Hubbry Logo
Section 377A (Singapore)Section 377A (Singapore)Main
Open search
Section 377A (Singapore)
Community hub
Section 377A (Singapore)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Section 377A (Singapore)
Section 377A (Singapore)
Section 377A (Singapore)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Section 377A was a law in Singapore that criminalised sex between consenting adult males. It was introduced under British colonial rule in 1938 when it was added to the Penal Code by the colonial government. It remained a part of the Singapore body of law after the Penal Code review of 2007 which removed most of the other provisions in Section 377. It was subsequently repealed in its entirety in 2023.

Prior to the repeal, Section 377A, while retained de jure in the Penal Code, had been for many years de facto unenforced – there had been no convictions for sex between consenting male adults in decades.[1] While a small number of people were convicted under the law for private consensual acts between adults from 1988 until 2007, enforcement effectively ceased outright following the Penal Code review, despite the law being formally retained until 2022.[2][3]: 42–47 

On 28 February 2022, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Singapore reaffirmed that 377A could not be used to prosecute men for having gay sex.[1] That same year, an Ipsos survey found that 44% of Singapore residents supported retaining the law, with 20% opposing it and the remaining 36% being ambivalent.[4] On 21 August 2022, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced during the annual National Day Rally that the government intended to repeal Section 377A, ending criminalisation de jure.[5][6] On 29 November 2022, the Parliament of Singapore passed a bill to repeal Section 377A.[7] The law was formally repealed after the bill was assented by President Halimah Yacob on 27 December 2022 and gazetted on 3 January 2023.[8]

Background

[edit]

The Indian Penal Code

[edit]
Lord Thomas Macaulay, who chaired the commission that introduced laws such as 377A.

The British Parliament formed the Indian Law Commission in 1833.[3]: 10–11  Lord Thomas Macaulay was appointed to chair the commission. The 1837 draft of the Indian Penal Code was largely his work. It took 23 years for his work to be reviewed by the commission and the Supreme Court judges in Mumbai, Calcutta, and Madras. The code was adopted in 1860 and took effect 1 January 1862.[3]: 11 

Macaulay's draft did not reflect existing Indian (or other Asian cultures) laws or customs. It was largely a rewrite of the British Royal Commission's 1843 draft code.[3]: 11  The adopted draft included a Section 377 (quoted above), but there were many ambiguities in the section, including the question of what had to penetrate what. These in turn let future jurists redefine what these provisions actually punished.[9]: 18  Under Buddhist and Hindu law in most of Asia, consensual intercourse between members of the same sex was never an offence. In the new Indian Penal Code, however, Section 377 criminalised "carnal intercourse against the order of nature", derived from words attributed to Sir Edward Coke in the seventeenth century.[9]: 14–15 

Section 377A "(Outrages on decency" was added to the sub-title "Unnatural offences" in the Straits Settlements in 1938.[9]: 20  Both sections were absorbed unchanged into the Singapore Penal Code when the latter was passed by Singapore's Legislative Council on 28 January 1955.

Original Section 377

[edit]
Main article: Section 377

Unnatural sex or sodomy was not defined in the Indian Penal Code drafted by the British. Legal records show that Indian legislators in the 19th and early 20th centuries interpreted "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" between individuals (of all sexes – the law being non-gender specific with its use of the word "whoever") to include anal sex, bestiality and, often after much courtroom deliberation, oral sex as well, i.e. any form of sexual penetration which did not have the potential for procreation.

Therefore, both heterosexual and homosexual oral and anal sex were criminal offences. In this particular positive sense, Section 377 did not discriminate against homosexuals, although the permission of vaginal penetration left homosexuals exclusively prohibited from performing penetrative sex. The prohibition against oral sex was at odds with British sodomy law, whose case law did not cover oral penetration.[10] Section 377, however, in early cases tried in India mainly involved forced fellatio with unwilling male children and one unusual case of sexual intercourse with the nostril of a buffalo.

In the Singaporean context, the Court of Appeal eventually held that heterosexual fellatio was exempted if indulged in as foreplay which eventually leads to coitus:[11] This rationale explicitly confirmed that oral or anal penetration as a substitute for vaginal-penile penetration was permitted, whereas oral stimulation - including penetration of the oral cavity - could be practised as an introduction (or even prerequisite) to heterosexual sexual penetration, and hence outside the scope of the law.

[I]t is a fact of life, in humans as well as in animals, that before the act of copulation takes place there is foreplay to stimulate the sex urge. Kissing is the most common although there are several others...

Of course, this form of contrectation [fellatio or cunnilingus] may not recommend itself to everyone for stimulating the sex urge. Even a man and a woman engaged in consensual sexual intercourse may draw the line at fellatio or cunnilingus. But the fact remains that it is practised by some. We note...that [there is] some statistical evidence...of these forms of oral sex being practised in Singapore. We cannot shut our minds to it.

[W]hen couples engaged in consensual sexual intercourse willingly indulge in fellatio and cunnilingus as a stimulant to their respective sexual urges, neither act can be considered to be against the order of nature and punishable under s 377 of the Penal Code. In every other instance the act of fellatio between a man and a woman will be carnal intercourse against the order of nature and punishable under s 377.

The Singaporean margin note of the original Section 377 further explained that mere penetration of the penis into the anus or mouth even without orgasm would constitute the offence. The law applied regardless of the act being consensual between both parties and done in private.

Section 377 was repealed in the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2007[12] and replaced with a new Section 377 criminalising sex with dead bodies ("Sexual penetration of a corpse"), which was substituted in its place.[13]

Section 377A

[edit]

Section 377A was introduced into the Singapore Penal Code in 1938 to criminalise all other non-penetrative sexual acts. It is descended from the Labouchere Amendment.[14][unreliable source?]

In the local context, "gross indecency" is a broad term which, from a review of past cases locally, has been applied to mutual masturbation, genital contact, or even lewd behaviour without direct physical contact. As with the former Section 377, performing such acts in private does not constitute a defence. The law does not criminalise sex between females, only between males.[15]

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.[16]

— Outrages on decency, Section 377A, Singapore Penal Code

Its original mother statute, Section 377 (since repealed), criminalised any sexual act that went "against the order of nature":[17]

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.

