Talk:LGBT rights in Singapore/Archive 1

Wording
Accidently clicked enter. But my change here was made because the original wording suggested to me gay people were treated more harshly then non gay people when they committed any crime which obviously isn't the case. Nil Einne 11:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Importance
I feel low importance isy unjustified?Even tho it's perhaps not an issue that gets much attention in Singapore, surely any article on a what is regarded by quite a number of people as a human rights issue deserves mid importance at least Nil Einne 11:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Section 377
Section 377 has been repealed in the revised Penal Code, section 377A is still maintained in the statutes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.183.122.166 (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Issues with article
Some issues I see with this article: I am going to edit the article to make the above changes. --SJK (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It says in infobox "Same-sex sexual activity legal? Illegal". But, its clear from article text, they are only illegal between men. Sex between women appears to be legal.
 * 2) It says "After the exhaustive Penal Code review in 2007, oral and anal sex were legalised for heterosexuals only.". But, likewise it's clear that they are presently only illegal between men, and not between women -- I am not sure whether the old section 377 could be used against women, just going by the wording it could have been but obviously "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" is one of those vague phrases that courts could interpret as they see fit. So, either way, the repeal of old section 377 legalised oral and anal sex for heterosexual and female homosexual couples, or else it repealed it for heterosexual couples only and oral and anal sex for female homosexual couples were already legal.
 * 3) Despite articles title of "LGBT rights in Singapore", it doesn't mention transgender rights at all. I am going to remedy that with a cross-reference to Transgender people in Singapore.
 * 4) Likewise, no mention of same-sex marriage, a cross-reference to Matrimonial_law_of_Singapore can remedy that.

Lesbiansim illegal
Would lesbian acts be illegal technically under the Public Order and Nuisance act with jail up to 6 months and a fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.83.151 (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Adoption and family planning
"Same-sex couples are not permitted to adopt or partake in child-rearing arrangements, such as utilisation of assisted reproductive technology or surrogacy.[10]" I can't seem to find the actual information in the source? Can someone help me find where is it mentioned? --Ben.MQ (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Public opinion
"Whilst some 75% of Singaporeans oppose same-sex marriage and same-sex sexual activity (according to polling conducted in 2014)" A similar poll by OSC in conjunction with IPS in the same year has results suggesting 47% of the population opposing 'gay lifestyles' and 55% opposing same sex marriage. Lychee512 (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Vigilante Execution
Really? I've never heard of that being a punishment, legal or otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.232.77 (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Seems like 204.186.241.170 made a series of highly questionable, and factually wrong edits/additions to the article which was not caught. I've undone them. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights in Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://law.nus.edu/news/archive/2007/ST051207.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050908153926/http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/soc/faculty/staff_pages/lwt.htm to http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/soc/faculty/staff_pages/lwt.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights in Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605055246/http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/news.htm?englishnews&20071024&56&441304 to http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/news.htm?englishnews&20071024&56&441304

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Gay movies in singapore
Some gay movies have been shown in cinemas in Singapore such as: Love Simon, Moonlight.This could mean the country is more open a out lgbt movies. Please add this to the article:

