04/23/2007
Former Singapore Prime Minister Questions Criminality of Gay Sex
Gay sex in ultra-conservative Singapore is classified as "an act of gross indecency" and is punishable by up to two years in prison, according to the Associated Press.
But attitudes appear to be shifting from the top. Over the weekend, Singapore's former Prime Minister and founding leader Lee Kuan Yew commented that the nation should take a new look at its approach to homosexuality given compounding evidence that it's genetic and not a choice.
Said Lee Kuan Yew: "This business of homosexuality...it raises tempers all over the world. And even in America! If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual — because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes — you can't help it. So why should we criminalize it? But there is such a strong inhibition, in all societies - Christianity, Islam, even the Hindu Chinese societies. And we are now confronted with a persisting aberration. But is it an aberration? It's a genetic variation."
Amendments to decriminalize gay sex are currently pending in Singapore's Parliament, so Kuan Yew's statements are important. He added: "So what do we do? I think we pragmatically adjust, carry our people ... don't upset them and suddenly upset their sense of propriety and right and wrong. But at the same time let's not go around like this moral police ... barging into people's rooms. That's not our business. You have to take a practical, pragmatic approach to what I see is an inevitable force of time and circumstance."
Now that's refreshing.
Posted 11:15 AM EST by Andy Towle in Crime, News, Singapore | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Hey, this is great news - every now and then there's a sea change that filters through to other nations and thought processes. I hope this is one of them.
For someone so respected in Singapore to realise the unfairness and illogicality of criminalising something that is harmless and natural is a big deal - and their sensitivity in how he thinks the change should be handled is even better.
His conclusions might seem obvious to us, but kudos to Lee Kuan Lew for reaching them in a space where such conclusions are hardly encouraged.
Posted by: Ren B. | Apr 23, 2007 12:19:41 PM
Wow - I'm really glad this got picked up here, and I agree with Ren B, Lee still pretty much calls the shots, especially on heavy-duty issues.
A quick run-thru on history: Singapore used to be a British colony and thus, along with other former colonies like India, retained much of old British's laws, including the infamous Penal Code section377(A) that criminalises "non-hetero-normative" intercourse. This code has been left intact since independence but in November 2006, the Ministry of Home Affairs announced its intention to retain sections that relate directly to non-hetero (i.e. homosexuality) but repeal sections relevant for heterosexual activities (consenting heterosexual oral and anal intercourse are criminalised under the old s377).
At the Ministry's invitation, Singapore's Law Society formed a committee to advise (note - advise only) on the proposed retention. The committee concluded by majority that the continued criminalisation cannot be justified on grounds of morality because of both the separation of law and morals and the philosophy that the criminal law’s proper function is to protect others from harm by punishing harmful conduct (no harm can be evident if practised in private by consenting adults).
And here lies the core issue, that is arguably applicable worldwide, to say, same-sex marriages elsewhere; morality (religion) vs. law & science.
The contention of most anti-gay views, besides ignorance, stem from religion which, from my agnostic perspective (no offence here), are fundamentally flawed. Proper reasoning backed by both science and law (not moral law which is biased already) would call for the decriminalisation of homosexual activity and full equal rights anywhere.
However, the tricky part for Singapore is that the governmental policies, in effect do take into consideration science. By this, I mean economical science. The government recognises that its laws are "out-dated" and is a hurdle in retaining talents, attracting investments and positioning the city-state as truly modern. Hence, from a economical point-of-view, it makes sense and cents to encourage investments by decriminalising homosexual intercourse.
However, the government similarly measures economics on a wider-scale; both from internal (the religous right, the local churches have started their lobbying to retain s377A) and external (Singapore sits in between Malaysia and Indonesia, two of the largest Muslim countries).
This issue is expected to be picked up very soon in parliament and debated. All said, I am very very pessimistic about the outcome though (for the next decade or some I guess). Which is probably why, born and bred in Singapore, I am in UK now. It's just economics for me.
Posted by: rk | Apr 23, 2007 12:34:02 PM
I've been to Singapore a few times & its an incredible country. Strict laws but quite liberal, which is why this law always confused me. Once its overturned, it will improve things a lot.
Posted by: S | Apr 23, 2007 12:37:59 PM
That's fucking rad. I wish US politicians would take a pragmatic view of the subject like that.
Posted by: Cate | Apr 23, 2007 2:10:26 PM
"This business of homosexuality...it raises tempers all over the world. And even in America!"
It's definitively worldwide!..something must be going on in 2007 that makes it a year of great changes for gays worldwide.
This reminds me: this week-end I saw a superb movie called "The Einstein of Sex" about Magnus Hirschfeld, the creator of the groundbreaking 'Institute for Sexual Science' in Germany, which got burned by the nazis in 1933.
