🕷️ Crawler Inspector

URL Lookup

Direct Parameter Lookup

Raw Queries and Responses

1. Shard Calculation

Query:

Response:

Calculated Shard: 4 (from laksa009)

2. Crawled Status Check

Query:

curl -X POST \
  'http://laksa004.int.ahrefs:8124/' \
  -H 'Content-Type: text/plain' \
  -H 'X-ClickHouse-Database: crawler3' \
  -H 'Authorization: Basic YXBpOg==' \
  -d 'SELECT getAhrefsURLFromUnparsed(src_unparsed) AS found_url, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(download_stamp), 0) AS crawl_time, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(props_url_first_seen), 0) AS first_indexed_time, download_http_code AS http_code, src_unparsed AS src_unparsed, src_root_hash AS src_root_hash, history_drop_reason AS history_drop_reason, meta_title AS meta_title, meta_descriptions AS meta_descriptions, attrs_boilerpipe_text AS attrs_boilerpipe_text, attrs_markdown AS attrs_markdown, attrs_readable_markdown AS attrs_readable_markdown, meta_canonical AS meta_canonical FROM crawler3.page_info_local FINAL PREWHERE (src_root_hash, src_unparsed) IN ((getAhrefsRootHashFromUnparsed(getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://regardless.sg/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now/\')), getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://regardless.sg/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now/\'))) FORMAT JSONEachRow'

Response:

{"found_url":"https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now\/","crawl_time":1775766006,"first_indexed_time":1659925382,"http_code":200,"src_unparsed":"sg,regardless!\/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now\/ s443","src_root_hash":"16225924915275799604","history_drop_reason":null,"meta_title":"THE STATUS QUO ON 377A WORKS. WHY DISRUPT IT NOW? - Regardless","meta_descriptions":[],"attrs_boilerpipe_text":"Ya, Why ah?\nOn 3 March 2022, Minister Shanmugam announced the Government was reviewing and “considering the best way forward” on Section 377A of the Penal Code.\nSubsequent comments followed on 30 July 2022. In response to media queries, Minister Shanmugam shared that the Government had undertaken discussions with selected groups.\n“Many agree that men who have sex with each other should not be thrown into prison; gay sex should not be criminalized. At the same time, most do not want any decriminalization to cause other major changes. In particular, most people we’ve spoken with want the current position on marriage to be retained”, he said.\n“The two questions we are dealing with are therefore: One, what is to be done with Section 377A. Two, at the same time, we are also considering how can we safeguard the current legal position on marriage from being challenged in the courts.”\nA recent\nCNA article\nreferenced the possibility of a repeal of 377A, coupled with an amendment to the Constitution on the current definition of marriage. Admittedly, it’s an interesting question – but it also puts the cart before the horse.\nThe first question that Singapore should be asking, is “why now”?\nLEGAL URGENCY: REAL OR IMAGINARY?\nMinister Shanmugam’s announcement on 3 March referenced the Court of Appeal\ndecision\non 377A made on 28 February 2022 (“\nTan Seng Kee\n”).\nWe spoke to a number of legal experts to consider whether the decision in Tan Seng Kee provides a justification for disturbing the status quo on 377A. For example, did Tan Seng Kee materially increase the risk of 377A being struck down by the Courts?\nMany took the view that it did not.\nIn\nTan Seng Kee\n, the Court of Appeal effectively blocked off further legal challenges to 377A by ruling that it is now “unenforceable in its\nentirety\n” (\nTan Seng Kee\nat [149]). In coming to its decision, the Court took an exceptional recourse to the doctrine of\nsubstantive legitimate expectations\n. It referred to the Attorney-General’s press release in 2018 that prosecution of private sexual conduct between two consenting adults would not be in the public interest, and how Parliament, the Government and the Attorney-General had taken congruent positions with regards to the general non-enforcement of 377A.\nThe Court stated that its ruling is to have the effect of:\n“providing homosexual men with the full measure of accommodation contemplated by the Government and expressed by the Prime Minister during the s 377A Debates”; and\n“preserving the legislative status quo on s 377A and reserving the matter of its retention or repeal for further consideration by the Government and Parliament at an appropriate time”\n(\nTan Seng Kee\nat [151]).