|
LIKE many places, Singapore remains deeply divided on questions of homosexuality. A government survey last year found that a scant majority (53%) “accept gay lifestyles”, with younger Singaporeans generally more tolerant than older ones. But a similar number (55%) rejected same-sex marriage.
This year Singapore’s annual gay-pride event—the Pink Dot rally, held in Hong Lim park at the end of last month—drew a record crowd of 26,000, more than ten times as many as attended its inauguration, in 2009. Paerin Choa, a Pink Dot spokesman, says it was also a more confident crowd. In the past, people worried, “Would my family see me? Would my boss fire me if he knew that I was gay?” This year, by contrast, people wore pink on public transport, and many were happy to have their pictures taken.
Not everyone is so open-minded. Shortly after Pink Dot, a controversy erupted over three children’s books that the National Library Board ordered removed from circulation and destroyed. The three books featured same-sex couples (including a penguin pairing) who raised offspring. In acting, the board claimed it was merely taking a “cautious approach”. But it was slammed by Singapore’s literati. Tania De Rozario was one of many writers who pulled out of events sponsored by the library board. Destroying the books went against “everything a library is supposed to stand for”.
While this controversy raged, Singapore’s highest court heard a constitutional challenge to Section 377a of the penal code, which criminalises homosexual acts (defined as “any act of gross indecency with another male person”). Punishment is up to two years in prison. The appellants are three gay Singaporean men, one of whom was arrested for having oral sex in a public lavatory (in practice, the government does not generally go after homosexuality in private). The appellants argue that Section 377a violates Singapore’s constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
A judgment is not expected for several months, but Tea Braun—one of the appellants’ legal advisers and the legal director for Human Dignity Trust, which challenges laws criminalising homosexuality—is not optimistic. Singapore’s case law on the subject is rather slight, she says, and during the hearings judges seemed loth to break new ground. They insisted that questions of social policy were best decided by parliament. Yet legislators seem ill-disposed to change a policy that renders gay men criminals—if mostly unapprehended ones.