Letter to the Singapore Ministry

[A letter that I wrote in support for the amendment of Singapore's Penal Code that castigates homosexuality in section S377A. Check this article for further details: Singapore NGOs call for a repeal of gay sex laws.]

Dear Sirs,

SUBMISSION ON THE PROPOSED PENAL CODE AMENDMENTS

In response to the Ministry’s request for public comments to the Consultation Paper on the Proposed Penal Code Amendments, I advocate the following:

1. Total repeal of s377A and decriminalization of all consensual sex between persons above the age of 16, regardless of their sexual orientation or preference; and
2. Total abolition of the marital immunity currently awarded to man who engages in non-consensual sex with his wife.

I wish to advance the humanitarian cause of PLU through a brief explanation of the historical genealogy of sexuality. It is my intention to highlight the archaic and antediluvian prejudice of Singapore’s Penal Code of s377A, a prejudice that is the legacy of Singapore’s postcolonial condition. While it is not in my expertise to critique the marital immunity that is currently offered to heterosexual marriages, I believe that it would almost be commonsensical to suggest that marital immunity to non-consensual sex invites the exploitation and rape of bodies. Thus it is in my professional opinion that the total repeal of s377a and marital immunity to non-consensual sex be mobilized as soon as possible.

In the genealogy of sexuality, the prejudice against homosexuality occurred most virulently (and expressively) in the Modern age. Prior to the 1500s, sexuality was indeed, as most advocates for the Proposed Penal Code would agree, a matter of personal taste. While there were ethical and moral frameworks for the enactment and asseveration of desires, the criminalization of homosexuality was never (as some fundamentalists would carp) a decree of Nature or metaphysical Law. Sexuality has shaped and re-shaped itself through culture and history and has never – I repeat, never – been an immutable condition of humanity.

The Penal Code of s377A could be traced back to King Henry VIII of England in 1533. He first declared and formalized the criminalization of sodomy as a cardinal transgression against Nature. This unfortunate legacy has shaped the legal doctrines of both Singapore and India’s postcolonial society. While we might believe that the first-world advancements of Singapore have fully removed itself from the colonial conditions of British rule, this is not reflected in our legal discourse. To form a democratic, even if a pseudo-democratic society (as Lee Kuan Yew used to call all forms of democracy a pseudo-democracy), it is important to relinquish antiquated laws against sexuality. To castigate another person’s desires that are shaped by the same socio-cultural conditions of heterosexual ardour is not simply a prejudice, but a severe expression of ignorance. Both sexualities learn the codes and semiotics of courtship; both engender commitments and responsibilities to persons; both are caught in the struggle for companionship and love; neither rape nor plunder because of their sexual preference. While the differences are marked in affectivities and gender preference, the similarities are also markedly obvious.

Both PLU and Human Rights activists have given enough time and energy to the rescinding of s377A’s discriminatory law against homosexuality. And time runs out for every teenager that suicide from sexual ignorance and intolerance, every HIV/AIDS person whose life is attacked by homophobic eidolons, and every gay family meltdown that is caused by the government’s refusal to action and emancipation. No longer do I ask or plead with the government to repeal s377A. I demand, as should all who believes in basic humanitarian rights, the elimination of the archaic, sexual bigotry of homosexuality in Singapore. The insouciant close-an-eye system of Singaporean ethics can no longer be applicable to the diversity of bodies that diligently and conscientiously work towards the social health and economy of this country. The Ministry must take the emancipation of queer individuals with the uttermost exigency and care.

Yours faithfully,

...