\nGiven that 377A is unenforceable in its entirety,\nno one in Singapore can be said to face any real or credible threat of prosecution under 377A.\nThe Court explained that this situation would only change unless and until the Attorney-General provides clear notice that he will no longer abide by the prosecutorial policy in the press release in 2018.\nTherefore, insofar as no one within Singapore would be prosecuted under 377A, no one in Singapore can actually mount any fresh challenge in Court against the constitutionality of 377A.\nWithout any legal challenge in Court, the risk of 377A being struck down by the Court would be zero.\nWith its decision in Tan Seng Kee to declare 377A as unenforceable in its entirety, the Court of Appeal thus took the active step in stemming any new legal challenges against the constitutionality of 377A. The Court of Appeal concluded that “377A has not been repealed, but neither can it be enforced” (Tan Seng Kee at [154]). It thus appears from the decision in Tan Seng Kee that the Court of Appeal is content to leave the issue of 377A to the democratic process for now. At the very least, there is no legal urgency to disrupt the status quo mere months after it was achieved. Arguably, one could say that the Court of Appeal not only kept the status quo but even entrenched it. The Court of Appeal’s decision also serves as a clear indication of its deference to the democratic process, suggesting that any further changes to 377A should come from Parliament rather than the courts. This stance aligns with the\nHigh Court ruling on 377A\n, which similarly emphasized the need for legislative reform rather than judicial intervention in sensitive social issues. Overall, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Tan Seng Kee demonstrates a cautious and conservative approach to addressing the constitutionality of 377A.\nIS THERE A CONSENSUS AMONGST SINGAPOREANS FOR THE REPEAL OF 377A? – NOPE\nThe Minister’s comment that “many agree that men who have sex with each other should not be thrown into prison; gay sex should not be criminalized” was curious.\nGiven that it is now legally unenforceable in its entirety, 377A does not raise the issue of whether gay men will be thrown into prison. Why then should it be offered as a preambulatory reason when it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion?\nInstead, as with the uniqueness of Singapore as a nation, 377A represents a uniquely Singaporean compromise.\nThe non-enforcement of 377A allows LGBT-identifying citizens to live freely in Singapore, without harassment or interference, in peace. At the same time, 377A protects public morality; and the presence but non-enforcement of 377A in the Penal Code symbolises that homosexuality is to be tolerated but not normalised.\nSome argue that the political compromise is “legally untidy”. That may be true by standards of legal parsimony. Yet the law exists to serve the interests of society, and the current equilibrium should be protected because it works. It would be misplaced to prioritise the value of legal tidiness over the real day-to-day lives of Singaporeans.\nIf traditional family values remain the priority, why change the status quo when it precisely serves that interest?\nFurther, to the extent that the Minister was suggesting (through the phrase “gay sex should not be criminalized”) that there is a consensus for the repeal of 377A, this appears to contradict the\n2022 IPSOS survey\n, where only 20% of respondents opposed 377A (cf. 45% of respondents who supported 377A, and 36% who were either neutral or preferred not to share their views).\nThe Protect Singapore Townhall held on 23 July 2022, with approximately 1,200 people in attendance, also called for the retention of 377A, at least until and unless there were adequate safeguards, such as the inclusion of marriage as between a man and a woman in the Constitution.\nThese indicate that there is no consensus for 377A to be repealed; and that, in fact, there are more Singaporeans in support of retaining 377A than those in support of repeal.\nThere are more Singaporeans in support of retaining 377A than those in support of repeal\nUnfortunately, the nature of closed-door discussions held by the Government means that there is no publicly available information to verify (or disprove) the media statements by the Government regarding the tone of these discussions.