Talk:Section 377A (Singapore)/Archive 1

Lesbians?

 * Further, by a stretch of the imagination, penetrative lesbian sex via the use of implements like dildoes, fingers, or the tongue could theoretically be criminalised by this law although historically, no act of lesbian sex has ever been charged under section 377.

This stretch of imagination isn't referenced. My main concern is the reference to lesbians. While I don't doubt that lesbians will probably be treated more "harshly" then heterosexuals, it seems to me likely that it would be regarded as a criminal act even for a heterosexual couple to engage in such acts if it doesn't lead to coitus. Also wouldn't a dildo probably technically be an indecent device or whatever anyway? Nil Einne 11:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Should this page be merged with 'Criminal law of Singapore'?
I think this page should be merged with Criminal law of Singapore. Comments? Jacklee 09:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for specific sections which warrant more detail, they can exist as seperate articles?--Huaiwei 10:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I don't particularly like the title of the article though – it's inaccurate because the article talks about both section 377 and section 377A of the Penal Code, which are separate though related provisions. What about changing it to something like 'Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)', or 'Unnatural offences in the Penal Code (Singapore)', which is how they are classified in the Penal Code? Also, the reference should be to the 'Penal Code (Singapore)' rather than the 'Singapore Penal Code', as this is how other Singapore Acts of Parliament are referred to (see, for instance, 'Misuse of Drugs Act (Singapore)' and 'Women's Charter (Singapore)'). Jacklee 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've renamed this article 'Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)', following the naming convention used for Singapore statutes used in Wikipedia. Jacklee 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
"it is feared by some that it would take another 22 years for the next review." sounds a little loaded to me, or am I over-interpreting the NPOV policy? Sentri 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd take that phrase out. It's just a rather sensational statement based on the fact that the last major review of the Penal Code before the present one in 2007 was about 20 years ago. Cheers, Jacklee 21:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Renaming of article
It seems likely that the recent Bill to amend sections 377 and 377A of the will eventually be passed. When that happens, the present section 377 will be completely different from what it presently is. I suggest that this article be renamed "Sexual offences in Singapore" and expanded to include other sexual offences in Singapore such as rape and incest, which will also be redefined. Do indicate whether you support or oppose this proposal below, and add any comments. Cheers, Jacklee 21:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Perhaps we could wait till that happens to make a decision? The repeal process takes very long, and probably won't even go through. You yourself should know that no one ever wins the government. ;-) Ğavin  Ťing  02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think you've missed my point, which is that the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill is very likely to be passed (and I don't think it will take long for Parliament to do so), in which case the new section 377 will be completely different from what it is now (if I'm not mistaken, in future it will criminalize necrophilia). Only section 377A will remain unchanged. It does not make sense to have an article dealing only with necrophilia and homosexuality, which is why I think expanding it into a broader article on "Sexual offences in Singapore" would make more sense. I also think it makes sense to start discussing the matter now, so there is less delay once the proposed amendments to the Penal Code are passed. By the way, the article needs a massive cleanup, including more referencing and Wikification. Cheers, Jacklee 03:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Alternatively, if it is thought that it is better to have a separate article about the impact that Singapore law has on homosexual and bisexual persons, I would suggest that this article be merged into "LGBT rights in Singapore" or vice versa, as both seem to cover much the same ground. Cheers, Jacklee 12:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2007 has been passed by Parliament. The current title of the article is out of date, so the need to expand its scope to cover all sexual offences in Singapore and rename it as "Sexual offences in Singapore", or to merge it with "LGBT rights in Singapore", has become more urgent. If there are no further comments on the matter in a fortnight or so, I'll go ahead and be bold. &mdash; Cheers, Jack  Lee  –talk • contribs • count– 15:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Though parliament discussion is over, the event has generated public feedback and voice unprecedented in Singapore. Rather than lose the event under a blanket of "sexual offenses in singapore," may I politely suggest that it be retained as a significant happening in Singapore's history. Palladion (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming round to the view that the content of the article is distinctive enough to kept as a separate article rather than being subsumed into a general "Sexual offences in Singapore" article, but we need to do something about the article title which is now out of date and incorrect. What do you think of the proposal to merge this article into "LGBT rights in Singapore", which in any case covers much of the same ground? &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that first and foremost, parts of this article requires rewriting to make it more informative, it seems a bit too "point-like" at the moment. At the same time, having generated a social furor unprecedented in Singapore's history, it is my humble opinion that it deserves its own entry, rather than be subsumed into a "the LGBT rights in Singapore" sort of article. One problem would be it would make the LGBT article far too long and difficult to maintain. Perhaps to begin with, a renaming of the title is appropriate. 192.169.41.33 (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the person who started this article in the first place several years ago and I propose that it be retained and renamed "Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code". It is too important a milestone in Singapore's human rights history to be lumped together with the article "LGBT rights in Singapore" which lists legislation very infrequently used against homosexuals and gay sex and which pale in importance to section 377A. It is relevant that section 377 be mentioned in the history of this remaining piece of anti-gay legislation as it was the backdrop which gave rise to the enactment of the subsection. Also the introduction of section 377C which criminalises sex with living animals, introduced during the Penal Code review of Oct 07, should be mentioned, together with a link to the new section 377 which criminalises sex with dead bodies.Groyn88 (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * May I humbly suggest that a separate entry be set up for all the 377s, whatever they might be. The page would be a pure listing and explanation sorta thingy. As for this current page, it should be renamed to more accurately reflect the content? Which is about the struggle to repeal 377a? Palladion (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Groyn88. Er, I think we should have discussed the change in title and come to some sort of agreement before you moved the article to the new title. In any case, the current title is inaccurate because it should read "Section 377A" rather than "Sections 377A". The thing is, if we're renaming the article "Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)", then it doesn't make sense to talk about the new sections 377 or 377C in the article – these provisions no longer have anything to do with the criminalization of homosexual acts between males. That is why I'm still in favour of a merger of this article into "LGBT rights in Singapore". It doesn't seem to make much sense to maintain two separate articles which overlap to such a great degree. There isn't any reason why "LGBT rights in Singapore" cannot be rewritten to give emphasis to the recent developments.

