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

References

• Abdullah, W. J. (2018). Selective history and hegemony-making: The case of Singapore. International Political Science Review, 39(4), 473–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512116677305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdullah, W. J. (2019). Electoral secularism in Singapore: Political responses to homosexuality. Asian Studies Review, 43(2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2019.1593945
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asad, T. (2003). Formations of the secular: Christianity, Islam and modernity. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baey, S. C. (2021). Challenging the constitutionality of Section 377A in Singapore: Towards a more humanist treatment of homosexuality in Singapore law. IAFOR Journal of Cultural Studies, 6(SI), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.22492/ijcs.6.SI.05
   Google Scholar
• Capell, B., & Elgebeily, S. A. (2019). Lessons from gay and lesbian activism in Asia: The importance of context, pivotal incidents and connection to a larger vision. Sexuality & Culture, 23(3), 882–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09597-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, J. (2013). Singapore’s culture war over section 377A: Through the lens of public choice and multilingual research. Law & Social Inquiry, 38(1), 106–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2012.01297.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goh, P. (2007, 26 July). Engage in meaningful dialogue to increase understanding of the issue. The Straits Times.
   Google Scholar
• Goh, Y. H. (2022, November 29). Parliament repeals Section 377A, endorses amendments protecting definition of marriage. The Straits Times.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta, A. (2008). This alien legacy: The origins of ‘sodomy’ laws in British colonialism. Human Rights Watch.
   Google Scholar
• Harian, B. (2007, October 25). Pergas praises move to keep Section 377A. Berita Harian.
   Google Scholar
• Huat, C. B. (2008). Singapore in 2007: High wage ministers and the management of gays and elderly. Asian Survey, 48(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2008.48.1.55
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iqtidar, H. (2011). Secularism beyond the state: The ‘state’ and the ‘market’ in Islamist imagination. Modern Asian Studies, 45(3), 535–564. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000217
   Google Scholar
• Ishak, S., & Lean, J. (2022, August 22). Disappointment, acceptance, relief: 34 religious, social, & LGBTQ+ groups’ responses to 377A repeal. Mothership.SG. https://mothership.sg/2022/08/religious-social-groups-377a-responses/
   Google Scholar
• Lazar, M. M. (2017). Homonationalist discourse as a politics of pragmatic resistance in Singapore’s Pink Dot movement: Towards a southern praxis. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(3), 420–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lean, J. (2022, March 10). Government to uphold traditional view of family in policies, reflecting S’pore’s societal norms: Masagos on 377A. Mothership.SG. https://www.todayonline.com/big-read/big-read-house-still-divided-over-377a-time-seek-common-ground
   Google Scholar
• Lieu, E. M., & Yu, A. (2023). Repealing 337A: Is Singapore finally catching up with LGBT rights? The Round Table, 112(1), 90–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/00358533.2023.2165307
   Google Scholar
• Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General. (2013). SGHC 73. https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2013_SGHC_73
   Google Scholar
• Lum, S. (2014, 29 October). Court of appeal rules that Section 377A that criminalises sex between men is constitutional. The Straits Times.
   Google Scholar
• Mahmood, S. (2006). Secularism, hermeneutics, and empire: The politics of Islamic reformation. Public Culture, 18(2), 323–347. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-2006-006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Home Affairs. (2022). Annex 4 - 2007 parliamentary debates on Section 377A. https://www.mha.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/annex-4-2007-parliamentary-debates-on-section-377a.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mokhtar, F. (2018). The Big Read: With a house still divided over 377A, time to seek common ground. Todayonline. https://www.todayonline.com/big-read/big-read-house-still-divided-over-377a-time-seek-common-ground
   Google Scholar
• Radics, G. B. (2021). Challenging antisodomy laws in Singapore and the former British colonies of ASEAN. Journal of Human Rights, 20(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2020.1841608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajah, M. (2017). The curious interplay between religion, equality and private male homosex in Singapore: Time to cut the Gordian Knot? The International Journal of Human Rights, 21(9), 1417–1452. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2017.1336436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, D. E. (2009). 377 and the unnatural afterlife of British colonialism in Asia. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 4, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2194607800000417
   Google Scholar
• Shen, R. (2014). Wear white to protest Singapore pink gay rally, religious groups say. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0EY0SB20140623
   Google Scholar
• Solomon, R. (2007, July 19). Rev Dr Yap doesn’t speak for methodist Church. The Straits Times.
   Google Scholar
• Tan, K. P. (2008). Meritocracy and elitism in a global city: Ideological shifts in Singapore. International Political Science Review, 29(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512107083445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, K. P. (2012). The ideology of pragmatism: Neo-liberal globalisation and political authoritarianism in Singapore. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 42(1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2012.634644
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, C. (2015). Pink dot: Cultural and sexual citizenship in gay Singapore. Anthropological Quarterly, 88(4), 969–996. https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.2015.0058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, C. J. (2022, November 29). Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill. Parliament of Singapore. Hansard, 95(77). 14th Parliament, 1st session. https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-607
   Google Scholar
• Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General. (2011). SGHC 56. https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2011_SGHC_56
   Google Scholar
• Tan, K., & Lee, G. (2007). Imagining the gay community in Singapore. Critical Asian Studies, 39(2), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/14672710701339311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavits, M. (2007). Principle vs. pragmatism: Policy shifts and political competition. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00243.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Development Programme. (2014). Being LGBT in Asia: Thailand country report.
   Google Scholar
• Wieringa, S. E. (2019). Criminalisation of homosexuality in Indonesia: The role of the constitution and civil society. Australian Journal of Asian Law, 20(1), 227–245. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3488561
   Google Scholar
• Yang, D. W., & Tulsi, Y. (2023). When the Gay Ivy comes to (U) Town: The globalisation of higher education and the possibilities of queer student activism in Singapore. In S. Tang & H. Y. Wijaya (Eds.), Queer Southeast Asia (pp. 63–82). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Yu, A. (2022). The Internet’s role in promoting civic engagement in China and Singapore: A Confucian view. Human Affairs, 32(2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2022-0015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zainal, H., & Wong, G. (2017). Voices behind the veil: Unravelling the hijab debate in Singapore through the lived experiences of hijab-wearing Malay-Muslim women. South East Asia Research, 25(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967828X17699919
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar