Recent remarks by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew about homosexuality, and whether Singapore might have to change its stance on its criminalisation at some point, have resurfaced a debate among conservatives and others here. Those at one end of the spectrum argue that the ban on homosexual sex is outdated and archaic. Those at the other end see any easing of laws as a move down a slippery slope.

Mr Lee said at a Young PAP event that while the authorities are not the moral police on the issue, they could not ignore the concerns of conservative citizens.

What was needed was a practical and pragmatic approach.

In an interview with the Reuters news agency just days later, he was asked about those comments and whether homosexual sex should be decriminalised eventually.

He replied 'Eventually I cannot put a finger on it.

'But I would say if this is the way the world is going and Singapore is part of that interconnected world, and I think it is, then I see no option for Singapore but to be part of it.'

The remarks came several months after the Home Affairs Ministry, in looking at changes to the Penal Code, said it would retain a ban on acts of 'gross indecency' between men.

The ministry said homosexuality was not widely accepted here, but added that it would not be 'proactive' in enforcing this law against consensual acts that take place in private.

A website run by Washington-based gay activist Bob Summersgill, which tracks sodomy laws worldwide, lists Singapore among a clutch of Asian and African countries which deem sodomy to be illegal. This is unlike most developed countries which have done away with such laws.

Adding fuel to the recent debate, was a commentary in The Straits Times last week by National University of Singapore law academic Yvonne Lee, who argued that decriminalising homosexual sex would be an error, with far-reaching legal and social implications.

Insight contacted five MPs, all lawyers, for their take on the issue, on the question of decriminalisation, and how the debate can move forward.

There were, not surprisingly, divided views. But they took heart from the fact that such issues are being aired.

Said Hong Kah GRC MP Alvin Yeo 'What is helpful is that debate actually takes place, rather than the silent harbouring of prejudice; and that it takes place in an objective environment which is tolerant of different viewpoints.

'That itself is the mark of civil society.'

It would also take time for the wider Singapore society to change its stance on the question of decriminalisation, said Sembawang GRC MP Ellen Lee.

'You move at the pace of the most conservative members of society. We do not have a homogenous society and we are a multiracial, multi-religious society. We have to respect their concerns and anxieties. I do not think Singapore will lose out in any way in this respect just because the world is moving faster than Singapore.'

* * * * *

 
11 May 2007
Straits Times Insight

Ms Indranee Rajah, 44, is a Senior Counsel. She is single and has been an MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC since 2001.

Your response to MM Lee's comments?

He's right. I think decriminalisation is inevitable. It's not a question of 'if' but 'when'. The 'when' depends on whether our society as a whole is ready to accept homosexuality. That is a judgment call that our Government is going to have to make.

What do you think of the current situation, where homosexual sex is banned but the ban is not proactively enforced?

It is an anomaly. Something is either a crime or it is not. If it's a crime, you enforce compliance, and if it's not a crime, you don't. The only reason why we have this anomaly is that the Government is trying to maintain balance between those who have strong religious beliefs or conservative views on homosexuality, and those who feel that homosexuality is acceptable.

On what basis should laws be made? Should they reflect values and morality? What about pragmatism?

Laws are a combination of values, morality, pragmatism and social and political objectives. You can't pigeonhole these factors into neat slots and give equal weightage. You have to go with a sense of what is generally acceptable and enforceable. These evolve over time.

How do we advance the debate on decriminalising homosexual sex, beyond the fixed standpoints that have been presented?

I don't think you can.

There has always been a sense that societal norms here should evolve at the pace of the most conservative members of society. Do you agree? What sort of pace should society proceed at in terms of discussing this issue?

I don't agree. There are many things where we have moved quickly when we had to. When the Women's Charter was passed, it removed polygamy at one stroke. That was a radical change when it was passed. Think of all those men who were overnight restricted to one wife only!