https://mashable.com/2018/04/03/love-simon-singapore-classification/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:4800:2C76:B668:19F7:86AC:8247:6C48 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2018
Change in summary list for single gay adoptions from yes to not not allowed. The change seems inaccurate and when someone changed the summary to say it was allowed it was unsourced which makes me believe it was vandalism or trolling. 2600:1:F12E:AF8C:B014:1248:7D6B:3684 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Adoption exception
An editor recently removed content from the adoption section because s/he stated that it may confuse readers about the legality of adoption in Singapore. I restored the content because it appears to be appropriately sourced.  11:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, good and it states that it is an exception. Cheers! AdamPrideTN (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Biased wording - what are human rights?
I believe this sentence is biased and incorporates a point of view, inconsistent with Wikipedia's neutral point of view: "Government officials occasionally crack down on freedom and human rights for LGBT people". What are human rights? Some believe the internet is a human right. Or taxpayer funded sex change operators. Or everyone having Coca-Cola. How about something along the lines of: "Government officials occasionally arrest organizers and/or attendees of LGBT events", or whatever they actually do. That would better reflect a value neutral action which has occured without incorporating a point of view. In line with Wikiepdia NPOV policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talk • contribs) 05:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2020
Remove that LGBT are allowed in the military and change it in the edit summaries. The only source for it is a link that goes to an error page so for now it's unsourced. Theeditpolice (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Material is not unsourced just because you cannot currently access the source (see WP:SOURCEACCESS), most websites can be found on Archive.org. However, I don't see any source currently being cited for . Which sentence were you referring to having a dead source? – Thjarkur (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"Prior to 2003, homosexuals were barred from being employed in "sensitive positions" within the Singapore Civil Service. " It's a dead link and no other existing sources have been given so it's unsourced. Please remove it and change the LGBT military members allowed to no in all the summary boxes until a new source is given. Thank you. Theeditpolice (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2021
Discrimination Protection - To be changed from 'No' to MRHA Act — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cycy234 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * but why? any sources to back this? – robertsky (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Penalties and summaries
@Nythar: @Pauline Muley: I have already given Pauline the same message but he/she is unwilling to discuss. According to WP:BRD I reverted to a version that matched the sources while I try to get him/her to discuss these edits, but one source with an empty promise of protections is not adequate to say no Singapore LGBT have full protections and this user is misinterpreting one opinion as law either by mistake or error and so I keep reminding Paulina of WP:SYNTH based on this but this user is unwilling to describe reasoning in the talk page. Also, she should be 3rr wanted too she reverted as well if we want to go that route fair is fair. I was protected under exemption 7. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced Lmharding (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"It seems that multiple users have reverted your edits; please discuss your concerns at article talk pages. Thank you. Nythar (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)"

posting this here to start Pauline is engaged in SNYTH. Lmharding (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Moving this here so we can discuss it but from here on out any comments should be here, not in my talk page so it's easier for the community to see. Thank you. Lmharding (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Protections for LGBTQ individuals in Singapore are mandated within the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Secondly, the statement was made by the governing minister (law & home affairs) in the legislature, not some rando. There is no source explicitly stating that there are "forced anal examinations" as a penalty for having gay sex in Singapore. The two sources make no mentions of Singapore in it. In addition, why did you remove "Gender identity" in the infobox, something that is present in other articles of LGBTQ rights? Seems weird to be pro-LGBTQ and then subsequently remove mentions of sex reassignment surgery? Pauline Muley (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all you did, you reverted me at least 5 times easily (check the edit log to see that) and I counted that myself. No, in the Religious Harmony act it only mentions protections against violence based on sexuality, there are absolutely no mentions of any other protections. Show me where you think it says this I read it, it says no such thing. As for gender reassignment, that source is fine I see no issue with that. The gender reassignment source can be re added with no current objections from me. Lmharding (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "Forced anal examinations" are not done in Singapore. I've checked the Human Rights Watch and the NUS PDF sources. HRW mentions other countries, but not Singapore. Nothing in the NUS PDF. So I'm curious as to what you claim with this "black and white". I also note that you keep removing updates to public opinion surveys and Pink Dot without good reason. They include the Ipsos survey of 2022 and the attendance of an MP at the 14th Pink Dot. Pauline Muley (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Those polls can also be re-added. No, in the Religious Harmony act it only mentions protections against violence based on sexuality, there are absolutely no mentions of any other protections. Show me where you think it says this I read it, it says no such thingLmharding (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop moving goalposts please. And quit editing my responses. That is just straight up disruptive editing. I've exhausted my WP:AGF. You're clearly a problematic editor to deal with considering you've had the same kind of issues with multiple other editors. You're not collaborative in the slightest. Pauline Muley (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA reminder no personal attacks. You have yet to respond to my question, stop changing topics. Show me where you think it says the Religious Harmony act protects against more than anti-gay violence. It doesn't that's why you're avoiding my inquiry. Also, if a leader dos not make a law backing any statement he makes it's worthless. That;s why the one statement about him protecting all people is garbage here until he makes it official by putting a statement to that effect into the Singaporean law book. It doesn't mean anything unless it's backed legally. See my compromise edit. Also, it's too early to report the laws against homosexuality "unenforceable" via WP:CRYSTALBALL there could easily still be a lawsuit or legal battle to dispute this ruling. Lmharding (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @: If you find a reputable source that says Singapore may start enforcing this section at some future point, then your edit would be suitable. You bring up WP:CRYSTALBALL, but it's your version that would be predicting the future; not the earlier version, because all the WP:RS it is unenforced, and  talk about it being possibly reactivated.
 * It's to be left as is: "unenforced", unless you have a source that says otherwise, or the situation in Singapore changes. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that is it unenforced, so Lmharding, unless someone becomes convicted for gay sex in Singapore anytime soon, unenforced is correct. It has been this way for years. Pauline Muley (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * What about the source The punishment is two years' imprisonment, and Attorney-General Lucien Wong has declared that he still has the legal power to prosecute someone under Singapore's Section 377A. Section 377A can be used to prosecute if reports are lodged with the police, particularly in relation to minors. You're deleting that to fit your theory, instead of working within what sources we have. This source says it can still be enforced so an unenforced tag is inaccurate for now. Lmharding (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Attorney-General made that comment in 2018, and the Supreme Court reaffirmed that it is unenforceable and can't be used to prosecute in 2022. The Court also supersedes the AG. Things change and get updated, you know that right? It's you that keep re-introducing outdated material. Tell me, do you have a source of a SINGLE person who has been prosecuted under 377A in Singapore within the last few decades? Pauline Muley (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Noted the enforcement as disputed, now both sides are represented. Lmharding (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Porn star arrested for gay porn He was arrested for male on male porn.Lmharding (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think his arrest for gay porn can be described as directly relevant to Article 377A. He evidently wasn't arrested for haaving gay sex. Alarics (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Porn does involve sex and he was arrested specifically because of gay sex in the pornography, hence the relativity. Lmharding (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Titus Low is not gay and he was not arrested under 377A. His arrest has nothing to do with gay sex or homosexuality but for the dissemination of pornography. Pauline Muley (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

