On The Continued Presence of 377A
I wrote this to K Shanmugam, the PMO, and REACH. I invite everyone to do the same, so that we may demonstrate a groundswell to the same extent that the churches have. Our activism, advocacy, and anger cannot simply end where they stand. If the government will not stand on our side, we must do so ourselves, and this is but one way to do it. If you wish to be further involved than this, please contact me personally.
Hello Minister Shanmugam, MPs, and Reach,
I write to you today concerning the presence of 377A in Singapore. Minister Shanmugam recently made comments on the persistence of certain statutes as a function of public sentiment and the emotional/moral readiness of society as a whole to make the change. He also made the statement that one must, and I quote “live and let live”, along with the statement that just as minority communities have rights, so does the majority.
I refuse to accept these arguments as reasons for the preservation of 377A in the statutes of Singapore, as well as, in a further step, Section 12 of the Women’s Charter, titled “Avoidance of Same-Sex Marriage”. If Minister Shanmugam recalls, last year at a Reach dialogue, I asked for the difference between the Reserved Presidency, and the repeal of 377A. I received a meandering answer that boiled down to the premise that these issues were fundamentally different. Again, I refuse to accept that answer as a reason. There is much precedent for forgoing “majority” opinion for the benefit of minority communities. The Government rightly recognised the lack of minority candidates who 1) might have qualified and 2) might have been elected simply as a result of demographic issues in Singapore. The Government then rightly devised a policy to counterbalance such an issue arising. One might criticise the method, timing, outcome, and/or conflict(s) of interest, all for varying degrees of validity, but I can express support for the recognition of a sociopolitical issue, and the attempt to produce a correction. How, might I ask, does the upholding of 377A differ in this sense? A sociopolitical issue affecting disproportionately/entirely a minority group that disprivileges them in the sociopolitical (and not in legal consequences) realm, yet remaining uncorrected by the government in any meaningful way since the decision not to enforce the statute. The Government has rightly stated the presence of 377A is a symbolic one. I put to you that the symbol received by a large number of people is not that the Government is, as Minister Shanmugam says, “in the middle”, but is rather siding with those who would wish the queer community harm. As I wish not to insult the intelligence of those who constitute the Government, I will assume that it is understood that 1) the equal application of unequal laws (such as the avoidance of same-sex marriage and restricting bathroom use) procures an unequal outcome; gay people cannot get married, and trans people find it exceedingly difficult to use bathrooms, and 2) that neutrality on inequality is the tacit acceptance and endorsement of said inequality. I thus will make the accusation that the Government has refused to treat queer people as equal to straight people.
This assumes, however, that it remains from 2007 that the majority of Singaporeans would like 377A to remain. Many speak of the “majority”, the “silent majority”, the “conservative majority”. I no longer believe in this maxim. I think most Singaporeans don’t care too much one way or another — there is a vocal minority who actively speaks out against the repeal of 377A, and as the Minister has rightly put, a growing minority who demands the repeal of 377A.
I want 377A to be repealed. I want this to be the first step in giving people back the provisions they have been systemically denied for so long. I want Section 12 to be repealed. I want this to be the next step in giving people the ability to create the happy, healthy marriages of their own, that they may adopt children that have been left behind. I want transgender individuals to be able to use the bathrooms they want so long as they hold only the intent to use the bathroom like everyone else, and do not commit a crime. I want transgender individuals to be able to change their sex markers on their NRICs without having to undergo invasive, risky, and expensive surgeries that are not even offered in Singapore. I want information regarding diversity in sexuality and gender to be made a mainstay in sexuality education, at the very least as a way to tell children not to ostracise, bully, or discriminate against those who are different from them. Some might say that this is shoving things down people’s throats, but I put to you that the very narrow way in which sexuality education exists in schools today forces a very narrow perspective of relationships down the throats of even cis and straight Singaporeans. The Government has understandably no micro-control of the mindsets of individual people, as well as groups of people, but it does have control over policy. All of these are legal and policy concerns that the Government has the ability to affect. It is disappointing that the Government has taken such a laissez-faire approach to these issues. While we are at it, I would also like to see the criminalising of marital rape under any circumstances; the expansion of paternal and parental leave; the redefinition of rape to include the rape of men by other men, the rape of men by women, and the rape of women by women; etc. These are things I can think of just off the top of my head, but there remain many other unjust laws that I believe require long hard looks.
It is time for the Government to demonstrate that they care about all citizens, not just those who are loud about their insistence that things remain the same because they fail to accommodate the needs of others in society. In our pluralistic society, it is important that we not confine the definition of marriage to only between a man and a woman, just as it is important not to let certain ideological sects determine laws. The importance of secular governance, as the Government no doubt fully recognises and understands, is to provide 1) equal rights and protections no matter their political, personal, or moral alliegiances, and 2) the latitude for individuals of different identities, creeds, and affiliations to have equal access.
I want 377A to be repealed, and for the Government to take up the more active role of creating space for those who need it, as opposed to forcing them to eke out one for themselves.
Best regards.
We remain on the plateau of the past ten years. Things have changed, but we must change them further.
