Observations at a focus group meeting for the proposed Penal Code amendments in Singapore

As the Penal Code is being updated, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has been soliciting feedback from the public about this proposed amendments. One of the avenues was through focus group discussions for welfare, grassroots, religious and women’s groups. I attended one of them by prior registration.

MHA’s Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry@ Home (REACH) officers had organised the focus group meeting well. Light food and beverage was catered before the meeting, as it was to begin at around dinner time. At the registration table, attendees were asked to record their Identity Card (IC) numbers on the list, to indicate attendance. It would no doubt be easier to monitor a person through this number.

Inside the low-lit room, paper and pencils were laid on their chairs for attendees. A REACH officer presented a general overview of the proposed amendments before the discussion began proper. It was chaired by three persons – Mses. Indranee Rajah (MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, MM Lee’s team), Ellen Lee (a lawyer) and Rahayu. Attendees were invited to step up to the microphone to air their views. It soon became clear that the focus for the night was on the amendments which affected marital immunity for rape and criminalised gay sex.

Association of Women for Action & Research (AWARE) had done their homework and came well-prepared with cogent arguments for the amendments which particularly concerned them, mainly that of marital immunity for rape. Each member of their organisation presented an argument which was received with knowing nods all around.

One such argument was that the marital immunity clause had been created by a British judge in 1793. It was not only anachronistic, it was also incongruent with the Singapore government’s attempts (e.g. the Women’s Charter) to dispel the notion of women being property. Ms Rajah seemed well aware that the limited scenarios proposed in the new amendment would protect few women. When the room was asked if everyone felt that marital immunity ought to be completely removed, there was a unanimous consensus.

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?