— Singapore Penal Code, Section 377

Public opinion

[edit]
See also: LGBT rights in Singapore

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) was quoted in The Straits Times of 18 September 2007 saying that public feedback on the issue had been "emotional, divided and strongly expressed", with a majority of people calling for Section 377A to be retained.[18] The MHA also said that it recognised that "we are generally a conservative society and that we should let the situation evolve".

On 3 October 2007, an online appeal was launched via the "Repeal 377A" website[19] to gather signatories for an open letter to the Prime Minister calling for the repeal of Section 377A. In response, a counter-petition on the website "Keep 377A"[20] was set up to give citizens a channel to voice support for the Government's retention of the law. By 1:30 p.m. on 20 October, Keep377A had overtaken Repeal377A by 7,068 to 7,058 signatories.[21] As online petitions, both websites suffered the same doubts regarding the credibility of the numbers of their signatories. There was no mention of whether technical measures were taken to ensure that multiple-voting by the same person was prevented.

In 2018, an Ipsos survey found that 55% of Singapore residents supported retaining Section 377A.[22]

Shortly after the Penal Code review report was released on 9 September 2018,[23] a movement known as Ready4Repeal launched a petition to campaign for Section 377A to be repealed, even though MHA and Ministry of Law said there were no plans to do so. The petition attracted 44,650 signatures. Ready4Repeal also held a town hall meeting on 30 September 2018, which over 800 people attended. In contrast, a petition calling for Section 377A to be kept attracted more than 109,000 signatures after it closed on 24 September 2018.[24]

In 2022, Ipsos made another survey, noting that this figure had dropped to 44% compared to its 2018 survey, amid changing attitudes towards same-sex relationships.[4]

Constitutional challenges

[edit]

Section 377A was repeatedly challenged before the courts of Singapore as being unconstitutional. All challenges were chiefly based on Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore, which guarantees all persons equality before the law, and Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore, which guarantees all persons the right to life and the right to personal liberty.

Tan Eng Hong v. Attorney-General

[edit]

On 24 September 2010, criminal lawyer M Ravi filed an application in the High Court to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A on behalf of his client Tan Eng Hong, who was charged for allegedly having oral sex with another consenting adult male in a locked cubicle of a public toilet.[25]

On 19 March 2011, Tan's case was thrown out of court by High Court justice Lai Siu Chiu, citing "a lack of a real controversy" for the court to deal with.[26] This is important, as according to the Rules of Court (Cap. 322 § 80, O 18 r. 19, 1996 Rev. Ed.), only cases which are not "frivolous" may be argued. However, on 21 August 2012, the Court of Appeal reversed Lai's decision, ruling that 377A did "affect the lives of a not insignificant portion of [Singaporeans] in a very real and intimate way" and that the case would proceed once again in the High Court.[27]

Tan's case was finally heard on 6 March 2013,[28] and decided against him by justice Quentin Loh on 2 October 2013.[29] In his ruling, Loh wrote that the issue was one of "morality and societal values" and if it were to be changed, it would have to be by Singapore's Parliament. Tan appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal, and his case was joined at his request as an intervening party with Lim Meng Suang and another v. Attorney-General (below), which was also pending before the Court of Appeal, on 11 October 2013.[30]

Lim Meng Suang and another v. Attorney-General

[edit]

After Tan's successful appeal to be heard by the court, a separate constitutional challenge was filed on 30 November 2012 on behalf of Lim Meng Suang and Kenneth Chee Mun-leon, a gay couple of fifteen years, by attorney Peter Low.[31][32] The case was heard in camera on 14 February 2013,[33] and decided against them by justice Quentin Loh on 9 April 2013, for much the same reasons as his decision against Tan (above).[34] Lim and Chee appealed to the Court of Appeal on 30 April 2013.[35][36] In July 2013, after a successful crowdfunding campaign, they hired two highly esteemed lawyers: Deborah Barker, Senior Counsel at KhattarWong LLP, and British lawyer, Debevoise & Plimpton partner and former Attorney General for England and Wales Lord Peter Henry Goldsmith.[37] Goldsmith had agreed to take the case without pay,[38] but that September was disallowed from arguing the case before the court by Justice V. K. Rajah, as he believed that the legal issues were arguable by domestic lawyers, which is preferred by Singapore law.[39]

On 29 October 2014, more than four years after the original challenge by Tan, the Court of Appeal, the highest court in Singapore, rejected Lim and Chee's challenge, finally ending the case.[40][41] The court held that 377A was consistent with Article 9 as it is meant to protect against unlawful imprisonment, and that it was consistent with Article 12 as it only mentions religion, race and place of birth—not gender, sexual orientation, or sex.[40] As in all judgments before, the court held that any legal remedy would have to come about through an Act of Parliament.[40]

Compared to news of LGBT rights in other nations such as Russia and the United States, the case and final appeal received little attention outside Singapore.[42] The Huffington Post featured Chee and Lim's story prominently under the headline "How One of the World's Richest Countries Is Limiting Basic Human Rights"[43] and Bloomberg also published an article on the ruling.[41]

Ong Ming Johnson v. Attorney-General and other matters

[edit]

On 29 August 2018, Professor Ho Kwon Ping in his talk questioned the need for Section 377A in Singapore.[44] After India's Supreme Court decriminalised sex between two people of the same sex, with Professor Tommy Koh encouraging a constitutional challenge of Section 377A and chief of Singapore government communications Mr Janadas Devan hoping that Section 377A would go,[45] several constitutional challenges have been brought to the Supreme Court.

