qwerty asdfg
The Penal Code of Singapore, in Section 377a, provides for a
jail sentence for up to two years should a man be found to have
committed an act of "gross indecency" with another man.
A news article:
Keep377a.com vs Repeal377a.com
Group sets up site urging S'pore to keep gay sex ban
Friday October 19, 2007
Ansley Ng
[email protected]
IN an apparent counter move, a group calling itself "the Majority"
has set up a website to collect signatures backing a call for the
Government to keep the law against gay sex.
The group, in an open letter to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,
asks the Government to "do what is right and retain Section 377A
for the future of our children and our nation".
Under Section 377A of the Penal Code, it is illegal for men to have
sex with one another. While prosecution is rare, those convicted
can be jailed up to two years.
The online letter read: "Section 377A is a reflection of the
sentiments of the majority of society. Most Singaporeans hold
conservative family values and do not accept homosexuality as the
norm.
"Repealing Section 377A is a vehicle to force homosexuality on a
conservative population that is not ready for homosexuality."
Repealing the law, the letter said, could lead to the redefinition
of same-sex marriage and the trend of adoption by same-sex
parents.
The website, which went live yesterday at about 12.30pm, seems to
be a response to an ongoing public online campaign calling for
Section 377A to be repealed even sporting a similar website
design.
The pro-repeal website is urging people to sign two documents, one
an open letter to the Prime Minister and the second a petition
which closes today to be submitted to Parliament on Monday by
Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong.
In the latest Penal Code review, which was finished last month, the
Government decided to uphold the status quo on this issue. The
Ministry of Home Affairs had said that Singapore was generally a
conservative society and "we should let the situation
evolve".
As of 10.45pm yesterday, the website in support of Section 377A had
gathered 118 signatures, most of which were accompanied by
comments. Wrote a petitioner who signed off as "Bo Bo": "We should
never submit to what the rest of the world finds trendy and
acceptable."
Wrote Sammy, another petitioner: "It is not right to alter the
Section 377A which (sic) majority stands for traditional family
values which built what Singapore is today."
Mr Martin Tan, 30, who organised this latest online show of support
for Section 377A, told Today the website allowed the "silent
majority" to have its say.
"What the gay community does in private is their private space,"
said Mr Tan, an executive director of a not-for-profit
organisation. "We just do not want our country's legislation to
change just for a small minority who are vocal."
The pro-Section 377A group, said Mr Tan, was started by a small
group of four "concerned individuals" who forwarded the link to
friends. The open letter, he added, will remain on the website and
not be submitted to the Government.
When contacted, organisers of the online letter and the petition
against Section 377A declined to comment on the new website. But
they did say the petition to Parliament had garnered 2,519
signatures so far.
Gay rights activist Alex Au saw the new website as Singaporeans
exercising free speech. But as for the group calling itself "the
Majority", he said the matter was not a "numbers game" but an issue
of "fairness and equality".
Saying the latest website reflected "healthy" debate, Dr Gillian
Koh, senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies,
said the scene should not be "monopolised" by those who want the
law repealed.
For those who want it retained, she added, "it's a way to signal to
other Singaporeans that a bunch of them care about this issue
too".
However, Dr Koh also believed that despite several surveys showing
that most Singaporeans feel homosexuality should not be made legal,
most would choose to stay out of discussion remaining as
"spectators" only.
"What will happen is that people from the religious backgrounds,
those with clear vested interests, will speak up," said Dr
Koh.
Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.
Are you, casually, supportive of this, or not?
Pro-Repeal
VS Anti-Repeal
I'm staying neutral at the moment.