Hirschfeld's work in sexology was renowned around the world, and it laid out the foundation for the gay movement as we know it today. (He even termed the words "homosexuals", "transvestites", and "hermaphrodites").
The film was such a reminder on how much education and knowledge are a key factor in the advancement of gay/human rights. And whenever books are burned, what goes down in smokes is the opportunity for humans to connect the dots between each other.
Hopefully Hollywood will one day pay proper homage to Hirschfeld's work, as there probably would not have been a Kinsey Institute without him.
Posted by: Da | Apr 23, 2007 2:41:03 PM
It might seem like what MM Lee said was positive but according to Singapore's pioneer gay activist Alex Au, it's really a rhetorical question and could in fact be interpreted as justifying why the laws would not be changed so as to not upset the conservative majority.
Read more here: http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=1906&viewarticle=1
Posted by: sylvia | Apr 24, 2007 12:18:15 AM
I live in Malaysia and Singapore is like a sibling to us. We squabble but at the end of the day we depend on each other...very much.
It is a feature of Malaysian/Singaporean that there are families on either side of the border joined by blood and by ties.
I visit Singapore very often.
It's very different to what you might be used to in the West. I've lived in the US as well and while the law is important, culturally, we are also very tolerant.
I live with my partner and my parents. I run a business; wedding planning, cakes, and desseerts. And all our clients all the way up every rung of society know that my partner is not just my BUSINESS partner.
Our countries both have pragmatic governments and to a large extent if you don't rock the boat, they're willing to let you be and let you thrive in your life.
Of the two, Singapore is perhaps more forward looking as we have a large Muslim/conservative heartland. But I know of gay men in villages here in Malaysia who live quite happily with the padi farmers/fisherfolk. Most people mind their own business and it is more of a sin to be confrontational than it is to have someone gay in your community. It is seen as a huge loss of face to lose control and confront someone.
So the laws are all well and good, but at the end of it all, it's how we live that's important.
Singapore has been very very liberal for the last 20 years at least. They're just now talking about the law for the first time but that law has not been used for aeons. Similarly in Malaysia.
It was used once in my country for political reasons when a leader wanted to get rid of a rival. But for private citizens, it hasn't been enforced in my memory. And I'm 43.
Just thought I'd inject that thought.
Posted by: Nigel | Apr 29, 2007 7:51:36 AM
I live in Malaysia and Singapore is like a sibling to us. We squabble but at the end of the day we depend on each other...very much.
It is a feature of Malaysian/Singaporean that there are families on either side of the border joined by blood and by ties.
I visit Singapore very often.
It's very different to what you might be used to in the West. I've lived in the US as well and while the law is important, culturally, we are also very tolerant.
I live with my partner and my parents. I run a business; wedding planning, cakes, and desseerts. And all our clients all the way up every rung of society know that my partner is not just my BUSINESS partner.
Our countries both have pragmatic governments and to a large extent if you don't rock the boat, they're willing to let you be and let you thrive in your life.
Of the two, Singapore is perhaps more forward looking as we have a large Muslim/conservative heartland. But I know of gay men in villages here in Malaysia who live quite happily with the padi farmers/fisherfolk. Most people mind their own business and it is more of a sin to be confrontational than it is to have someone gay in your community. It is seen as a huge loss of face to lose control and confront someone.
So the laws are all well and good, but at the end of it all, it's how we live that's important.
Singapore has been very very liberal for the last 20 years at least. They're just now talking about the law for the first time but that law has not been used for aeons. Similarly in Malaysia.
It was used once in my country for political reasons when a leader wanted to get rid of a rival. But for private citizens, it hasn't been enforced in my memory. And I'm 43.
Just thought I'd inject that thought.
Posted by: Nigel | Apr 29, 2007 7:56:25 AM
I am a white bot from San fran bay area. I have lived here for nearly 3 years. I live in the "gay area"- it is very nice here.
It is no Castro St.- but it is very tolerant here. It's a young country and is absolutely unique!!!
This is so Nice to hear- I hope the rest of the world follows Singapore's example.
Come visit! it is summer all year round!
Posted by: Brian | Apr 29, 2007 11:11:37 PM
I am a white boy from San fran bay area. I have lived here for nearly 3 years. I live in the "gay area"- it is very nice here.
It is no Castro St.- but it is very tolerant here. It's a young country and is absolutely unique!!!
This is so Nice to hear- I hope the rest of the world follows Singapore's example.
Come visit! it is summer all year round!
Posted by: Brian | Apr 29, 2007 11:14:03 PM
Will Singapore still be a benevolent dictatorship after the passing of LKY?
Posted by: anon | Apr 30, 2007 12:28:50 AM