The first challenge after India's ruling was filed on 10 September 2018 by Johnson Ong, known by stage name DJ Big Kid, and was based on Article 9 of the Constitution.[46] The second challenge was filed by LGBT rights activist Choong Chee Hong in November 2018 and argues that Section 377A is inconsistent with Articles 9, 12 and 14 of the Constitution.[47] A third was filed by retired general practitioner Tan Seng Kee on 20 September 2019, also based on Articles 9, 12 and 14 of the Constitution. In addition, he argued that although the Government will not enforce the law on acts done in private, the Public Prosecutor can decide whether to prosecute someone under Section 377A, which would be inconsistent with Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires the police to "unconditionally investigate all complaints of suspected arrestable offences".[48]

On 30 March 2020, justice See Kee Oon consolidated the three challenges into one case and ruled against them, arguing that the law was intended to safeguard morals and prosecute all forms of indecency between men whether in public or private, and not just male prostitution when the law was made in 1938. He also stated that there's no strong scientific evidence that a person's sexual orientation is unchangeable, and once again ruled that Parliament is the proper venue for repeal.[49][50] Appeals were filed on 31 March 2020.[51]

On 28 February 2022, it was ruled by the Court of Appeal that, because the law is not enforced, the constitutional challenges against it had failed.[1][52]

Repeal of Section 377A

[edit]

On 21 August 2022, Prime Minister Lee announced during his 2022 National Day Rally speech that Section 377A would be repealed by the government. Lee stated that "I believe this is the right thing to do and something that most Singaporeans will now accept. This will bring the law into line with current social norms and, I hope, provide some relief to gay Singaporeans." Laws to repeal 377A were introduced on 20 October, with a two-day debate that started on 28 November.[5][6]

Parliamentary vote

[edit]
English Wikisource has original text related to this article:

On 29 November 2022, the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, which repealed Section 377A, passed in Parliament following a 10-hour debate that had begun the day prior. A total of 96 MPs voted on the topic of repeal, with all 83 People's Action Party (PAP) MPs and three WP's MPs voting in favour, while two other WP's MPs, Gerald Giam and Dennis Tan, as well as nominated MP Hoon Hian Teck, voted against.[7] All members of the ruling party PAP voted according to the party's position as the party whip was not lifted, while WP lifted its party whip.[53]

With a vote of 85 to 2, a constitutional amendment to protect the definition of marriage from legal challenge was approved. Two Workers Party MPs, Sylvia Lim and He Ting Ru, abstained from the vote.[7] Hazel Poa and Leong Mun Wai, both Progress Singapore Party non-constituency Members of Parliament, declared that they would oppose the proposed amendment because they think a national referendum should be held to decide what constitutes marriage.[54]

The bill was assented by President Halimah Yacob on 27 December 2022 and gazetted on 3 January 2023, thus Section 377A was struck off the books.[55][56]

Post-repeal plans

[edit]

The Law and Home Affairs Minister, K Shanmugam, told Parliament in November 2022 that only a "small" number of people were convicted under the section for private consensual acts between adults from 1988 until 2007, when enforcement effectively ceased outright.[2] The Minister stated he would direct the Ministry for Home Affairs (MHA) to consider how these records could be purged. Days after the repeal bill passed, the MHA added that the records of 17 people convicted under Section 377A during that time period could have their criminal records expunged and rendered spent.[57]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Section 377A (Singapore)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Section 377A was a provision in the Penal Code criminalizing any male person who commits, abets, procures, or attempts to procure an act of with another male person in public or private, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment. Enacted in 1938 during British colonial rule in Settlements, it was modeled on the United Kingdom's Labouchere Amendment of 1885 and retained after 's independence in 1965, unlike broader unnatural offenses under which were repealed in 2007. The law's enforcement was selective and infrequent, primarily targeting indecency or non-consensual acts rather than private consensual conduct between adults, following a government clarification that it would not be proactively enforced in the latter cases. Multiple constitutional challenges between 2010 and 2020, arguing violations of equality and , were dismissed by the courts, which deferred to Parliament's and discretion in a conservative . remained divided, with surveys indicating majority support for retention into the early 2020s, reflecting tensions between evolving attitudes and traditional . In August 2022, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced the repeal to preempt potential judicial invalidation amid shifting societal views, while simultaneously amending the Constitution to entrench the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, safeguarding against expansions in adoption, housing, or other family policies favoring same-sex unions. The repeal passed Parliament on November 29, 2022, decriminalizing male homosexual acts without altering Singapore's stance on promoting procreation-based family structures or introducing anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation. This pragmatic resolution balanced legal certainty with conservative norms, averting deeper cultural polarization.

Historical Origins

British Colonial Influences and the Indian Penal Code

The (IPC), enacted in 1860 under British colonial rule in , served as a foundational model for criminal legislation across the , including in the Straits Settlements that encompassed . Drafted primarily by as part of the First Law Commission's efforts starting in 1834, the IPC systematically codified offenses, drawing from English common law principles while adapting them to colonial administration needs. of the IPC specifically criminalized "carnal intercourse against the order of nature," encompassing acts such as and bestiality, with penalties up to ; this provision was modeled on the English Buggery Act of 1533, reflecting Victorian-era moral standards imposed extraterritorially. British authorities extended the IPC's framework to the Straits Settlements through the Straits Settlements Penal Code of , which mirrored its structure and substantive provisions, including anti-sodomy clauses under Section 377. This adoption standardized criminal law in territories like , , and , prioritizing uniformity and ease of governance over local customary practices, which often lacked such codified prohibitions on private consensual acts. The colonial rationale emphasized public order and moral reform, viewing indigenous legal traditions as insufficiently rigorous; however, historical analyses indicate that pre-colonial Southeast Asian societies, including those in , exhibited more tolerant attitudes toward diverse sexual expressions, undocumented in formal penal codes. Section 's broad language against "unnatural offenses" laid the groundwork for subsequent refinements in 's legal evolution, influencing the 1938 enactment of Section 377A, which targeted male homosexual acts explicitly as "." While Section 377 applied to both genders and non-human acts, its colonial imposition entrenched a framework that equated non-procreative intercourse with criminality, diverging from of varied cultural norms in the region. This legacy persisted post-independence, as retained much of the inherited penal code, underscoring the enduring impact of British legal transplants on local .