In the source it says "She (referring to Jada Saur) also suspects that Low may have been targeted specifically because of his creation of “guy-on-guy content,” which may be considered an affront to many in a country that criminalizes homosexuality." It's the last paragraph. Lmharding (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * First of all, Metroweekly is a LGBT-focused magazine, and so it shouldn't be surprising that they have made assumptions that he was allegedly "targeted" because his content on OnlyFans is apparently focused on gay porn. However, we should look at the facts. Fact 1: He was not arrested under 377A. Fact 2: The laws against online pornography has no provisions that gay porn is being specifically singled out. Fact 3: Titus Low is married with a woman, and AFAIK, he never did actual gay sex on his OnlyFans posts, just nudes of himself. He's not gay. In conclusion, the situation with Low has nothing to do with 377A but something else entirely. Trying to intertwine the two separate topics together is just WP:SYNTHESIS. Pauline Muley (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Your answer makes a lot of wide leap assumptions. I'm not British so I don't know this magazine I'm guessing maybe you are? What proof do you have that Metro is an "LGBT-focused magazine". The article didn't read like that to me, it seemed pretty neutral. He may have not been directly arrested with 377A quoted but I'm sure with anti-gay attitudes and laws it didn't help wouldn't that sway Singaporean police towards stricter punishment factoring this two things. Being married to a woman doesn't necessarily make you straight, he could be pansexual, bisexual, or just using her as a lavender marriage for all we know. He apparently did "guy on guy content" that sounds like more than just nudes. I don't agree with your conclusion of SYNTHESIS. Lmharding (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Metroweekly is an American LGBT-focused magazine. Proof? There's literally a Wikipedia article about it. It was founded for the LGBT community in Washington D.C.. Again, you're making more and more assumptions without merit. Stick to the facts. 1. He was NOT arrested for 377A. 2. He's married to a woman. 3. He did not engage in gay sex on his OnlyFans. End of. What is YOUR proof that Low's marriage was a "lavender marriage" or that his arrest was due to "anti-gay attitudes and laws"? Quit it with the original research. You're making up your own rumors to try to push your own points. Pauline Muley (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not what the source says he did guy on guy content. The source says that. I didn't say he was definitely bi, pansexual, or in a lavender marriage I just said it's possible we can;t confirm or deny that, so basing sexuality on marriage is ignorant. Also, I just said the laws and attitudes didn't help and could have easily made a porn charge worse especially with how it was involving porn of him involving another man. Don't call me a liar and don't put words in my mouth. It's not original research. Learn what that means. Lmharding (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2022
377A has not been repealed yet. It has to be passed by the Parliament. Please also mention same sex marrige will be constitutionally banned. 112.118.224.184 (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ – robertsky (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

