It is interesting to note that Section 377 from the penal code has been repealed, and the comment for the repeal is that “This amendment updates the Penal Code to ensure it remains relevant in today’s context.”
So, with the repeal of Section 377, what does it means? Quoting from Ministry of Home Affairs website:
“Any sexual act, e.g. oral and anal sex, between a consenting heterosexual couple who are 16 years of age and above (done in private) will no longer be criminalised, i.e. oral and anal sex will therefore no longer be criminalised.”
Then, what about Section 377A? As Section 377A has been retained, it means that any “gross indecency” between any gay couple (specifically only for males), regardless of in public or private, is still a crime.
The comment for the retaining of Section 377A, as quoting from Ministry of Home Affairs website:
“Public feedback on this issue has been emotional, divided and strongly expressed with the majority calling for its retention. MHA recognizes that we are generally conservative society and that we should let the situation evolve.”
So, does that means that it is acceptable for the public that heterosexual couples can have the same “gross indecency” but it is not acceptable for gay couples (specifically only for males) to have “gross indecency”. And this view holds even when the “gross indecency” are performed in their own private bedrooms. Does it smells of homophobia (male-male-phobia)?
As a primer to whose who is not sure of what is Section 377 and Section 377A
Section 377 (Unnatural offences)
All forms of carnal intercourse against the order of nature (other than vaginal intercourse) between a man, woman, or an animal, are criminalised; regardless of whether consent was obtained or if the act was performed in a private or public place.
Section 377A (Outrages on decency)
It is an offence for any male person, who in public or private, commits an act of gross indecency with another male person.
The information on repealing 377 and retaining 377A is up-to-date as pertaining to the 17 Sep 2007, Summary of the key amendments to the penal code, Press Release from Ministry of Home Affairs.
http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=1115
In conclusion:
My personal interpretation is that, for example, an oral sex (OS),
- can be performed legally (without contravening any law, or is not a criminal) by a hetersexual couple,
- but cannot be performed legally (contravene Section 377A, or is criminal) by a gay couple (specifically only for males).
I would like to point out just one thing. While it is true, any homosexual couple performing anal intercourse WILL be in violation of Section 377A, this act does not specifically targets them (though they will be those who are the majority performing this action). After all, it also targets the perverts who simply perform anal sex on another individual (with his consent) for his own perverse pleasure.
A lot of those who stood for 377A does not necessarily stand for it because of homophobia, but simply for this. I hope you have considered this in view of the MHA’s statement.
@xizor2000: Thanks for your comment.
Regarding,
“After all, it also targets the perverts who simply perform anal sex on another individual (with his consent) for his own perverse pleasure.”
1) If both parties are consenting, then why should they be termed perverts? And when will two consenting heterosexual couple be termed pervert?
2) If one party is non-consenting, then the penetrator will be charged under the previous Section 377, instead of Section 377A. And with the repeal of Section 377 that will cover such acts, two new broader offends has been introduced.
The two offends are
- A new section (section 376 – Sexual assault by penetration) will be introduced to cover non-consensual penetrative acts, other than penile-vaginal intercourse, which is covered under the provision of rape.
- A new section (section 376A – Sexual penetration of minor under 16) will be introduced to criminalise consensual oral and anal sex with minors under 16 years of age.
Reference:
Introduction of new offences
http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=1115
Both parties may be consenting, but the question is, how was the consent obtained? By offer of money or some thing in return? Who is going to give everyone the assurance that by repealing 377A, we will not run the risk that money for intercourse of this nature will see an increase?
I understand that this is mere guessing and it may not happen, but is it wrong for some to choose NOT to take this risk by wanting for 377A to be kept? Who will give them the assurance that nothing will go wrong? And most importantly, who will bear responsibility when it does go wrong?
[...] One common argument against Section 377A is that it is morally wrong. Well, I have nothing against that but I would like to look retrospectively at what had been repeal previously, that might have a hint, just a hint, of similar indecency – Section 377 (a similar view can be found here). [...]
[...] by The Singapore Daily on October 23rd, 2007 Section 377a – Alice in Wonderland: Section 377 Repealed, while Section 377A to be retained – What Others Say?: 377A – The Unbearable Lightness of Being – Bright Lights: Of dollars and [...]