Enactment of Section 377A in 1938

Section 377A was introduced through an to the Straits Settlements Penal Code in 1938 under British colonial administration. The provision was added to the chapter on "Unnatural offences," targeting male same-sex activities beyond penetrative acts covered by existing Section 377. It stipulated that "any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures, or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of with another male person" would face up to two years' imprisonment, a fine, or both. This filled a perceived legal gap by explicitly criminalizing non-consummated forms of male homosexual conduct, drawing from the British Criminal Law Act of 1885, which had similarly prohibited "" between men in the UK. The bill was moved in the Straits Settlements Legislative Council by Attorney-General C. G. Howell during mid-1938, with limited recorded debate on its introduction. Official legislative history remains sparse, as noted by Singapore's Ministry of Home Affairs, which has acknowledged the absence of detailed records explaining the motivations. Historical analysis indicates the enactment occurred amid colonial concerns over scandals involving European men and local male prostitutes, which threatened to undermine British racial prestige and in the colony. Rather than a broad anti-homosexual crusade, the law appears designed to regulate interracial sexual encounters and curb visible vice in urban centers like , preserving the social order of imperial rule. Upon passage, Section 377A took effect immediately as part of the amended Penal Code applicable to the Settlements, including , , and . The provision persisted post-World War II and in 1965, integrated into 's national Penal Code without substantive alteration until its repeal in 2022. Its 1938 origins reflect British efforts to impose Victorian-era sexual norms on colonial subjects, prioritizing administrative control over indigenous practices.

Distinction Between Sections 377 and 377A

Section 377 of the Penal Code, inherited from the of 1860, prohibited "carnal intercourse against the order of nature," defined as acts including anal penetration or bestiality, irrespective of the participants' genders or sexual orientations. This provision applied to penetrative offenses involving men with men, men with women, or humans with animals, carrying potential penalties of or up to 10 years' with a fine. In practice, it targeted sodomy-like acts but required evidence of penetration for conviction. Section 377A, enacted in 1938 as an addition specific to Settlements, criminalized "any act of " between male persons, whether in public or private, including abetment or of such acts, punishable by up to 2 years' . Unlike , it encompassed a broader range of non-penetrative male-male sexual conduct, such as oral-genital contact or mutual , without requiring penetration, and exclusively applied to males, excluding female same-sex acts or heterosexual equivalents. This distinction arose from English influences, where mirrored prohibitions on buggery, while Section 377A addressed perceived gaps in criminalizing other homosexual behaviors deemed indecent by colonial authorities. The provisions operated complementarily until Section 377's repeal on October 31, 2007, during amendments to modernize sexual offense laws and consolidate under new sections (375–377B), as the original phrasing had been invoked in over 70% of child sex prosecutions since 2000. Section 377A remained intact post-2007, retaining its targeted focus on male indecency, though rarely enforced against consenting adults, with no convictions recorded since at least despite investigative uses in public order cases. This selective retention highlighted legislative intent to differentiate general unnatural offenses from specific male homosexual acts, preserving the latter amid debates on societal norms.

Enforcement History and Rarity of Prosecutions

Section 377A, enacted in , has seen infrequent enforcement throughout its history, with prosecutions primarily targeting public acts of indecency or cases involving , minors, or non-consent rather than private consensual conduct between adult males. From 1988 to 2007, a total of 252 individuals were convicted under the provision, but only 17 of these cases—concerning living persons as of 2022—involved consensual private homosexual acts between adults. Earlier data from 1988 to 2003 indicate even greater sparsity, with just eight convictions across seven incidents, two for and six for carnal intercourse against the order of nature. Such rarity reflects a pattern of selective application, often in tandem with other offenses, rather than systematic pursuit of private behavior. Government policy explicitly de-emphasized enforcement against private acts starting in the mid-2000s. During 2007 parliamentary debates on retaining the post-repeal of , officials stated that the state would not regulate consensual adult conduct in private, signaling non-proactive prosecution thereafter. No convictions for private consensual acts have been recorded since 2007. This stance was formalized in an October 2018 Attorney-General's Chambers statement affirming non-enforcement for such acts, a position upheld by the Court of Appeal in February 2022, which ruled the law unenforceable against private consensual due to this . Prior to repeal on January 3, 2023, the provision thus functioned more as a symbolic deterrent than an actively litigated statute for adult private conduct.

Societal and Cultural Dimensions

Role of Conservative Values and Religious Perspectives

Singapore's conservative societal values, rooted in traditional family structures and pro-natalist policies, have historically underscored the retention of Section 377A as a marker of moral boundaries against non-procreative sexual conduct. articulated in his 2022 National Day Rally speech that remains "a with conservative social values," where the institution of marriage is defined as between to support family formation and child-rearing, viewing deviations like male as conflicting with these norms. This perspective aligns with broader "" emphasized by 's leadership since the 1990s, prioritizing communal harmony, , and heterosexual marriage over individual sexual autonomy, which influenced decisions to maintain Section 377A despite infrequent enforcement. Religious perspectives, particularly from Christian denominations, reinforced conservative opposition to repeal, framing Section 377A as a safeguard for biblical teachings on sexuality and family. The of Singapore (NCCS), representing major Protestant bodies, described retaining Section 377A as a "bulwark against the advancement of alternative conceptions of public morality," arguing it signaled societal disapproval of homosexual acts viewed as contrary to scriptural prohibitions. Similarly, Assemblies of God Singapore, overseeing 48 churches, expressed disappointment over the 2022 repeal announcement, contending it eroded moral standards without addressing underlying ethical concerns. Evangelical leaders, such as those from groups like LoveSingapore, had previously mobilized petitions and statements in the , urging retention to protect children and traditional marriage from perceived normalization of . Catholic and Muslim leaders adopted more measured stances, prioritizing religious freedoms and marriage definitions over active criminalization. Archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of stated a neutral position on in 2022, emphasizing pastoral care for individuals while upholding church doctrine against homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered. The Islamic Religious Council of (MUIS) concurred with as a private matter but stressed constitutional protections for marriage to align with Sharia-influenced views on family and gender roles. Buddhist and Taoist organizations, such as the Singapore Taoist Federation, neither opposed nor supported , reflecting a pragmatic focus on personal conduct amid 's multi-religious fabric, though conservative elements within these faiths echoed concerns over societal moral drift. These positions collectively influenced parliamentary debates, where religious submissions advocated for Section 377A's symbolic role in preserving conservative ethical frameworks against liberalizing pressures.