\nTo date, the Government has announced no plans to undertake a public consultation on the issue, or its intentions on any new political package.\nDOES EVIDENCE SINCE 2007 SUPPORT REPEAL AS GOOD FOR SINGAPORE?\nIn 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong\nsaid\n, “If we abolish [377A], we may be sending the wrong signal that our [conservative] stance has changed and the rules have shifted… I think the gay activists will push for more… [and] instead of forging a consensus, we will divide and polarise our society.” He concluded by urging Singapore to “stay one step behind the frontline of change [and] watch how things work out elsewhere before we make any irrevocable moves.”\n15 years later, LGBT activists in Singapore have acknowledged that repealing 377A is only the first step. In 2018, Pink Dot announced a list of 10 demands, including thinly veiled aims for the normalisation of LGBT sexuality in schools and the media. On 4 July 2022, IndigNation started preparing for a new conference titled “Beyond Repeal [of 377A]”, to discuss the next steps beyond 377A.\nIn other countries where LGBT ideology has taken precedence, this has led to a slippery slope of ever-advancing pro-LGBT laws that also narrows the rights of free speech and conscience for others.\nIn the United Kingdom, for example, the decriminalisation of homosexual acts under the Sexual Offences Act has led to ‘anti-discrimination’ laws used to silence dissent in 2007 (under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations), same-sex adoption (under the Adoption and Children Act) from 2002, and same-sex marriage (under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act).\nThe results of social experimentation with a liberal sexual ethos are clear. If the results of LGBT ideology have led countries down the slippery slope, and into fractured societies, why should Singapore embark on this course of action?\nSo why now?\nThe fact is that given equilibrium has now been attained, we can’t find a compelling legal reason in the light of the latest court decision, to disrupt it, and to move on 377A.\nThere are, however, many reasons why we ought not to disrupt the status quo.","attrs_markdown":"[Facebook](https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Regardless.sg\/ \"Facebook\")     [Instagram](https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/regardless.sg\/ \"Instagram\")     [Telegram](https:\/\/t.me\/regardlesssg \"Telegram\")     [X](https:\/\/twitter.com\/regardlesssg \"X\")     [Youtube](https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UC5epz3Oz1BeLpMa5pEp377g \"Youtube\")\n\n- [Culture & Media](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/culture-media\/)\n- [Society](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/society\/)\n- [Governance & Policy](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/governance-policy\/)\n- [Global Affairs](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/global-affairs\/)\n- [Invited Opinion](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/invited-opinion\/)\n- [Regardless X](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/regardless-x\/)\n\n[![](https:\/\/cdn.regardless.sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/12013111\/Website-Logo_1x.png) Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/)\n\n[![](data:image\/svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcvMjAwMC9zdmciIHdpZHRoPSIxNDEiIGhlaWdodD0iNDkiIHZpZXdCb3g9IjAgMCAxNDEgNDkiPjxyZWN0IHdpZHRoPSIxMDAlIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjEwMCUiIGZpbGw9IiNjZmQ0ZGIiLz48L3N2Zz4=)](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/)   [![](https:\/\/cdn.regardless.sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/12013111\/Website-Logo_1x.png)](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/)\n\n- [Culture & Media](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/culture-media\/)\n- [Society](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/society\/)\n- [Governance & Policy](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/governance-policy\/)\n- [Global Affairs](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/global-affairs\/)\n- [Invited Opinion](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/invited-opinion\/)\n- [Regardless X](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/regardless-x\/)\n\n[Governance & Policy](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/governance-policy\/)\n\n# THE STATUS QUO ON 377A WORKS. WHY DISRUPT IT NOW?