To empower queer women towards greater involvement and presence in the community
OUR VISION
Relief and Resilience Fund for LGBTQ+ persons
Donate to help LGBTQ+ persons impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Now open for applications!
Please write to us if you need help.
Slider
Sayoni is a Singapore-based feminist, volunteer-run organisation that works to uphold human rights protections for queer women, including lesbian, bisexual and transgender women. We organise and advocate for equality in well-being and dignity regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity/expression and sex characteristics.

We believe that everyone has a part to play in improving the lives of LBTQ people. Donate or volunteer with us.

How you can help

Our Work

Research and Advocacy

We collect data and raise awareness about LBTQ issues

Events

We hold events to build community

Donate

Help fund our work

News and Announcements

  • 1

AWARE also asked to expand the scope of the sexual offences in the new amendments applying to sex tourism and raised the issue of double criminality and double jeopardy. They asked that the law be applied to foreign residents who held Employment Passes and Work Permits, as does equivalent American legislation.

AWARE and the Singapore International Youth Council (SIYC) representative jointly requested for laws prohibiting sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination. Ms Rajah replied that they would be labour acts governed by the Ministry of Manpower, instead of the Penal Code.

One of the Sayoni women raised the issue of repealing section 377A (which criminalises male homosexual intercourse), together with 377. This was supported by women from AWARE. Our reasons included the economic loss due to emigration of gay Singaporeans and refusal of talented locals to return home because of such discrimination; this would be a law dividing Singaporeans, rather than uniting them under a national identity.

The chairpersons, especially Mses. Ellen Lee and Rahayu, expressed what they called other people’s views, that the older generations, religious groups and parents disapproved of homosexuality. Although the chairpersons were careful to disclaim such views as belonging to others, notably, we did not hear any sympathetic views of their own.

Ms Rajah explained that 377A had been left behind in order to appease ‘the conservative majority’, especially religious leaders. The chairpersons were aware that young Singaporeans were a lot more liberal and did not discriminate against queer folk, however, that older Singapore from their 40s and above disapproved.

Attendees thus made several other points, including that parental disapproval was not tantamount to a desire for criminalisation or sufficient grounds for it; homosexuality was an identity; sexuality can be fluid; the views of religious groups should not be imposed on us and that much of parental anxiety stemmed from a fear of discrimination. The casino issue was raised as one in which the government did what it felt was necessary, even though it was contrary to the opinions of religious leaders. I suggested that the opinions of religious leaders could be balanced in other ways besides criminalisation, to which Ms Rajah nodded knowingly.

She said that the chairpersons were messengers and would convey our opinions back to the government. When asked if anyone in the room disapproved of repealing 377 and 377A, no one replied. Again, there was unanimous consensus to repeal those laws.

When asked about the amendments regarding “racial” and “religious” feelings, Ms Rajah clarified that they had been proposed to prevent social unrest, such as the riots a few decades ago. I noted mentally that it was easier to marginalise queer folk because even when oppressed, they kept the peace.

The Penal Code amendments were proposed by MHA, in consultation with various government bodies, such as the Attorney-General’s Chambers. Selected findings from focus groups would be published on the REACH website. Following this first revision of the amendments, it would be passed to the MPs for debate in Parliament. Should there be no major dissent for the second revision (likely to be in the first quarter of next year), it would be immediately revised and then passed into law. Therefore, Ms Rajah advised, now was the best time to make our opinions felt.

We left on the one hand feeling encouraged and on the other, wondering if our words would be fully recorded and conveyed. My mind was especially troubled by the intentions of the religious groups. I would like to ask them: Did they love their children? Did they think their children would tell them if they were queer? Would they want their children to be arrested one day and outed through the media?

In one of the recent news articles, an MP was quoted as saying that he had learnt to listen well before speaking, because Singaporeans often had a lot to vent. I hope that every MP would and could, even if they came from relatively privileged backgrounds.

Since the Penal Code was last reviewed in 1984, the Government acknowledges that it has become outdated. If young Singaporeans are accepting of homosexuality and the global trend is towards a recognition of queer rights, what better occasion than this to make it a far-sighted, humane and economically sound review by decriminalising homosexual intercourse entirely?

Comments   

# buffolawingajamig 2010-02-02 19:55
#

buffolawingajamig said,

December 6, 2006 at 9:04 am

some studies (forthcoming) have shown that the singaporean queer majority do not really care about fighting for gay rights, as long as they are left alone to fulfill their sexual desires. and perhaps it is.

the people likely to write to REACH are the young, internet-savvy youth, as well as concerned GLBT citizens. your grandfather would write in i doubt. we wonder, perhaps the code will change for our good.

two sides of a coin, flip it. your odds are equal, no one is at war.
Reply
# Desmond 2010-02-02 19:55
#

Desmond said,

December 6, 2006 at 10:06 am

This doesn’t say much because majority of Singaporeans do not care about their rights either. What our small community reflects is the majority’s Singaporeans’ attitudes when it come to politics and rights.

The major attitude is usually the, “if it doesn’t affect me too much, then I wouldn’t bother”. Which is of course the reason why the opposition cannot get a foot hold in parliament.
Reply
# buffolawingajamig 2010-02-02 19:55
#

buffolawingajamig said,

December 7, 2006 at 4:16 am

community? does community really exist or is it but an imagined space, a space where a group of politically-minded people think that anyone with similar sexual preferences would support them?

question: is it wrong that citizens are politically passive? why fault them for being happy with the life they have? ’show me the money’ most say, and all shall be well. perhaps the majority have spoken through their passiveness. but see, the citizen is alive online – through his blog, forum, or Stomp mms and more.

maybe, there are many sides to a coin, not just two
Reply
# The Legal Janitor 2010-02-02 19:56
#

Where got conservative majority? « The Legal Janitor said,

December 7, 2006 at 12:01 pm

[...] A common reason given by the powers that be for keeping a law that criminalises sex between gay men is that there is a conservative majority in Singapore that cannot accept the legalisation of gay sex. If the opinions of a sample size of 800 men in this survey do accurately reflect the opinions of Singaporean men as a general whole however, then this supposed conservative majority does not exist! [...]
Reply
# Sayoni Speak 2010-02-02 19:56
#

Sayoni Speak » Latest News of Bigotry (Singapore) said,

March 13, 2007 at 1:08 pm

[...] Sayoni at Penal Code focus group [...]
Reply

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Sign up to receive announcements and updates