Empirical Data on Public Opinion and Attitude Shifts

Surveys conducted by in 2005 and 2010 indicated a gradual shift in attitudes toward homosexuals in , with negative views decreasing from higher levels in 2005 to 64.5% in 2010, while positive attitudes rose to 25.3% and neutral responses reached 10.2%. A 2014 national survey found 70.6% opposition to legalizing , reflecting persistent conservative sentiments amid emerging interpersonal contact and media exposure influences on attitudes. The Institute of Policy Studies at the tracked moral attitudes from 2013 to 2024, revealing a 27 percentage point decline in disapproval of gay sex, from 80% holding prohibitive views in 2013 to approximately 53% in 2024, though acceptance varied significantly across religious groups, with non-religious respondents showing faster liberalization. Ipsos polls specifically on Section 377A showed majority support in 2018, with 55% of backing the law criminalizing male homosexual acts, despite one-third reporting increased personal acceptance of same-sex relationships over the prior five years. By 2022, support had eroded to 44%, with opposition rising from 12% to 20%, signaling heightened inclusivity but retaining a plurality in favor amid broader attitudinal softening. A separate August 2022 poll indicated 43% favored repeal—roughly double the proportion explicitly opposing it—while two-thirds endorsed constitutional protections for traditional marriage definitions, underscoring divided opinion with conservative majorities on family policy. These trends reflect incremental liberalization driven by demographic factors like youth cohorts and urban exposure, yet consistently shows no consensus for full or expanded prior to the 2023 repeal, with methodological notes from emphasizing nationally representative sampling of adults aged 18 and above. Post-repeal data through 2024 confirms ongoing shifts but persistent majorities uncomfortable with homosexual acts, tempering narratives of rapid societal transformation.

Judicial Challenges

Tan Eng Hong v. Attorney-General (2011–2015)

In January 2010, Tan Eng Hong, a Singaporean man, was arrested alongside another male individual for allegedly engaging in within a locked cubicle of a at the shopping mall. The pair were charged under Section 377A of the Penal Code for committing an act of between males, with formal charges filed against Tan on 2 September 2010. However, the Attorney-General's Chambers later withdrew the Section 377A charges against Tan on 15 October 2010, substituting them with a charge under Section 294(a) for obscene acts in public; Tan pleaded guilty to the latter and received a fine of S$1,000. Undeterred by the withdrawal, Tan, represented by lawyer , filed an originating summons in the on 24 September 2010—prior to the charge substitution—seeking a declaration that Section 377A was unconstitutional, arguing it violated Articles 9(1) ( and personal liberty), 12(1) ( and equal protection), and 14(1)(a) ( and expression) of the . The initially dismissed the application on 15 March 2011, ruling that Tan lacked locus standi (legal standing) to challenge the provision after the charges were amended, as he no longer faced direct prosecution under Section 377A and thus did not demonstrate a sufficient personal interest or genuine threat of enforcement. Tan appealed the locus standi decision to the Court of Appeal, which in Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General SGCA 45 (delivered on 21 August 2012) overturned the , granting him standing to proceed with the substantive challenge. The appellate court reasoned that under Article 4 (which voids laws inconsistent with the ) applies prospectively and irrespective of a law's enactment date relative to the 's entrenchment in 1965; it rejected the government's argument that pre-1965 laws like Section 377A enjoyed presumptive validity absent explicit repugnancy. The Court emphasized that Tan's prior charging under Section 377A evidenced a real, non-hypothetical risk of enforcement, satisfying the "sufficient interest" test for declaratory relief, even post-withdrawal, as police and could revive similar prosecutions. This marked the first judicial affirmation of standing to contest Section 377A's validity in courts. Remitted to the for substantive hearing, Justice Lai Siu Chiu in Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General SGHC 199 (judgment dated 2 October 2013, reported at 4 SLR 1059) dismissed Tan's claims, upholding Section 377A's constitutionality. On Article 12(1), the court found no unequal protection, classifying the law as targeting specific conduct (carnal intercourse against the order of nature between males) rather than per se, and applying a rational basis test: the provision advanced a legitimate state interest in safeguarding public morality against perceived harms of male homosexual acts, without arbitrary classification. Article 9(1) claims were rejected, as deprivation of liberty required (e.g., ), which Tan had received, and the law's existence did not preemptively infringe personal autonomy without prosecution. The Article 14 challenge failed, with the court holding that any incidental speech element in intimate acts did not elevate them to protected expression warranting broader scrutiny. Tan appealed the ruling, with proceedings joined to the parallel challenge by Lim Meng Suang. The Court of Appeal, in Lim Meng Suang v Attorney-General SGCA 53 (delivered on 29 October 2014), unanimously dismissed both appeals, affirming Section 377A's validity. The five-judge coram elaborated that originalist interpretation of the —considering framers' intent and societal context in 1965—precluded reading in progressive rights like non-discrimination on , absent clear textual warrant; the provision reflected historical criminalization of male homosexual conduct for moral and public order reasons, rationally connected to preventing a perceived "" toward societal decay. Courts deferred to on moral legislation, applying minimal scrutiny unless arbitrariness was evident, and noted Section 377A's rare enforcement (fewer than six prosecutions in decades) did not render it otiose or discriminatory. This decision, while not formally appealed further by 2015, set emphasizing legislative primacy over judicial invalidation of colonial-era laws on evolving social norms.

Lim Meng Suang v. Attorney-General (2013–2014)