” It is an offence for any male person, who in public or private, commits an act of gross indecency with another male person” reminds me of the “until I joined the grassroots organisation, I didn’t know there were poor people in developed countries” blinkered perspective. Hello, so is it okay for lesbians to have oral sex, in public or in private? And what about heterosexuals who use dildoes for penetrative sex on males? Should this be criminalised too?
Harold, with regard to “what about heterosexuals who use dildoes for penetrative sex on males? Should this be criminalised too?”, I doubt it’s criminalised as long as that leads to coitus.
xizor
heteros carry out anal sex too. anal sex is not a rarefied sexual practice carried out by gays only. If you choose to zoom in on anal sex, then pray tell why gays are persecuted while heteros who indulge in anal sex goes scot free?
I don even wanna bring in the question of why anal sex is considered banal and intolerable? The culprit here is prosmicuity, not anal sex. If you take care to exercise self responsibility and faith (one partner), then you can hump your partners ass for all you care wihout having the risk of contracting STDs. AND EVEN IF 2 gays who do anal sex gets some kind of dick wart, i do not have to remind you that vagina sex ( the
“normal mainstream” sexual act) is not exempt from such diseases too. its because of lack of hygiene, not because of the act itself. Eating food is not wrong. but if you don take the extra steps eg. wash your hands before you eat, than you have a higher chance of contracting diarrhoea or the like. lack of hygiene and promiscuity is the causal link to greater risk of STDs or other genital diseases. Not whether you are gay or not. since both heteros and homos hum asses and suck/lick genitals so its not a problem divided along the lines of sexual orientation.
This was in my first comment: “After all, it also targets the perverts who simply perform anal sex on another individual (with his consent) for his own perverse pleasure.”
So, are homosexuals the only people who are persecuted under section 377A? It would appear to me that even bi-sexuals are also prosecuted under the same section.
And I didn’t go into the part about STDs / VDs and promiscuity. So you are entitled to your opinion.
xizor,
“So, are homosexuals the only people who are persecuted under section 377A? It would appear to me that even bi-sexuals are also prosecuted under the same section.”
I refer to heterosexuals. nope.
“Both parties may be consenting, but the question is, how was the consent obtained? By offer of money or some thing in return? Who is going to give everyone the assurance that by repealing 377A, we will not run the risk that money for intercourse of this nature will see an increase?”
Apply this argument to heterosexuality. your parents are consensual adults having a hell of a night in the privacy of their bedroom. So are my parents. meanwhile two heterosexual people ( one of whom is a prostitute) humps each other throughout the night in the privacy of their motel room. and because of things like this i.e the heterosexual prositute having sex with her client, we should err on the side of caution and ban heterosexuality. Nice.
Yonaz, I don’t know what your point is.
My point was that Section 377A does not specifically target homosexuals so the discrimination argument is out. Do you have a problem with this stand?
I further mention that if 377A is taken away then the other kinds of vices related to that to cater for bi-sexuals and perverts might see a rise. (It might already be there in the first place and this argument might be mere conjecture but who will assure me it won’t happen; and bear responsibility when it does?)
If you have a problem with with my view that 377A criminalised consensual male-male sex (including masturbation etc.) procured with money while heterosexuals can do the same with a hooker in a hotel room with impunity take that matter up with the government on their stand on prostitution. After all, it doesn’t move away from my original stand that this does not discriminates against homosexual males in specific.
And the reason I made the point is simply because the comparison made in the blog post between heterosexuals and homosexuals (which you are also fond to make) falls into a logic trap called post hoc ergo propter hoc. If you wanna find out what that means, wiki is your teacher.
aren’t we all overlooking the fact that the term “homosexual couple” can also apply to females? would it then be correct to assume that oral sex between two females is permitted?
xizor2000: whether or not section 377A specifically target homosexuals, its still a matter of fact that Singapore doesn allow gay couples(male-male/female-female) to conduct any anal sex or whatsoever. bisexual will not increase because of a law or not, it increases due to the living environment and the way people are brought up. New laws are also added to prevert perverts.
john019: nope, gay is the meaning of a sex having a likings for another person who is of the same sex. therefore by saying gay couple, it applys for both male and female.