\n[![Regardless Team](data:image\/svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcvMjAwMC9zdmciIHdpZHRoPSI5NiIgaGVpZ2h0PSI5NiIgdmlld0JveD0iMCAwIDk2IDk2Ij48cmVjdCB3aWR0aD0iMTAwJSIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxMDAlIiBmaWxsPSIjY2ZkNGRiIi8+PC9zdmc+)](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/author\/regardless-team\/ \"Regardless Team\")\n\n[Regardless Team](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/author\/regardless-team\/)\n\n\\-\n\n8 August 2022\n\n![](https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/cdn.regardless.sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/08053328\/S377A-Why-Now-1024x539.png?resize=696%2C366&ssl=1)\n\nYa, Why ah?\n\nOn 3 March 2022, Minister Shanmugam announced the Government was reviewing and “considering the best way forward” on Section 377A of the Penal Code.\n\nSubsequent comments followed on 30 July 2022. In response to media queries, Minister Shanmugam shared that the Government had undertaken discussions with selected groups.\n\n“Many agree that men who have sex with each other should not be thrown into prison; gay sex should not be criminalized. At the same time, most do not want any decriminalization to cause other major changes. In particular, most people we’ve spoken with want the current position on marriage to be retained”, he said.\n\n“The two questions we are dealing with are therefore: One, what is to be done with Section 377A. Two, at the same time, we are also considering how can we safeguard the current legal position on marriage from being challenged in the courts.”\n\nA recent [CNA article](https:\/\/www.channelnewsasia.com\/singapore\/377a-marriage-constitution-legal-definition-cna-explains-2861451) referenced the possibility of a repeal of 377A, coupled with an amendment to the Constitution on the current definition of marriage. Admittedly, it’s an interesting question – but it also puts the cart before the horse.\n\nThe first question that Singapore should be asking, is “why now”?\n\n## **LEGAL URGENCY: REAL OR IMAGINARY?**\nMinister Shanmugam’s announcement on 3 March referenced the Court of Appeal [decision](https:\/\/www.elitigation.sg\/gd\/s\/2022_SGCA_16) on 377A made on 28 February 2022 (“*Tan Seng Kee*”).\n\nWe spoke to a number of legal experts to consider whether the decision in Tan Seng Kee provides a justification for disturbing the status quo on 377A. For example, did Tan Seng Kee materially increase the risk of 377A being struck down by the Courts?\n\nMany took the view that it did not.\n\nIn *Tan Seng Kee*, the Court of Appeal effectively blocked off further legal challenges to 377A by ruling that it is now “unenforceable in its *entirety*” (*Tan Seng Kee* at \\[149\\]). In coming to its decision, the Court took an exceptional recourse to the doctrine of [substantive legitimate expectations](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Legitimate_expectation#:~:text=in%20the%20UK.-,Substantive%20legitimate%20expectations,substantive%20benefit%20of%20some%20kind%22.). It referred to the Attorney-General’s press release in 2018 that prosecution of private sexual conduct between two consenting adults would not be in the public interest, and how Parliament, the Government and the Attorney-General had taken congruent positions with regards to the general non-enforcement of 377A.\n\nThe Court stated that its ruling is to have the effect of:\n\n- “providing homosexual men with the full measure of accommodation contemplated by the Government and expressed by the Prime Minister during the s 377A Debates”; and\n\n- “preserving the legislative status quo on s 377A and reserving the matter of its retention or repeal for further consideration by the Government and Parliament at an appropriate time”\n\n(*Tan Seng Kee* at \\[151\\]).\n\nGiven that 377A is unenforceable in its entirety, **no one in Singapore can be said to face any real or credible threat of prosecution under 377A.** The Court explained that this situation would only change unless and until the Attorney-General provides clear notice that he will no longer abide by the prosecutorial policy in the press release in 2018.\n\n> Therefore, insofar as no one within Singapore would be prosecuted under 377A, no one in Singapore can actually mount any fresh challenge in Court against the constitutionality of 377A. **Without any legal challenge in Court, the risk of 377A being struck down by the Court would be zero.