Lunar | Section 377A: repeal of Singapore’s gay sex law no guarantee of LGBTQ rights progress

While the decision is something to celebrate, there are questions on whether it could inspire greater resistance to marriage equality

Reading Time:2 minutes

The crowd at the Pink Dot event forms the words ‘Repeal 377A’ at the Speaker’s Corner in Hong Lim Park in Singapore, on June 29, 2019. Photo: EPA-EFE

Published: 3:15pm, 26 Aug 2022

It has been a cheerful week for LGBT activists in Singapore. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Sunday that the government would repeal Section 377A, the archaic law that criminalises sex between men.

The debate over whether Section 377A, which was introduced into the Singapore Penal Code in 1938, should be repealed has been going on for 15 years and is finally approaching an end. The law has not been actively enforced, and in recent years activists in Singapore have mounted a series of constitutional challenges to the law, but all of them were dismissed.

Lee said he hoped the repeal would “provide some relief to gay Singaporeans”, and it is a huge step forward to many in Singapore. The decision is of landmark significance as, according to lawyer and activist Remy Choo, “With the repeal of S377A, LGBTQ Singaporeans will no longer be considered criminals in the eyes of the law. This law has caused untold harm to a significant section of our population.”

Given the fact Section 377A has not been enforced for years, though, there could be questions around whether the repeal represents progress or is actually a trap. The long-expected decision could bring about greater resistance to the effort to legalise same-sex marriage.

Lee said the constitution would be amended to “protect the definition of marriage from being challenged constitutionally in the courts”, limiting the definition of marriage in Singapore to only between a man and a woman.

Enshrining the traditional definition of marriage could bring about more far-reaching legal consequences. Many of Singapore’s laws and policies are based on the existing definition of marriage, including public housing, education and media policies. Without changing the constitution to affirm the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman, these can be challenged under Article 12 of the constitution, which states that all people are equal before the law.