But society was ready to accept that law when it was passed. So the pace at which we can proceed is the pace that we think the majority of society can accept, without too much upheaval.

 
Mr Siew Kum Hong, 32, senior counsel for CA, an IT management software company. He is single and has been a Nominated Member of Parliament since January.

Your response to MM Lee's comments?

My first thought was that his view was premised on pragmatism, not principle. It might result in what I believe to be the right conclusion (ie decriminalisation of gay sex), but I do not agree with the reasoning process. In the end, it rests entirely on homosexuality being genetic but if there is subsequently any evidence that homosexuality is not genetic, then does it mean we should change positions again?

My own belief is that homosexual sex should be decriminalised regardless of whether homosexuality is genetic. It is fundamental to respecting people's dignity and their freedom to lead their private lives as they decide to the extent it does not harm others, regardless of why they would want to lead their lives that way.

What do you think of the current situation, where homosexual sex is banned but is not proactively enforced?

Having a provision in the books that the Government has explicitly stated it will not proactively enforce, risks bringing the law into disrepute. And here's another question What if a homosexual is jilted and makes a complaint against his former partner? Should the police take enforcement action then? But should enforcement be based solely on whether a complaint is made? If so, is that a rational and justifiable basis for deciding whether to enforce?

On what basis should laws be made? Should they reflect values and morality? What about pragmatism?

I do not think that laws should reflect values and morality per se. Instead, I believe that laws should deter and prevent harm to people. And if that coincides with morality, then great.

But they are conceptually separate and distinct concepts, and we need to bear that in mind. There is a great danger when laws are used to enforce values and morality, because they do change. Women previously could not vote, and this was enforced by law. Obviously, values and morality have changed since those times, and I think rightly so. They are also not universal, and so could potentially oppress those who do not share such values and morality.

How do we advance the debate on decriminalising homosexual sex, beyond the fixed standpoints that have been presented?

I'm not sure if you can. The starting points are so fundamentally different that they are essentially arguing at cross-purposes. How do you convince, through argument, a Christian who is convinced that homosexuality is evil and immoral, a sin that needs to be outlawed? I don't think you can.

But policy- and law-makers have a different responsibility. I would hope and expect policy- and law-makers to acknowledge that their own values and moral beliefs are personal to them, and that policy- and law-making requires them to adopt more objective approaches.

Some will and have argued that the approach embodied in the Wolfenden Report (a 1960s document that sets the basis for the decriminalisation of homosexual sex in the United Kingdom) itself represents a value statement about the importance of personal liberty. But I would argue that that is a universal value, and is irrelevant.

The question is the extent to which personal liberty should be limited by the law, and so it falls on those who argue for criminalising homosexuality to demonstrate convincingly that private consensual homosexual sex results in external harm that merits it being criminalised.

There has always been a sense that societal norms here should evolve at the pace of the most conservative members of society. Do you agree? What sort of pace should society proceed at in terms of discussing this issue?

Actually, that's not the case. I think Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has previously stated that we should not move at the fastest (most liberal) or the slowest (most conservative), but with the mass in the middle. So far, the Government has identified the mass in the middle to be against the decriminalisation of homosexual sex.

But should that be the sole consideration? Surely the moral sensibilities of the mass in the middle should be balanced against the implications of the continued criminalisation of homosexual sex the intolerant message sent by society, the lack of dignity or respect shown to a segment of our society (estimated at maybe 4 to 6 per cent), the inexorable exodus of homosexual Singaporeans overseas never to return, and the unquantifiable number of foreign talent who are homosexual and so simply decline to come to work in Singapore.

Law-making is a balancing act, to balance the different interests at play. I am not convinced that the continued criminalisation of homosexual sex strikes a balance that is most beneficial to Singapore and Singaporeans.

 
Mr Lim Biow Chuan, 44, sole proprietor of his law firm, Lim BC & Co. He is married with two daughters, and has been an MP for Marine Parade GRC since last year.