**\n\nWith its decision in Tan Seng Kee to declare 377A as unenforceable in its entirety, the Court of Appeal thus took the active step in stemming any new legal challenges against the constitutionality of 377A. The Court of Appeal concluded that “377A has not been repealed, but neither can it be enforced” (Tan Seng Kee at \\[154\\]). It thus appears from the decision in Tan Seng Kee that the Court of Appeal is content to leave the issue of 377A to the democratic process for now. At the very least, there is no legal urgency to disrupt the status quo mere months after it was achieved. Arguably, one could say that the Court of Appeal not only kept the status quo but even entrenched it. The Court of Appeal’s decision also serves as a clear indication of its deference to the democratic process, suggesting that any further changes to 377A should come from Parliament rather than the courts. This stance aligns with the [High Court ruling on 377A](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/tldr-the-377a-high-court-ruling-part-2\/), which similarly emphasized the need for legislative reform rather than judicial intervention in sensitive social issues. Overall, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Tan Seng Kee demonstrates a cautious and conservative approach to addressing the constitutionality of 377A.\n\n## **IS THERE A CONSENSUS AMONGST SINGAPOREANS FOR THE REPEAL OF 377A? – NOPE**\nThe Minister’s comment that “many agree that men who have sex with each other should not be thrown into prison; gay sex should not be criminalized” was curious.\n\nGiven that it is now legally unenforceable in its entirety, 377A does not raise the issue of whether gay men will be thrown into prison. Why then should it be offered as a preambulatory reason when it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion?\n\nInstead, as with the uniqueness of Singapore as a nation, 377A represents a uniquely Singaporean compromise.\n\n> The non-enforcement of 377A allows LGBT-identifying citizens to live freely in Singapore, without harassment or interference, in peace. At the same time, 377A protects public morality; and the presence but non-enforcement of 377A in the Penal Code symbolises that homosexuality is to be tolerated but not normalised.\n\nSome argue that the political compromise is “legally untidy”. That may be true by standards of legal parsimony. Yet the law exists to serve the interests of society, and the current equilibrium should be protected because it works. It would be misplaced to prioritise the value of legal tidiness over the real day-to-day lives of Singaporeans.\n\nIf traditional family values remain the priority, why change the status quo when it precisely serves that interest?\n\nFurther, to the extent that the Minister was suggesting (through the phrase “gay sex should not be criminalized”) that there is a consensus for the repeal of 377A, this appears to contradict the [2022 IPSOS survey](https:\/\/www.ipsos.com\/en-sg\/attitudes-towards-same-sex-relationships-shift-towards-greater-inclusivity-singapore), where only 20% of respondents opposed 377A (cf. 45% of respondents who supported 377A, and 36% who were either neutral or preferred not to share their views).\n\nThe Protect Singapore Townhall held on 23 July 2022, with approximately 1,200 people in attendance, also called for the retention of 377A, at least until and unless there were adequate safeguards, such as the inclusion of marriage as between a man and a woman in the Constitution.\n\nThese indicate that there is no consensus for 377A to be repealed; and that, in fact, there are more Singaporeans in support of retaining 377A than those in support of repeal.\n\n> There are more Singaporeans in support of retaining 377A than those in support of repeal\n\nUnfortunately, the nature of closed-door discussions held by the Government means that there is no publicly available information to verify (or disprove) the media statements by the Government regarding the tone of these discussions.\n\nTo date, the Government has announced no plans to undertake a public consultation on the issue, or its intentions on any new political package.\n\n## **DOES EVIDENCE SINCE 2007 SUPPORT REPEAL AS GOOD FOR SINGAPORE?