Palladion, my view is that it's not worth creating a special page just for the new section 377 and 377C. This can be dealt with in "Penal Code (Singapore)". &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the topic "LGBT rights in Singapore" is a very wide one and the laws which have been used against homosexuals form only a small portion of it. LGBT rights encompass the push for gay equality since the 1980s and that includes the history of PLU and all the other organisations that have formed to cater to LGBT needs, not only the legal ones. So, I am in favour of retaining this article on section 377A, which actually can be lengthened considerably if one details all the events which led to the presentation of the repeal petition in Parliament by NMP Siew Kum Hong.Groyn88 (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Jack, oops, I forgot to delete the "s" that comes after "section".


 * Erm, I didn' type that message above you, Jacklee. Anyway, the title needs amendment. Palladion (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. Your username is at the end of the paragraph that reads "May I humbly suggest...", which is what I was referring to. The two paragraphs above your posting at 17:23 were by me. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, it seems that there's no consensus over renaming the article "Sexual offences in Singapore" or merging it with "LGBT rights in Singapore". &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

YouTube and other links
Hi, Groyn88, you recently updated "Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)" with links to Parliamentary debates broadcast on Singapore TV that were uploaded on to YouTube. I think these videos were uploaded on to YouTube in breach of copyrights held by the Parliament of Singapore and MediaCorp, and as such it is against Wikipedia policy to link to such videos: see "Copyrights" ("[I]f you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work"). I'd therefore suggest that you remove the links to YouTube and link, if possible, to news reports about the Parliamentary proceedings. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You've also just added a link to a scan of a Straits Times article at http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd30/SiGNeL001/Scanned%20articles/Singapore/STArticle071205a.jpg. I'm afraid this is a clear breach of copyright. You can mention the article in a footnote and link to a website authorized by Singapore Press Holdings that contains the article (if one exists), but you must not link to a website that is acting in disregard of copyright laws. Could you please take steps to remove the links to this website and to YouTube as soon as possible? Thanks. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been almost two weeks, but the problematic links were not dealt with so I've removed them. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 01:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)