SINGAPORE — Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam's comments in Parliament on how the Government is "considering the best way forward" on Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises consensual sex between men, received contrasting responses from groups that are for and against the issue.

Religious communities stood by the reaffirmation of traditional family norms, after Mr Shanmugam said on Thursday that the Government will want to avoid causing a “sudden, destabilising change in social norms or public expectations” should changes to the law happen.

Those who advocate for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and others (LGBT+) community are hoping that the shifting attitudes towards the contentious matter is a step towards repealing law. 

However, both sides largely agreed with Mr Shanmugam on the need to engage key stakeholders in considering how to best move forward with the issue. 

On Thursday, the Cabinet minister was responding to a parliamentary question following Monday's Court of Appeal judgement, which ruled that Section 377A of the Penal Code is “unenforceable in its entirety” and poses no threat of prosecution. 

He said that "if and when" the Government decides to move on with this issue, it will "do so in a way that continues to balance between these different viewpoints”.

He added that the Government is "considering the best way forward" and by doing so, it must "respect the different viewpoints, consider them carefully, talk to the different groups". 

Mr Shanmugam also noted that social attitudes towards homosexuality have changed since 2007, when Parliament last debated the controversial provision. 

WHAT RELIGIOUS GROUPS SAY

The National Council of Churches Singapore (NCCS), which represents about 200 churches here, noted the position of the Government and the Attorney-General's Chambers, which is that Section 377A be retained but not proactively enforced. 

It said in a statement on Friday (March 4) that this "successfully achieves this delicate balance between the different (and opposing) interests of various groups".

"This 'unique compromise', which Singapore has struck, has worked so far in preventing a deeper wedge from being driven within our society," the council added. 

Agreeing, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis) said that it welcomes the Government’s commitment to "maintain family norms and values in Singapore".

"For Muslims, we are guided by the teachings and moral values of our faith, including on matters relating to sexuality, marriage, and the constitution of the family as an important social unit... At the same time, we must continue to treat everyone with respect and compassion." 

In a statement on Friday, the Sikh Advisory Board said that it agrees with "the balanced approach that the court has taken on the appeal against Section 377A".

"We believe this outcome considers and balances the interests of all segments of society and preserves social harmony and cohesion (and) encourage all interested parties to continue a constructive dialogue within society on this matter." 

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore, which oversees 32 Catholic churches here, said it is "fortunate that we have a Government that places stability and harmony in our multi-religious and multi-racial society above any sectarian interests".  

It added that it does not condone the marginalisation of "those who do not subscribe to (the Church’s) values, including those with LGBT+ orientation".

However, it asks that "others who do not subscribe to our values also respect our right to exercise our religious beliefs without fear or favour". 

The Alliance of Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches in Singapore (APCCS), which represents more than 80 churches here, affirmed the need to carefully balance different views in society while "avoiding the destabilisation of social norms". 

"APCCS expects that any change in Section 377A would lead to adjustments in national policies relating to marriage, family, children, education, media, housing and more.

"As the family unit is undermined or rewritten, the gradual erosion of societal strength and resilience follows... Any moves away from the status quo would result in a suite of knock-on effects."

WHAT PRO-LGBT+ GROUPS SAY

Some supporters of the LBGT+ community were disappointed by the court’s ruling to dismiss challenges to Section 377A, but they were encouraged by Mr Shanmugam's acknowledgement that social attitudes towards homosexuality have changed since 2007.

Mr Leow Yangfa, executive director of LGBT+ non-profit organisation Oogachaga, said he "agreed wholeheartedly" that there has been a shift in attitudes towards the community since 15 years ago. 

He pointed to studies by the Institute of Policy Studies and a survey done by TODAY as examples indicating this shift, where people are becoming more open to LGBT+ people.

Ms Pauline Ong, executive pastor at Free Community Church, also agreed with the shift, and she is "hopeful that one day our laws will reflect the just, inclusive and equal society that we strive to be".

Mr Shanmugam on Thursday also noted that members of the LGBT+ community are upset that their experience of being hurt or rejected by their families, friends, schools and employers is not recognised and often denied, but that on the other hand, “a large majority” want to preserve the overall tone of society.

Mr Clement Tan, speaking on behalf of LGBT+ advocacy group Pink Dot SG, told TODAY the group is "glad that Mr Shanmugam openly acknowledged the rejection and hurt faced by the LGBTQ+ community in Parliament". 

Agreeing, Mr Leow said that Oogachaga is "especially grateful" to the minister for acknowledging that "many members of Singapore's LGBT+ community have felt that our experiences of rejection have been ignored". 

"This display of empathy has been noted, and goes a small way towards healing some of the hurts we feel," Mr Leow added.

Some other pro-LGBT+ groups said that they are "cautiously optimistic" by what Mr Shanmugam had said. They believe that many LGBT+ individuals still face challenges due to the "trickle-down" effects of Section 377A. 

Mr Benjamin Xue, co-founder of LGBT+ youth support group Young Out Here, said that despite being "surprised" that Mr Shanmugam had taken some time to address the issue, the law still stands after the court ruling. 

"Its trickle-down effects affects (LGBT+ individuals') self-worth and the way they see themselves, in schools, at home, among their friends and in their future in Singapore.

"I do hope what Mr Shanmugam said yesterday marks a shift in the way LGBTQ+ (people) are treated in Singapore," he added.

"We understand acceptance takes time, but changes towards acceptance and inclusion needs to start now (and) repealing 377A is that start." 

Mr Shanmugam said on Thursday that socially charged issues such as Section 377A call for continued discussion in the political domain before a consensus can be sought, rather than in win-lose outcomes in court: “In this way, we can accommodate divergent interests, avoid polarisation and facilitate incremental change."

Ms Jean Chong, co-founder of LGBT+ rights group Sayoni, said that she is not clear about what Mr Shanmugam meant by "incremental change" and hopes that decisions can be made sooner. 

"The Government should immediately rectify the many policies that are discriminatory, enact laws to protect LGBTQ+ persons and repeal 377A."

NEED FOR MORE CONSULTATION

The groups on both sides of the issue may diverge in their thinking and responses to Mr Shanmugam's comments, but they both agreed that more consultation with various stakeholders would be welcomed. 

Muis said: "We support the Government’s approach for continued discussion and will continue to provide our feedback to the Government, guided by on our norms and values." 

NCCS likewise said that it will "continue to work closely with the Government as it considers the ‘best way forward’ on Section 377A". 

Mr Tan from Pink Dot SG said that the group is "encouraged by plans to review the situation in consultation with key stakeholders, especially where it involves updating legislation and policies". 

Ms Ong from Free Community Church added: "We hope that those who hold different perspectives would commit to continual dialogue and listening to one another, and come to know one another as fellow human beings, and through this, we would find a way forward together."