**\nIn 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong [said](https:\/\/www.straitstimes.com\/politics\/full-parliamentary-speech-by-pm-lee-hsien-loong-in-2007-on-section-377a), “If we abolish \\[377A\\], we may be sending the wrong signal that our \\[conservative\\] stance has changed and the rules have shifted… I think the gay activists will push for more… \\[and\\] instead of forging a consensus, we will divide and polarise our society.” He concluded by urging Singapore to “stay one step behind the frontline of change \\[and\\] watch how things work out elsewhere before we make any irrevocable moves.”\n\n15 years later, LGBT activists in Singapore have acknowledged that repealing 377A is only the first step. In 2018, Pink Dot announced a list of 10 demands, including thinly veiled aims for the normalisation of LGBT sexuality in schools and the media. On 4 July 2022, IndigNation started preparing for a new conference titled “Beyond Repeal \\[of 377A\\]”, to discuss the next steps beyond 377A.\n\nIn other countries where LGBT ideology has taken precedence, this has led to a slippery slope of ever-advancing pro-LGBT laws that also narrows the rights of free speech and conscience for others.\n\nIn the United Kingdom, for example, the decriminalisation of homosexual acts under the Sexual Offences Act has led to ‘anti-discrimination’ laws used to silence dissent in 2007 (under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations), same-sex adoption (under the Adoption and Children Act) from 2002, and same-sex marriage (under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act).\n\nThe results of social experimentation with a liberal sexual ethos are clear. If the results of LGBT ideology have led countries down the slippery slope, and into fractured societies, why should Singapore embark on this course of action?\n\n## **So why now?**\nThe fact is that given equilibrium has now been attained, we can’t find a compelling legal reason in the light of the latest court decision, to disrupt it, and to move on 377A.\n\nThere are, however, many reasons why we ought not to disrupt the status quo.\n\n- [377a](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/tag\/377a\/)\n- [Public Policy](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/tag\/public-policy\/)\n\n[![Regardless Team](data:image\/svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcvMjAwMC9zdmciIHdpZHRoPSI5NiIgaGVpZ2h0PSI5NiIgdmlld0JveD0iMCAwIDk2IDk2Ij48cmVjdCB3aWR0aD0iMTAwJSIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxMDAlIiBmaWxsPSIjY2ZkNGRiIi8+PC9zdmc+)](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/author\/regardless-team\/ \"Regardless Team\")\n\n[Regardless Team](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/author\/regardless-team\/)<http:\/\/www.regardless.sg>\n\n### Share this article\n[Facebook](https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fregardless.sg%2Fthe-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now%2F \"Facebook\")\n\n[X](https:\/\/x.com\/intent\/post?text=THE+STATUS+QUO+ON+377A+WORKS.+WHY+DISRUPT+IT+NOW%3F&url=https%3A%2F%2Fregardless.sg%2Fthe-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now%2F&via=Regardless \"X\")\n\n[WhatsApp](https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send?text=THE+STATUS+QUO+ON+377A+WORKS.+WHY+DISRUPT+IT+NOW%3F%20%0A%0A%20https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now\/ \"WhatsApp\")\n\n[Telegram](https:\/\/telegram.me\/share\/url?url=https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now\/&text=THE+STATUS+QUO+ON+377A+WORKS.+WHY+DISRUPT+IT+NOW%3F \"Telegram\")\n\n[Email](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/cdn-cgi\/l\/email-protection#1c236f697e76797f68214854593c4f485d48494f3c4d49533c53523c2f2b2b5d3c4b534e574f323c4b54453c58554f4e494c483c55483c52534b233a7e737865217468686c6f2633336e797b7d6e7870796f6f326f7b33687479316f687d68696f316d6973317372312f2b2b7d316b736e776f316b74653178756f6e696c683175683172736b33 \"Email\")\n\n[Copy URL](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now\/ \"Copy URL\")\n\n#### Recent posts\n### [Fairness, Freedom, and the Future of Modern Sport](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/fairness-freedom-and-the-future-of-modern-sport\/ \"Fairness, Freedom, and the Future of Modern Sport\")\n4 April 2026\n\n### [Singapore Doctor Expertly Presents The Professional Case Against Euthanasia](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/singapore-doctor-expertly-presents-the-professional-case-against-euthanasia\/ \"Singapore Doctor Expertly Presents The Professional Case Against