This document was released by the seven signatories listed in the report on Feb 27, 2011 (A copy can be found here.):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With a general election expected in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2011, seven members of the LGBT community in Singapore sent a joint letter to six political parties requesting a clarification of their position on selected issues of interest to LGBT Singaporeans. The letter was sent in mid-September 2010 with reply requested for end-October 2010. The aim was to provide information to LGBT voters as to the stands taken by various political parties.
The seven signatories were: Russell Heng, Jean Chong, Sylvia Tan, Choo Lip Sin, Irene Oh, Alex Au and Alan Seah.
[Disclosure: Sylvia Tan and Choo Lip Sin are staff members of Fridae.]
The same letter was sent to (in alphabetical order) the National Solidarity Party, the People’s Action Party, the Reform Party, the Singapore Democratic Alliance, the Singapore Democratic Party and the Workers’ Party. The parties were informed that their replies would be released to the LGBT public.
None of the parties responded to the complete list of questions. Nonetheless, three parties provided a reasonably clear outline of their stand with respect to LGBT concerns. The People’s Action Party did not reply at all, nor even acknowledge the letter. The Singapore Democratic Alliance acknowledged the letter but in the end did not provide a reply.
Of the other four parties,
The National Solidarity Party said “Individuals’ interests and rights should not supercede the core values that the society holds”, but will give their Members of Parliament the freedom to vote on Section 377A according to their conscience. On jobs, the party “advocate Equal Opportunities for all . . . and even sexual orientation.” On media policy, the NSP said that “we do not think Singapore is ready for equal promotion of alternative lifestyle” nor do they think that Singapore is ready to “legitimize same-sex marriage.” Overall, the party’s position is that “Singapore’s social core values, at this moment, only recognizes family unit with heterosexual relationship. In principle, NSP has to respect such core values held as a society.”
The Reform Party in its reply said that one of their “central tenets is that there should not be any discrimination between individuals based on gender, race, religion, age and sexual orientation” and that they are “committed to working towards the repeal of Section 377A and the decriminalization of homosexuality.” As for the additional issues raised by our letter, they did not have time to consider their position.
The Singapore Democratic Party referred us to position statements they had previously made on their website. One said “Section 377A discriminates against a segment of our population and that discrimination, in whatever form, has no place in society”, calling on the PAP government to repeal the law. In another, the party reiterated its stand on basic rights and equality while responding to an outsider who queried why the party supported the repeal of Section 377A.
The Workers’ Party replied by saying that they continue not to have any position on gay-related issues, as was the case in October 2007 during the parliamentary debate over Section 377A.
THE OUTGOING LETTER
The letter sent out to all the parties read:
Enquiry about your party’s position on gay-related issues
The signatories below have been active in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) community for some years; you may know some of us. We sense that LGBT voters are keen to know the position of your party on various issues that are of interest to them, but which you may not normally address in your overall manifesto.
Recognising, however, that the onus is also on us to bring these issues to your attention, we have prepared a set of eight questions/ discussion points in Annex 1 attached. We would be grateful if you could revert with your views on these issues by the end of October 2010.
A similar letter is going out to other political parties as well, seeking their views.
Precisely because we do not expect all parties to adopt similar positions on all questions, it would interest us to know what each party’s thinking is and where your comfort levels are at this present time. Naturally, one should allow that positions can change over time, with evolving realities.
Our intention is to release the various parties’ responses to the LGBT community at an appropriate time, with minimal commentary on our part. We have lined up various gay media for this purpose.
It is possible that the mainstream media may take an interest when the time comes, but at this moment, we have no plans to involve them.
Thanking you in advance for taking the time to consider these issues and responding,
The text of the annexure to the letter (we decided to err on the side of greater detail than leaving the questions vague, especially since this is the first time we are asking political parties to address the issues):
Questions
1. One of the foundational principles of Singapore is the concept of equality. In your party’s opinion, does the concept of equality include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) persons and their interests?
2. In October 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said there has to be “space for homosexuals to live their lives”. Does your party agree with this?
3. The LGBT community feels that Section 377A of the Penal Code limits the space that they have, thus undercutting the equality that they feel they are entitled to, for example, in the following areas:
• the law legitimises social stigma and discrimination;
• through (a) above, it is used to justify media censorship;
• it constrains the needed degree of health intervention with respect to HIV.
What is your party’s position on these effects of Section 377A?
4. Speaking to Reuters in April 2007, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said Section 377A “eventually” has to go. Expanding on his thoughts, he said, “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.” In August 2007, he repeated his sentiments to the International Herald Tribune, saying, “Yes, we’ve got to go the way the world is going. China has already allowed and recognized gays, so have Hong Kong and Taiwan. It’s a matter of time.”
(a) If a bill is before the next parliament to repeal Section 377A, will your party support it?
(b) If not, when do you foresee your party being able to support one?
(c) Is this a matter for which your party may consider necessary to lift its party whip?
5. Section 377A aside, on the question of equality in employment,
(a) Would your party support legislation promoting nondiscrimination in employment on grounds of race, religion, sex, disability and age?
(b) Should such legislation also include among its grounds sexual orientation and gender identity?
6. Currently, media policy severely restricts the portrayal of “alternative lifestyles”, which deprives Singaporeans of a balanced view of LGBT people and their lives. This deprivation reinforces negative stereotypes and further stigmatises LGBT people, holding society back from progressing.
(a) Does your party believe that LGBT themes, characters and content should be treated fairly and equally in media policy?
(b) To be more specific, does your party believe that there should be parity in media classification between films and art with LGBT themes, characters and content on the one hand and similar material with heterosexual themes, characters and content on the other, e.g. a same-sex love affair is classified the same way as an opposite-sex love affair?
7. What does your party consider an appropriate level of formal recognition of same sex relationships (agree/disagree on each sub-question)?
(a) no recognition as existing;
(b) provide a public register of same sex partnerships;
(c) recognise a same-sex couple in the same household for taxation purposes;
(d) recognise a same-sex couple as family nucleus in respect of public housing;
(e) recognise the rights of a same-sex partner for medical visitation, medical decision-making (in cases where the ill partner is incapable of deciding for himself/herself) and as next of kin;
(f) recognise a same-sex partner as equivalent to a spouse wherever insurance policies and employment benefits recognise a spouse;
(g) recognise a same-sex partner as equivalent to a married spouse with respect to succession intestate;
(h) recognise a same-sex partner as equivalent to a married spouse with respect to immigration.
8. Same-sex couples with children exist and are gradually increasing in number in Singapore. Present legislation and policies do not formally recognise them as a family unit, which is detrimental to the welfare of the children. Does your party agree that in the best interest of these children, there should be formal recognition of such a family nucleus?
THE REPLIES
Below are the replies, if any, received from the parties:
National Solidarity Party
Reply received via email on 12 November 2010
On behalf of National Solidarity Party (NSP), I thank you for your email dated 15 September to enquire about our Party’s stand on the issues of LGBT.
The questions that you have raised in your email have given us a great opportunity to closely examine and discuss about LGBT issues in general as well as sorting our thoughts on various universal issues of equality and human rights.
Upon reflection, we come to the following general conclusions:
1) NSP is made up of a wide spectrum of individuals with different inclinations, from extreme liberal to ultra conservative. However, the mean score index is skewed towards the conservative position. We believe that this composition of NSP is more or less representative of the Singapore society at large.
2) Although NSP will be fighting for a broader base of equality and rights for Singaporeans in various segments of legislation (eg. Equal Opportunity in Labour law etc), the isolate issue of LGBT rights will not be NSP’s main political campaigning focus for the foreseeable future.
3) However, NSP will not restrict its members or future Members of Parliament to express their views or vote according to their own inclination with regard to LGBT issues.
4) NSP may not be able to answer each and every question that you have raised but we would like to address these questions in a more general approach at this moment.
5) Your questions could be categorized into 4 broad areas i.e.
