carbuncle
18-05-12, 11:10
Should Singapore repeal
Section 377A?
Yahoo! Newsroom - Thu, 17th
May 2012 03:12 PM
In line with International Day
Against Homophobia and
Transphobia (IDAHO) – which
is celebrated every 17 May, a
group of activists are again
sounding a call for the
Singapore government to
repeal Section 377A of the
Penal Code.
Section 377A states that any
two consenting men who
commit " gross indecency"
shall be punished with
imprisonment for up to two
years.
Maruah, a local human rights
non-governmental
organisation (NGO), called on
the government to
immediately repeal the
section as it is the “critical
first step” towards eliminating
discrimination against
homosexuals.
A heated debate on the issue
began in 2007, when then
Member of Parliament Siew
Kum Hong filed a petition to
repeal Section 377A, which he
cited as discriminatory and a
violation of constitutional
safeguards on equal rights.
However, Senior Minister of
State for Law and Home
Affairs Ho Peng Kee shot
down the petition, highlighting
that Singapore is a
conservative society and
“majority of [Singaporeans
may] find homosexual
behaviour offensive and
unacceptable”.
“While homosexuals have a
place in society… repealing
Section 377A will be
contentious and may send a
wrong signal that the
government is encouraging
and endorsing the homosexual
lifestyle as part of our
mainstream way of life,” an
AFP report quoted Ho as
saying.
Section 377A a ‘moral
dilemma’?
Five years have passed since
the petition has been filed and
yet Section 377A remains a
point of controversy and
contention.
Judging by responses from
people Yahoo! Singapore
spoke to as well as comments
on our Facebook page, it
seems that Singaporeans
remain divided on this issue,
with one Facebook user
Matthew D Gre calling it a
“moral dilemma”.
Some appear to be unwilling
to support the call for change,
such as 23-year-old Natasha
Tan who said that although
she does not discriminate
against homosexuals, she
feels that repealing the
section may encourage
increased lewd activities such
as legalised gay prostitution.
On the other hand, 31-year-old
Helda Ng insists that Section
377A should be repealed. “We
can’t call ourselves a diverse
nation if we are going to
disapprove of diversity…
[moreover], people can’t feel
like they belong here if
they’re going to be
criminalized for being who
they are,” she said.
Veron Otto, who commented
on our Facebook page agreed
with Ng as he asked: “Why
should gays be considered
criminals in the eyes of the
law?... No government or
individual should dictate who a
person can or cannot love”.
Meanwhile, several other
organisations besides Maruah
have backed the call for the
government to repeal Section
377A, with Pink Dot being the
most public and stand-out
movement advocating for a
more inclusive society where
“ sexual orientation represents
a feature, not a barrier”.
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/ads/repeal377a_on_toc.jpg
Section 377A?
Yahoo! Newsroom - Thu, 17th
May 2012 03:12 PM
In line with International Day
Against Homophobia and
Transphobia (IDAHO) – which
is celebrated every 17 May, a
group of activists are again
sounding a call for the
Singapore government to
repeal Section 377A of the
Penal Code.
Section 377A states that any
two consenting men who
commit " gross indecency"
shall be punished with
imprisonment for up to two
years.
Maruah, a local human rights
non-governmental
organisation (NGO), called on
the government to
immediately repeal the
section as it is the “critical
first step” towards eliminating
discrimination against
homosexuals.
A heated debate on the issue
began in 2007, when then
Member of Parliament Siew
Kum Hong filed a petition to
repeal Section 377A, which he
cited as discriminatory and a
violation of constitutional
safeguards on equal rights.
However, Senior Minister of
State for Law and Home
Affairs Ho Peng Kee shot
down the petition, highlighting
that Singapore is a
conservative society and
“majority of [Singaporeans
may] find homosexual
behaviour offensive and
unacceptable”.
“While homosexuals have a
place in society… repealing
Section 377A will be
contentious and may send a
wrong signal that the
government is encouraging
and endorsing the homosexual
lifestyle as part of our
mainstream way of life,” an
AFP report quoted Ho as
saying.
Section 377A a ‘moral
dilemma’?
Five years have passed since
the petition has been filed and
yet Section 377A remains a
point of controversy and
contention.
Judging by responses from
people Yahoo! Singapore
spoke to as well as comments
on our Facebook page, it
seems that Singaporeans
remain divided on this issue,
with one Facebook user
Matthew D Gre calling it a
“moral dilemma”.
Some appear to be unwilling
to support the call for change,
such as 23-year-old Natasha
Tan who said that although
she does not discriminate
against homosexuals, she
feels that repealing the
section may encourage
increased lewd activities such
as legalised gay prostitution.
On the other hand, 31-year-old
Helda Ng insists that Section
377A should be repealed. “We
can’t call ourselves a diverse
nation if we are going to
disapprove of diversity…
[moreover], people can’t feel
like they belong here if
they’re going to be
criminalized for being who
they are,” she said.
Veron Otto, who commented
on our Facebook page agreed
with Ng as he asked: “Why
should gays be considered
criminals in the eyes of the
law?... No government or
individual should dictate who a
person can or cannot love”.
Meanwhile, several other
organisations besides Maruah
have backed the call for the
government to repeal Section
377A, with Pink Dot being the
most public and stand-out
movement advocating for a
more inclusive society where
“ sexual orientation represents
a feature, not a barrier”.
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/ads/repeal377a_on_toc.jpg