On repeal of S377A
@Pauline Muley, just a note on the text you have added on the repeal of S377A. Though PM Lee had announced that the Government will be repealing, what it signifies in legality is that the Government will be putting a Bill through the Singapore Parliament to repeal the relevant text from the Penal Code. Therefore, at the moment, it can be considered as legally ambiguous (and it should have been reflected so when the Courts ruled earlier that it is unenforceable). Though PAP is the ruling majority, and the law is likely to pass, until then, S377A is still on the books. For all we may know, the party whip may be lifted and the MPs will be free to vote in a manner that the repeal might not pass. Therefore, WP:CRYSTALBALL can be applicable here. I have adjusted the text to reflect the legal realities.

Also have inserted the part on that heterosexual marriage will be in the Constitution, which you did not include in your edits. – robertsky (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged. Pauline Muley (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Penalty
, could you explain as to why do you continuously add "except in cases involving minors, or for public indecency reported to police" in the penalties section? Where's your source that this is within 377A? No where in the law states that, and the PDF makes no mention of this. Pauline Muley (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * [It is with great trepidation I enter here. However, as I have made quite a few changes in my edit, perforce I must explain myself.]
 * Hi @,
 * I am the guilty party who originally inserted that into the body of the text. I did this to both address lmh's expressed concern:  and explain other editors', as I gathered, understanding of the source:
 * I never envisaged it being used within the infobox, because a) it's neither a penalty nor an exception to the Supreme Court's ruling; and b) infoboxes ideally should not include this level of detail per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.
 * The addition of "try to" for 377A repeal is undue, so I changed back to "will" or "intends to". That is what the sources say.
 * As for any ongoing discussion according to lmh, I cannot see anything recent; nothing in the archive on the specific inclusion you mention in the infobox. It's really disheartening to see a message like this from lmh, as they very rarely use edit summaries at all or explain much. They feel quite happy to revert others with little or no reasoning given, with few attempts to discuss but say "very rude" to someone else.
 * I wondered about a phrase that says a court allowing a man to adopt was a case of a "rare exception". It doesn't say an exception to what, though. It's an exception to Singapore's rules on adoption, yes, but we need to say specifically, I think. And I didn't know what to put.
 * That's all I can think of for now. If there is something I have not explained here, please ping me and I'd be glad to discuss. AukusRuckus (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Forget it, all moot now: lmh has just undone all my clearly explained changes. And why? Who knows: There's . I'm not worth even that much respect. Putrid treatment. But, you know, are "very rude"! AukusRuckus (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Forget it, all moot now: lmh has just undone all my clearly explained changes. And why? Who knows: There's . I'm not worth even that much respect. Putrid treatment. But, you know, are "very rude"! AukusRuckus (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is where that came from. Stop reverting while we're in discussions it's very rude. Lmharding (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * That source says nothing about penalties being unenforced "except in cases involving minors, or for public indecency reported to police". It does not belong in infobox. You are editing it in without consensus. AukusRuckus (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

These prosecutions happened out of indecency or involvement with minors. Also, WP:CRYSTALBALL we have to write it in a neutral way even if the article isn'r writing it accordingly. Not writing the way I wrote it is WP:CRYSTALBALL assuming that it will be successfully appealed which 1. it's too early for that and 2. we can't assume that it pass he repeal could fail for all we know. Once it does pass, you can feel free to do what you wish but for now we can't get ahead of ourselves. Lmharding (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * If it does fail, all we will need to do is add a sentence to the paragraph: "However, the repeal failed because of...". Trying to rewrite the announcement to introduce doubt in the statement is original research as the statement clearly did not indicate an element of doubt by the government.
 * In addition - your single source does not mention any prosecutions that happened under 377A, only that the law says it is illegal. (Added) It seems you tried to link to other sources without the actual links. Having reviewed them, while the attorney general did say he had the power to prosecute individuals under 377A for public indecency or cases involving minors, it would be, like you said guessing if it's actually possible, especially since there have been no prosecutions under the act. Hence, applying the same logic, the information does not belong in the infobox until such a case arises. Seloloving (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)