A) Section 377A & Equality
B) Equality on Jobs
C) Media policy and promotion of alternative lifestyle via media
D) Recognition of Same-sex marriage
5A) Section 377A & Equality
NSP recognizes the existence of LGBT community in Singapore. NSP also recognizes the enactment of any laws should be in accordance with the principles and core values that the nation holds as a people. Individuals’ interests and rights should not supercede the core values that the society holds.
If a law is to be repealed or changed, it must get enough support from the society at large. NSP strives to have a more diverse representation within its rank and file so that different views could be heard and presented within. For the issue of Section 377A, with due respect to each different individuals in the party, we would let our members decide on their own as this is the not the key political focus of the party. It would also mean that future MPs of the party would have to exercise their own political discretion and judgment in deciding whether to vote for or against the repeal of Section 377A, in accordance to social sentiments of that time.
5B) Equality on Jobs
In principle, NSP is against discriminative employment practices. We advocate Equal Opportunities for all, regardless of race, religion, disability, age, sex and even sexual orientation.
5C) Media policy and promotion of alternative lifestyle via media
In principle, we do not think Singapore is ready for equal promotion of alternative lifestyle. However, we do not discount the fact that social mindset may change over time. It will depend very much on the social acceptance of Singaporeans on promotion of alternative lifestyle over the media.
5D) Recognition of Same-sex marriage
We do not think Singapore society is ready to legitimize same-sex marriage. Most of the issues raised could be dealt with by other legitimate means like writing Will or empowering LGBT partners by means of Attorney of Power.
Singapore’s social core values, at this moment, only recognizes family unit with heterosexual relationship. In principle, NSP has to respect such core values held as a society.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary-General
# # #
People’s Action Party
No reply
# # #
The Reform Party
Reply received via email on 1 November 2010
Thanks for sending this questionnaire to us. I am aware that these issues are of overwhelming importance to the LGBT community. Please be assured that the Reform Party is a liberal secular Party. We believe passionately in freedom of expression and association. One of our central tenets is that there should not be any discrimination between individuals based on gender, race, religion, age and sexual orientation. We are committed to working towards the repeal of Section 377A and the decriminalization of homosexuality.
However we have not had time to consider our position in detail on the additional issues raised by you. Rather than asking for our position, it might be more productive if you would send us a list of the policies you would like to see adopted. Better still, you could join us and work on getting us elected to Parliament or contribute to our campaign. Unless you (like other Singaporeans) are prepared to stand up then there is very little chance of change.
Regards,
Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Secretary General
# # #
Singapore Democratic Alliance
No reply to the substantive questions. Last interim reply was received via email on 29 October 2010, saying:
My sincere apology, was preoccupied with SPP & SDA’s internal affairs, hence may not able to give you any official reply before SDA Supreme Council meeting which likely to be hold on 12 November 10.
Because, I need to table for discussion with the Supreme Council.
With regards
Lim Bak Chuan Desmond
Secretary General
# # #
Singapore Democratic Party
Reply received via email on 2 November 2010. The reply contained three hyperlinks, which have been expanded here inside [square brackets].
Rather than respond to the questionnaire, the Singapore Democratic Party would like to reiterate its stand:
We support the repeal of Section 377A. We made our stand clear in 2007 here and defended it here. We have embedded in our website the following statement: “As a nation, we must not only show tolerance but also acceptance of our fellow citizens regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or political persuasion.” (see here).
Thank you.
Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
# # #
Workers’ Party
Verbal reply via telephone, from Sylvia Lim (Chairperson, Workers’ Party) to Alex Au, midday, 31 October 2010.
The gist of Sylvia Lim’s reply was that the WP would not be making any formal reply to our letter, because despite discussing it at council meeting, WP’s position had not changed [since 2007]. “We have no position on this,” she said.
“Is this response on record?” Alex Au asked her. She said yes.
Printable Version
RSS Feed: 
Reader's Comments
People's Action Party 66.60% (82 seats)
Workers' Party 16.34% (1 seat and 1 NCMP seat)
Singapore Democratic Alliance 12.99% (1 seat)
Note: SDA includes:
___* National Solidarity Party
___* Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Singapura
___* Singapore Justice Party
___* Singapore People's Party
Singapore Democratic Party 4.07% (no seat)
Reform Party was formed after that election.
