive authoritarian state, with elements of democracy alongside authoritarianism. The PAP has dominated Singapore’s politics since its independence in 1965, and it promotes a secular society. However, the party is uncompromising regarding issues related to core ideologies, such as race and religion. While the government has enacted laws to keep faith in check, it is also seen to be taking the objections of religious groups to LGBTQ+ rights seriously.

Electoral pragmatism is another highly relevant concept to the debate on repealing Section 377A, as it has been a politically charged issue for many years. Political parties make decisions based on what is likely to win them the most votes rather than what is necessarily right or just. The PAP’s political responses to the issue of the repeal of Section 377A reflect the importance of electoral pragmatism in Singapore’s political landscape.

This article highlights the importance of understanding secularism and electoral pragmatism in the context of the repeal of Section 377A in Singapore, which are likely to continue to play a significant role in shaping Singapore’s politics and policies in the future. The repeal of Section 377A is a significant milestone in Singapore’s history, marking a step towards greater acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals and their rights. It also reflects the evolving attitudes towards homosexuality in Singapore and globally. However, there is still work to achieve full equality and inclusion for LGBTQ+ individuals in Singapore. The government needs to continue to work towards creating a more accepting and tolerant society, free from discrimination and prejudice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).