I have a rough idea as to what might have motivated the current posture. Like many average heterosexual individuals in Singapore, I expect that Parliamentarians as well as the Cabinet members by a majority are neither here nor there on homosexuality. Many are not homophobes. Many would have no difficulty communicating or mingling with a homosexual colleague, friend or relative. But, being heterosexual, they don’t understand the marginalisation of a segment of the population on account of sexual orientation. That s.377A stands as law and that it would not be enforced appears to many to be a sufficiently pragmatic approach to deal with the situation.
The argument is: Don’t worry la. We are not homophobes. We won’t persecute you. We won’t enforce the law. Since you have that assurance from us, you need not worry about the presence of s.377A.
So, why is it that Parliament would not repeal this law? Why is it that the Cabinet would not persuade Parliament to effect a repeal? I can only imagine that in the overall interest of maintaining societal harmony and in the face of vocal positions adopted by anti-gay, pro-‘family’ interest groups, the government has erred on the side of caution by retaining s.377A on the statute books. However, since they are not too impressed with the rationale behind the criminalisation of such conduct, they have repeatedly given assurances that the law would not be enforced.
Mr Shanmugam, I understand where you are coming from. You do not think it is right to punish consenting adults for their private sexual activities. However, you think that there is a conservative segment of the population that has a sense of moral outrage vis a vis homosexual tendencies. So, the solution is: Leave the law as it is. We did not make that law anyway. We will just refrain from using it.
After the recent Delhi High Court decision on s.377 of the Indian Penal Code, Mr Shanmugam has been quoted in the Straits Times:
“We won't change the law, but how that is interpreted is up to the courts, It is not our position to tell the courts what to do."
Now, that is a useful way to attempt a rethink on s.377A. Perhaps a ‘reading down’ of s.377A is in order. Our courts could interpret s.377A in a way that would not render it unconstitutional. Note that s.377A only makes the commission (etc) of an act of gross indecency an offence. The ordinary sexual activity involving two males could be interpreted by the courts as not being acts of gross indecency.
The Penal Code:
s.377A. 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.
Article 12. —(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
On that note of judicial interpretation as the way to go, I feel it would be appropriate for me to quote from the judgment in the case of Naz Foundation v Government of NCT of Delhi and others (2009):
‘The judiciary is constituted as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and to it is assigned the delicate task of determining what is the extent and scope of the power conferred on each branch of government, what are the limits on the exercise of such power under the Constitution and whether any action of any branch transgresses such limits. The role of the judiciary is to protect the fundamental rights. A modern democracy while based on the principle of majority rule implicitly recognises the need to protect the fundamental rights of those who may dissent or deviate from the majoritarian view. It is the job of the judiciary to balance the principles ensuring that the government on the basis of number does not override fundamental rights. After the enunciation of the basic structure doctrine, full judicial review is an integral part of the constitutional scheme. To quote the words of Krishna Iyer, J: “The compulsion of constitutional humanism and the assumption of full faith in life and liberty cannot be so futile or fragmentary that any transient legislative majority in tantrums against any minority by three quick readings of a Bill with the requisite quorum, can prescribe any unreasonable modality and thereby sterilise the grandiloquent mandate.”