Better late than never in the RP's case, I suppose, but no points for the lack of initiative.
Singapore doesn't respect the rule of law; India, at least for the most part, does.
That's the difference.
I'm very sure that India would be insulted to be compared to piddley little corrupt Singapore in this and many other regards no matter what racists think otherwise because of the hierarchy of skin colour and all that bullshit: being a Chinese majority country is not an automatic ride to superiority in political civilization.
The Workers Party’s stand is just as despicable, and also not unexpected from a party that is being increasingly viewed, not unjustifiably, as cosying up to the PAP. To the Workers Party, I just have this to say: If you cannot win an elections by NOT supporting gay rights, what makes you think that you will lose one by supporting it?
My reaction to the SDA’s stand is mixed. The need to take this issue for further consideration to the party’s CEC is an understandable aspect of party protocol and procedures. But what the hell has the SDA, a party that had nothing to contribute to the S377a debates of 2007 more than three years ago, been doing all this while in the intervening period?
The NSP’s stand is completely UNACCEPTABLE. Gay rights are not up for negotiation by any predominantly hetero-dominated entity that thinks that the constitutional guarantee of equality under the law is in the first place negotiable and subject to the vagaries of ’societal values’.
The RP’s latest stand, though one that they arrived at only after being pushed into that position, might be lauded. But Kenneth Jeyaratnam still has to clarify to gay voters what he really meant by his at least two previous public statements that gay rights can be had but only subject to conditions. Specifically, what did he actually mean when he said that gays can have our rights ONLY ’so long as they don’t do any harm to others’? What is that harm that he imagines gays want to inflict if not the typically homophobic one that we should not use our rights as a cover to molest young boys?
In the final analysis, as far as all political parties in Singapore go, the SDP’s position on gay rights – as with so many issues – is the only acceptable one. However, the SDP needs to be more elaborate on those gay rights that it supports. I don’t see much difficulty for the party seeing that enough gay men and women who are activists at the same time have started alligning themselves with the party; the full spectrum of our rights can come naturally as a result.
That said, while I have expressed my political opinions, I haven't my personal ones, which is that LGBT Singaporeans do not in the least deserve ANY rights if they wish to continue in this state of ensuring them.
Where the heck are they in all the blogs that are raising the issues, and against the PAP's?
If all LGBTs are interested in is that they can f**k unimpeded by the law, then they have no right to argue on any constitutional terms because arguing on those terms necessarily means that you are able to respect and adhere to both the letter and especially the spirit of constitutional law no matter who it applies to.
I am beginnng to think that the criticisms I had previosuly heard about LGBTs is indeed correct: that they are a selfish lot who are only interested in their own rights but nobody else's.
Damn all those others who have been deprived of their rights under the same paradigm that LGBTs have been deprived of.
Aren't Singaporean politicians, and the people, more worried about the economy, jobs, education, health, what happens to old people, better roads, and so on, rather than - shock - what sexuality someone has, which has NOTHING to do with a politician's, or a person's, ability to be either part of a community as an ordinary, equal citizen, or to represent it, and work for Everyone, regardless of sex or sexuality?
It's just an excuse, when hiding behind: "The public aren't ready for change..." Part of a politician's, or a political party's, duty is to create social change for the better, and to create a more inclusive society for all, regardless of sexuality...
Usually it's the homophobes who are most obsessed / worried about that, not LGBTs or the gay-friendly peeps. In any case, this is not what this exercise is about.
Plain and simple!
His non-response ("we believe that Singapore should be an all-inclusive society blah blah etc.") was pretty disappointing and when I pressed for a clearer answer, I was finally told that RP would not be campaigning nor touching any such platforms as the "current conservative state of the society was not ready".
I didn't bother turning up for their volunteer sessions, needless to say.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Section 377 of the Singapore Penal Code)
Section 377A of the Penal Code of Singapore is the main remaining piece of legislation which criminalises sex between mutually consenting adult men.