Lim Meng Suang, a Singaporean man in a long-term with Kenneth Chee since the 1990s, filed an originating summons in the on 6 February 2013, seeking declarations that Section 377A of the Penal Code violated Articles 9 ( and personal liberty) and 12 () of the . Unlike contemporaneous challenges involving arrests, Lim's application was a preemptive constitutional challenge without prior prosecution under the section. The Attorney-General opposed, arguing that Section 377A served the legitimate purpose of protecting in Singapore's conservative society and did not infringe as interpreted under local constitutional principles. High Court Justice Quentin Loh heard the matter on 14 February 2013 and delivered judgment on 9 April 2013, dismissing the application. On Article 12, Loh J applied a two-stage test derived from prior : first, identifying whether the law pursued a legitimate aim, which he affirmed as safeguarding against perceived harms of male homosexual conduct; second, assessing whether the means were rationally connected to that aim, concluding that criminalization provided a deterrent without requiring proof of actual . He rejected claims of arbitrariness, noting that Article 12 permits reasonable and does not mandate identical treatment across sexual orientations, emphasizing Singapore's historical and societal context over expansive foreign interpretations. For Article 9, the held it protects against arbitrary executive deprivation of but does not confer substantive to or in private consensual acts, distinguishing Singapore's constitutional framework from broader models. Loh J underscored that defers to legislative policy on moral issues absent clear constitutional violation, preserving democratic space for elected representatives. Lim appealed to the Court of Appeal, which consolidated the matter with the appeal from Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General and heard arguments on 11 and 12 August 2014. On 29 October 2014, a three-judge panel (Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Judges of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and V K Rajah) dismissed the appeal in a unanimous judgment, affirming the High Court's reasoning while providing deeper analysis. The court clarified Article 12's scope, rooted in Singapore's 1965 independence constitution rather than a "living" instrument evolving with global norms, rejecting strict scrutiny or proportionality tests as incompatible with the text's original intent modeled on limited equality guarantees. It upheld public morality—including prevailing views on family units and procreation—as a valid legislative aim, with Section 377A's targeted prohibition on male acts rationally advancing deterrence without overbreadth, as the law's existence signaled societal disapproval even amid rare prosecutions. On Article 9, the panel reiterated its procedural safeguards against arbitrariness but declined to extend it to substantive decriminalization, cautioning against judicial overreach into moral legislation better suited to Parliament. The decision emphasized empirical deference to Singapore's unique socio-cultural fabric, where moral legislation reflects majority values rather than minority rights claims, and noted that post-colonial retention of Section 377A evidenced deliberate policy choice. This ruling stood as authoritative precedent on Section 377A's constitutionality until its legislative repeal in 2022.

Ong Siang Johnson v. Attorney-General (2020–2022)

In 2018, Ong Ming Johnson and Choong Chee Hong filed separate originating summonses in the challenging the of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalizes any act of between male persons, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment. Dr. Tan Seng Kee filed a similar application in 2019, which was consolidated with the others. The plaintiffs argued that Section 377A violated Articles 9(1) ( and personal liberty), 12(1) (equal protection of the law), and 14 (, assembly, and association) of the , contending that it arbitrarily targeted male homosexual acts without rational basis, infringed on personal autonomy in private consensual conduct, and suppressed expression of . The Attorney-General defended the provision as a valid exercise of legislative authority to protect , emphasizing that it addressed specific acts rather than innate status and was not rendered obsolete by selective non-enforcement. Hearings took place in November 2019 before Justice See Kee Oon. On 30 March 2020, the dismissed all three applications in Ong Ming Johnson v Attorney-General and other matters SGHC 63. The court held that Section 377A pursued the legitimate aim of safeguarding public morality by proscribing male homosexual conduct, including private consensual acts, and bore a rational relation to this purpose under the reasonable classification test for Article 12(1). It rejected claims under Article 9(1), ruling that the provision did not deprive individuals of on grounds of immutable traits like , as no established as fixed or biological; instead, it regulated conduct deemed morally harmful. Regarding Article 14, the court clarified that freedom of expression protects communicative acts, not physical sexual intimacy, and any incidental impact on expression was proportionate. The judgment noted that non-proactive enforcement since a 2007 parliamentary assurance did not nullify the law's validity or purpose, as statutes retain force absent formal repeal. The plaintiffs appealed, with arguments heard by the Court of Appeal in January 2021. On 28 February 2022, in Tan Seng Kee and others v Attorney-General SGCA 16, a five-judge panel comprising Chief Justice and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang Boon Leong, Judith Prakash, Tay Yong Kwang, and dismissed the appeals unanimously. The court affirmed the High Court's identification of Section 377A's purpose as protecting public morality against male homosexual acts, rejecting narrower interpretations like targeting only or non-penetrative conduct based on historical legislative records. However, due to the Attorney-General's consistent policy of non-enforcement against private consensual adult acts—stemming from and reiterated in 2018— the court found no credible threat of prosecution, depriving appellants of standing to pursue constitutional challenges. It introduced a novel doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations, rendering Section 377A practically unenforceable unless the Attorney-General issued clear of resumed prosecutions, thereby preserving legislative intent while averting arbitrary enforcement. The decision avoided merits-based rulings on Articles 9, 12, or 14, noting that Article 14 does not encompass non-communicative sexual acts and that equal protection claims presupposed an actionable deprivation under Article 9. This outcome maintained the legal status quo amid ongoing societal debates, without altering the provision's textual validity.

Repeal and Immediate Aftermath

Government Decision-Making Process (2022)

In February 2022, the Court of Appeal ruled in Ong Siang Johnson v. Attorney-General that Section 377A remained constitutionally valid but could not be enforced against private, consensual sexual acts between adult men, effectively rendering it unenforceable in such cases while deferring to on substantive . This judgment prompted the Cabinet to intensify its review of the provision, assessing its legal viability, societal impact, and alignment with evolving norms. The government conducted extensive consultations with stakeholders, including religious leaders, LGBT groups, and the broader public, to gauge views on . These discussions revealed a societal shift toward greater acceptance of individuals, particularly among younger , with many regarding as a private matter not warranting , though a majority supported retaining the traditional definition of as between . On August 21, 2022, Prime Minister announced during his National Day Rally speech that the government would repeal Section 377A, citing its outdated nature as a 1930s colonial-era law, the absence of law-and-order concerns in private consensual acts, and the high risk of future judicial invalidation under Article 12's . To mitigate potential downstream effects, the decision included plans to amend Article 156 of the , enshrining as a union between a man and a woman and shielding related policies from legal challenges, thereby preserving parliamentary authority over family and social issues. This balanced approach aimed to decriminalize without endorsing broader changes to or family structures, reflecting the government's assessment of 's conservative-leaning, multi-religious society.

