The AWARE takeover saga is approaching its 10th year anniversary. In March 2009, the Association for Women for Action and Research (“AWARE”), a not-for-profit NGO, was taken over by a group of women largely from the same Christian church (the Church of Our Saviour or “COOS”). The takeover was supposedly prompted by a perception that AWARE had become “pro-lesbian and pro-homosexual”, and this was against the values of the all-Christian women who took over.
With a group of all-Christian women at the helm, AWARE was in danger of losing its secular status, and becoming a solely-Christian organization. Eventually, past AWARE leadership (‘the old guard’) rallied support to oust the COOS-supported faction in an extraordinary general meeting.
One of the questions raised in this 2008 incident was the role of religion in public discourse and in influencing social norms. The general sentiment was that religious beliefs should not be allowed to unduly influence secular or public organisations. The National Council of Church even issued a statement expressly discouraging member churches from getting involved.
Nearly 10 years later, the same questions arise, and again over the topic of homosexuality in Singapore. This is due to India’s recent repeal of Section 377 of their Penal Code. This section effectively makes it a crime for one man to have sex with another, even in private or as between 2 consenting adults. In Singapore, although it could be in theory make criminals of all gay men, this is rarely enforced by the authorities. In India, this is now no longer a crime.
The question is whether Singapore should also repeal its own similar provision, section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code. The people calling to preserve the current position base this on their religious beliefs and concepts of “traditional values/ family” which, they say, is against homosexuality. However, it is worth looking at the history of this Penal Code and how it came about.
This Penal Code was imposed onto India and Singapore by our common British colonial masters. It was written in the early 19th century, by a law commission chaired by a Scotsman. In Victorian Britain, the Church of England held sway and played an extensive role in the British government, and the prevailing moral codes were strict and patriarchal.
From an Asian perspective, there is nothing particularly Asian or traditional about the Penal Code. It was written by a group of British civil servants in the era of Queen Victoria’s Great Britain, to keep Her Majesty’s colonies under control. There was no consultation of the natives or any consideration for the social norms in those colonies.
Post-independence, Singapore and India have retained the Penal Code for convenience. However the Penal Code is not held sacred, and is regularly updated to reflect changing societal realities. In fact, there is an ongoing Penal Code reform process in Singapore this year. Certain other parts of the Penal Code will be repealed, including an immunity for marital rape. A man who has sex with his wife, without her consent, may now be charged with rape. Previously this was not the case.
Victorian Britain allowed a man to force himself on his wife regardless of consent. This was part of their “traditional values” which 18th century British saw fit to export to their colonies. Unfortunately this remains part of the Indian Penal Code.
Clearly values are not always set in stone. From the Chinese perspective, it wasn’t so long ago that “traditional families” meant a man could have several wives or concubines if he could afford it, and to neglect or mistreat his female children as only male children were valuable. This is now no longer socially or legally acceptable.
Modern Singapore now prides itself as a secular state, with our diverse communities finding public space and common ground to come together. Although Christianity, Islam and Hindusim are minority religions, they are just a part of Singapore’s discourse as the majority Buddhists/ Taoists/ Chinese folk religion adherents.
Increasingly more Singaporeans are “nones” or “free-thinkers” – just as many as the Christians and more than the Muslims.
How, then, should societal norms be decided? By appealing to basic principles of rationality and fairness.
Currently, it is a generally accepted scientific fact that sexual orientation is a matter of nature and cannot be changed after birth. Of course, the person may choose how she/he wishes to act upon their orientation. For example, if an adult person is sexually attracted to children or to animals, society stops him/ her from acting upon these desires. This is to protect children or animals who have no capacity to consent to sexual intimacy.
Hence most countries, including Singapore, outlaw and criminalise pedophilia and bestiality for good reason, to protect vulnerable children and animals. For example, this is demonstrated by the various investigations into allegations of decades of pedophilia by Catholic priests around the world.
In Singapore, we do not generally criminalise acts between two consenting adults, so long as no physical harm is done to them or to any third party. Why, then, should we continue to criminalise acts of intimacy between consenting adult men, on the basis of a foreign Penal Code and colonial-era values?
In 2009, a secular organization was forcibly taken control by a small group, for their own narrow, religiously-motivated agenda. At that point, society vowed – never again. In 2018, the position is the same: Singapore and her public organisations must remain proudly secular and review our societal norms in accordance with logic, reason and fairness.