Section 377A ("Outrages on decency") states that:
Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of GROSS INDECENCY with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.
In light of this hypocracy, isn't targeting the ‘Pink Dollar’ an act of GROSS INDECENCY on the Singaporean government’s part?
Like natural events, such as natural disasters, are we ever ready for them? But we learn to deal with them and move on. Following this, Human Rights is something we all learn to deal with. When Human Rights and the legalisation of gay marriage, has changed nothing at all in a country like South Africa, Singapore and its people should be able to cope and deal with the scrapping of Section 377 A of the penal code. Or one would at least think this to be possible in the international small island country of Singapore with an intelligent nation, such as it is.
National Solidarity Party's (NSP) SG Goh Meng Seng's (GMS) response should be interpreted more carefully. By responding that "NSP will not restrict its members or future Members of Parliament to express their views or vote according to their own inclination with regard to LGBT issues," he is actually killing two birds with one stone:
1) he means that any NSP member who is elected into the Parliament--including himself--may vote to repeal s377a.
2) he does not offend the more conservative persons within NSP and the electorate by committing to become an gay rights champion.
As we know, the majority here are still very conservative. If GMS were to give a direct YES or NO answer at this stage when the General Election (GE) is expected to be called very soon, he might have to deal with a lot of opposition within his party and voters. The priority for him would be to get elected first, for if only he and his team members are elected could they vote in the Parliament. As he assured, he would not restrict his members to vote for the repeal of s377a. He himself might even vote to repeal s377a according to his inclination.
I believe that the coming GE presents gay activists with a golden opportunity to table the repeal of s377a again. Let me analyse the situation.
First, with the mass resignation of the most qualified candidates from RP, its SG is eager to field more candidates. This gives gay activists with political aspirations good bargaining power to work with him. One condition for working with him should be to commit the RP to the tabling of the repeal of s377a again if ANY of RP's candidate is elected into parliament. The amended GE rules make it much easier for opposition candidates to secure seats in the parliament. Even if an opposition candidate couldn't beat his opponent, he could still obtain a seat by becoming a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP). According to the amended rules, “Parliament can have up to nine NCMPs, up from six.” ( http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1052726/1/.html). There are much higher chances for opposition candidates to obtain a seat in the parliament in the coming GE. Anyway, it takes just ONE member to table a petition, which was what NMP Siew Kum Hong did for the repeal of s377a in 2007.
There are many ways that the gay community could work with RP. There are as many ways and areas that RP now needs help in. Gay activists could, for example:
1) join RP as members
2) volunteer for RP's GE campaign
3) stand as RP GE candidates.
A written agreement could be negotiated between the gay activists and the SG of RP to commit the latter to the above-mentioned parliamentary action if RP produces at least ONE MP or NCMP in the coming GE. Fridae and the other gay networks could also mobilise supporters to sign on the petition in a low-key manner so as to not stir up massive counter-attacks from the anti-gay camp like we had during the last petition.
We should also make sure that we communicate where we are coming from more clearly. For example, repeal of s377a is not, and cannot, 'promote homosexual lifestyle'. If you are straight, you are straight. If you are gay, you are gay. It's that simple. People don't turn gay overnight simply because s377a is lifted. Neither do gays turn straight because we keep s377a.
Having explained why this golden opportunity exists, I hope that gay activists would not let it slip. I also strongly believe that we stand a much higher chance of success now. The Minister Mentor had expressed recently that he wouldn't mind even a gay MP. I believe his words still carry a lot of weight especially when he is still kicking and alive. So, I personally think that the petition should be tabled again when he is still so. Good luck.
We can position ourselves as [one of] the kingmakers - the swing vote that needs to be wooed if you need our vote - of any elections by doing so.
@Kumabro-oz, many Singaporeans do already know that the PAP's logo is strikingly similar to the British Union of Fascists' one.
But you are grossly mistaken in your belief that the PAP is committed to anti-racism; the PAP is an unrepentantly racist party. They're just very subtle about it.
I have it from reliable sources that any spoilt vote will be counted as a vote for PAP.
Please log in to use this feature.