Parliamentary Proceedings and Enactment (November 2022–January 2023)

The second reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, which sought to Section 377A, commenced on 28 November 2022, alongside debates on the companion Constitution of the Republic of (Amendment) Bill aimed at enshrining protections for the traditional definition of . Home Affairs Minister opened the debate on the Penal Code Bill, articulating the government's rationale for : to remove criminalization of consensual adult male homosexual acts amid evolving societal attitudes and international pressures, while maintaining that this did not endorse or promote such acts, and emphasizing 's conservative family-centric values. He highlighted the rarity of prosecutions under Section 377A—none since —and argued that retaining the had become untenable for addressing modern issues like support for affected individuals, without altering policies on or . The two-day debate, lasting approximately 10 hours, featured contributions from 30 Members of Parliament, reflecting a spectrum of views on balancing decriminalization with safeguards against perceived threats to social cohesion. Proponents, including government backbenchers, supported repeal as a pragmatic step to foster inclusivity without judicial overreach, citing public consultations showing majority conservative sentiment alongside calls for law reform. Critics, such as Workers' Party MP Pritam Singh and Nominated MP Antonio Tan, raised concerns over potential "slippery slopes" toward broader LGBTQ+ demands, including same-sex marriage, and questioned whether repeal adequately addressed parental rights in sex education or military cohesion. The concurrent constitutional debate focused on inserting a new Article 156(5), restricting challenges to marriage's definition as between a man and a woman to Parliament alone, with Law Minister K. Shanmugam defending it as a bulwark against activist litigation seen in other jurisdictions. On 29 November 2022, the Penal Code Bill passed its second and third readings with 93 votes in favor and 3 against, followed by the Constitution Bill passing 85 to 2, with no calls for division on the committee stage amendments. The bills received Presidential assent shortly thereafter, and the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2022 was gazetted on 27 December 2022, with repeal of Section 377A taking effect on 3 January 2023; the constitutional amendments commenced simultaneously. This enactment decriminalized private consensual acts between adult males but preserved all other Penal Code provisions on public indecency and related offenses, aligning with the government's stated intent to decriminalize without destigmatizing or altering public policy frameworks.

Post-Repeal Landscape

Constitutional Safeguards for Traditional Marriage

In tandem with the repeal of Section 377A on January 31, 2023, the enacted constitutional amendments on November 29, 2022, to insulate the definition of marriage from judicial invalidation under fundamental liberties provisions. These changes, introduced via the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 3) Bill, added Article 156, which empowers the legislature to "define, regulate, protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the institution of marriage" while shielding related laws from challenges under Articles 9 to 16 of the Constitution. The amendment passed with 80 votes in favor, 8 against, and 0 abstentions, reflecting broad support from the ruling . Article 156(3)(a) specifically protects any law that defines as the union of one man and one woman, or policies predicated on such a definition, from being on grounds of violating equality or rights. This provision addresses potential litigation risks post-repeal, as prior judicial challenges to Section 377A had invoked constitutional equal protection arguments, prompting concerns that courts might extend scrutiny to marriage laws. The government maintained that , historically defined under the Women's Charter (Section 2) and Interpretation Act (Section 2(1)) as a monogamous union between one man and one woman, serves pro-natalist objectives in a low-fertility society, with total fertility rates declining to 1.05 in 2023. emphasized in his August 21, 2022, National Day Rally speech that the safeguards preserve societal consensus on structures without entrenching the definition verbatim in the , allowing legislative flexibility. The amendments also extend protections to parenthood norms, barring invalidation of laws restricting parenthood recognition to biological or adoption-based ties within heterosexual marriages. Law Minister K. Shanmugam clarified during October 20, 2022, parliamentary debates that these measures prevent "activist judges" from redefining institutions via evolving interpretations of rights, drawing on precedents like the U.S. Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Critics, including opposition MP Pritam Singh, argued the changes might unduly constrain future parliaments, but proponents countered that empirical public opinion surveys, such as a 2021 IPS study showing 60% opposition to same-sex marriage, justified entrenching majority views. Post-enactment, the safeguards have upheld policies like housing subsidies and tax benefits tied to traditional marriage, with no successful challenges reported as of October 2025.

Ongoing Restrictions and Societal Reactions

Following the repeal of Section 377A on January 3, 2023, the government concurrently amended the by inserting Article 156, which enshrines the definition of as a union between one man and one woman and shields related legislation from judicial challenges under Part 4 fundamental liberties. This amendment protects policies predicated on heterosexual monogamous , including eligibility, curricula, and family-oriented subsidies, from being invalidated by courts or foreign judgments recognizing same-sex unions. Other restrictions persist, such as criminalization of non-consensual sexual acts, offenses against minors, and public indecency, irrespective of ; media regulations under the (IMDA) continue to prohibit content that normalizes or positively portrays homosexual lifestyles, with broadcasters preemptively editing material to comply. In 2025, officials clarified that forthcoming anti-discrimination laws would not extend protections specifically to individuals based on . Societal reactions to the repeal have been polarized, reflecting Singapore's conservative cultural norms and religious influences alongside gradual attitudinal shifts among younger demographics. LGBT advocates hailed the decriminalization as a milestone but highlighted persistent barriers, such as the inability to legally marry or jointly adopt children, restrictions on cohabitation for unmarried couples under 35 in public housing, and lack of recognition for overseas same-sex marriages or fertility treatments like IVF, which require extensive legal workarounds for guardianship and inheritance. Conservative and religious groups, including those consulted during pre-repeal deliberations, expressed relief at the constitutional safeguards but voiced concerns over potential erosion of traditional family structures, citing risks of societal division and increased public advocacy for further changes. Public opinion polls indicate majority opposition to same-sex marriage persists: an August 2025 survey found slightly over half of respondents viewed both homosexual acts and same-sex marriage as morally wrong, while a 2024 Ipsos poll reported only 32% overall support for same-sex marriage, rising to 40-41% among Gen Z and Millennials but remaining low among older cohorts. A September 2023 poll of 1,000 Singaporeans aged 16-34 revealed 60% perceived ongoing discrimination against LGBT individuals, with just 36% deeming the country livable for them, amid controversies like debates over gender-neutral facilities and drag performances. Government assessments noted increased societal readiness for decriminalization but emphasized the need to balance accommodation of diverse views to prevent polarization.

References

  1. https://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/parliamentary/second-reading-of-penal-code-amendment-bill/
  2. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/section-377a-gay-sex-law-history-countries-lgbt-repeal-2885976
  3. https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=13635c75-128d-4563-bcf0-bafde8fece6e
  4. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/support-for-section-377a-drops-as-attitudes-to-same-sex-relationships-shift-survey-finds
  5. https://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/press-releases/first-reading-of-the-penal-code-amendment-bill-and-the-constitution-of-the-republic-of-singapore-bill/
  6. https://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/media-detail/first-reading-of-the-penal-code-amendment-bill-and-the-constitution-of-the-republic-of-singapore-bill/
  7. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57606847
  8. https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/12/17/alien-legacy/origins-sodomy-laws-british-colonialism
  9. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00358533.2023.2202948
  10. https://kyotoreview.org/issue-18/decriminalise-homosexuality-singapore/
  11. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-history-review/article/strange-career-of-gross-indecency-race-sex-and-law-in-colonial-singapore/E4DE2A6BEFD310CF020D700ACE82A131
  12. https://www.ricemedia.co/current-affairs-features-history-377a-racism/
  13. https://manoa.hawaii.edu/aplpj/wp-content/uploads/sites/120/2018/12/APLPJ_20.1_Wei-1.pdf
  14. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871?ProvIds=pr377-
  15. https://law.nus.edu.sg/sjls/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2024/07/1796-2003-sjls-jul-209.pdf
  16. https://cil.nus.edu.sg/publication/section-377a-science-religion-and-the-law/
  17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265084899_Saying_No_Sections_377_and_377A_of_the_Penal_Code
  18. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/unpacking-the-issues-around-section-377a
  19. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/377a-criminal-record-rendered-spent-gay-sex-3112701
  20. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/mha-review-convictions-section-377a-consensual-private-2059036
  21. https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/context/facpub/article/2133/viewcontent/Chang_ThePostcolonialProblemGayRIghts_32B.U.Intl.L.J.309_2014.pdf
  22. https://www.mha.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/annex-4-2007-parliamentary-debates-on-section-377a.pdf
  23. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/court-of-appeal-rules-section-377a-stays-but-cannot-be-used-to-prosecute-men-for-having-gay-sex
  24. https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2022_sgca_16
  25. https://www.facebook.com/leehsienloong/posts/13-section-377a-by-and-large-singapore-is-a-traditional-society-with-conservativ/612220043597462/
  26. https://www.methodist.org.sg/nccs-response-to-the-repeal-of-s377a/
  27. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/section-377a-repeal-gay-sex-marriage-constitution-religious-groups-reactions-2891396
  28. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/religious-leaders-take-nuanced-position-on-repeal-of-section-377a
  29. https://mothership.sg/2022/08/religious-social-groups-377a-responses/
  30. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/888801
  31. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna50449078
  32. https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/26/3/355/742276
  33. https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/ips-working-paper-66---moral-attitudes-in-flux-comparing-trends-across-religions-in-singapore.pdf
  34. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2018-09/singapore_public_support_split_on_337a_report_sept_2018.pdf
  35. https://www.ipsos.com/en-sg/same-sex-relationships-majority-singaporeans-supportive-penal-code-section-377a
  36. https://www.ipsos.com/en-sg/attitudes-towards-same-sex-relationships-shift-towards-greater-inclusivity-singapore
  37. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/section-377a-religious-groups-call-for-unity-poll-finds-43-per-cent-support-repeal-double-those-against
  38. https://regardless.sg/the-ipsos-survey-on-section-377a/
  39. https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2012_SGCA_45
  40. https://www.humandignitytrust.org/wp-content/uploads/resources/Singapore_CA_Judgment_29.10.14.pdf
  41. https://www.globalhealthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Tan-Eng-Hong-v.-Attorney-General-Singapore.pdf
  42. https://www.icj.org/sogicasebook/tan-eng-hong-v-attorney-general-high-court-of-the-republic-of-singapore-15-march-2011/
  43. https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2013_SGHC_199
  44. https://www.globalhealthrights.org/tan-eng-hong-v-attorney-general/
  45. https://www.humandignitytrust.org/resources/lim-meng-suang-v-attorney-general-2014-sgca-53/
  46. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2673027
  47. https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2013_SGHC_73
  48. https://journalsonline.academypublishing.org.sg/Journals/Singapore-Academy-of-Law-Journal/e-Archive/ctl/eFirstSALPDFJournalView/mid/495/ArticleId/1124/Citation/JournalsOnlinePDF
  49. https://v1.lawgazette.com.sg/2015-01/1217.htm
  50. https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2014_SGCA_53
  51. https://www.hrlc.org.au/case-summaries/2020-3-30-supreme-court-of-singapore-passes-up-opportunity-to-decriminalise-sex-between-men/
  52. https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2020_SGHC_63
  53. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/ndr-2022-govt-will-repeal-section-377a-decriminalise-sex-between-men
  54. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/singapore-passes-laws-decriminalise-gay-sex-protect-definition-marriage-against-legal-challenge-3108996
  55. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/parliament-repeals-section-377a-endorses-amendments-protecting-marriage-definition
  56. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Acts-Supp/39-2022/Published/20230103?DocDate=20230103
  57. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/timeline-repealing-377a-gay-sex-law-amending-singapore-constitution-marriage-definition-3101551
  58. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Bills-Supp/32-2022/Published/20221020?DocDate=20221020
  59. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/cna-explains-article-156-singapore-constitution-protect-marriage-repeal-377a-3019261
  60. https://lawgazette.com.sg/feature/strengthening-the-institution-of-marriage-as-the-union-of-one-man-and-one-woman/
  61. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/s377a-repeal-constitutional-amendment-will-protect-policies-that-promote-heterosexual-marriage-says-masagos
  62. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ndr-2022-377a-constitution-marriage-edwin-tong-1974591
  63. https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/singapore
  64. https://www.equaldex.com/region/singapore
  65. https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/people/article/3247463/singapores-377a-1-year-after-repeal-lgbtq-couples-ask-more-conservative-pushback-society-still
  66. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/gay-same-sex-lgbtq-marriage-ips-study-survey-5319326
  67. https://www.ipsos.com/en-sg/growing-acceptance-lgbtq-rights-singapore-generational-divides-remain
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.