Euthanasia\")\n2 April 2026\n\n### [Euthanasia Sounds Humane – Until You See What It Becomes](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/euthanasia-sounds-humane-until-you-see-what-it-becomes\/ \"Euthanasia Sounds Humane – Until You See What It Becomes\")\n1 April 2026\n\n### [Singapore and the Changing World Order](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/singapore-and-the-changing-world-order\/ \"Singapore and the Changing World Order\")\n31 March 2026\n\n### [Explainer: How the War in The Middle East Affects Singaporeans](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/explainer-how-the-war-in-the-middle-east-affects-singaporeans\/ \"Explainer: How the War in The Middle East Affects Singaporeans\")\n31 March 2026\n\n#### Popular categories\n[Society60](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/society\/)[Governance & Policy59](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/governance-policy\/)[Culture & Media33](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/culture-media\/)[Global Affairs16](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/global-affairs\/)[Invited Opinion11](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/invited-opinion\/)\n\nPrevious article\n\n[S377A doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals. Here’s why.](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/s377a-doesnt-discriminate-against-homosexuals-heres-why\/)\n\nNext article\n\n[AWARE argues that LGBTQ Rights Don’t Impinge on Straight People’s Rights. They’re Wrong.](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/aware-argues-that-lgbtq-rights-dont-impinge-on-straight-peoples-rights-theyre-wrong\/)\n\n[Governance & Policy](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/governance-policy\/)\n\n### [Singapore Doctor Expertly Presents The Professional Case Against Euthanasia](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/singapore-doctor-expertly-presents-the-professional-case-against-euthanasia\/ \"Singapore Doctor Expertly Presents The Professional Case Against Euthanasia\")\n[![Vincent Chia](data:image\/svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcvMjAwMC9zdmciIHdpZHRoPSI5NiIgaGVpZ2h0PSI5NiIgdmlld0JveD0iMCAwIDk2IDk2Ij48cmVjdCB3aWR0aD0iMTAwJSIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxMDAlIiBmaWxsPSIjY2ZkNGRiIi8+PC9zdmc+)](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/author\/vincent\/) [Vincent Chia](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/author\/vincent\/) \\-\n\n2 April 2026\n\n[Culture & Media](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/culture-media\/)\n\n### [Euthanasia Sounds Humane – Until You See What It Becomes](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/euthanasia-sounds-humane-until-you-see-what-it-becomes\/ \"Euthanasia Sounds Humane – Until You See What It Becomes\")\n[![Regardless Team](data:image\/svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcvMjAwMC9zdmciIHdpZHRoPSI5NiIgaGVpZ2h0PSI5NiIgdmlld0JveD0iMCAwIDk2IDk2Ij48cmVjdCB3aWR0aD0iMTAwJSIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxMDAlIiBmaWxsPSIjY2ZkNGRiIi8+PC9zdmc+)](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/author\/regardless-team\/) [Regardless Team](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/author\/regardless-team\/) \\-\n\n1 April 2026\n\n[Culture & Media](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/category\/culture-media\/)\n\n### [Some Adults Are Stealing From Children](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/why-every-child-needs-a-mum-and-dad-and-what-they-miss-out-on-without-both\/ \"Some Adults Are Stealing From Children\")\n[![Regardless Team](data:image\/svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcvMjAwMC9zdmciIHdpZHRoPSI5NiIgaGVpZ2h0PSI5NiIgdmlld0JveD0iMCAwIDk2IDk2Ij48cmVjdCB3aWR0aD0iMTAwJSIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxMDAlIiBmaWxsPSIjY2ZkNGRiIi8+PC9zdmc+)](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/author\/regardless-team\/) [Regardless Team](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/author\/regardless-team\/) \\-\n\n31 March 2026\n\n#### 2 COMMENTS\n1. ![Court of Appeal’s judgement in “Tan Seng Kee vs AG” does not threaten the status quo of s377A, says Constitutional Law Professor – VOW.sg](data:image\/svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcvMjAwMC9zdmciIHdpZHRoPSI1MCIgaGVpZ2h0PSI1MCIgdmlld0JveD0iMCAwIDUwIDUwIj48cmVjdCB3aWR0aD0iMTAwJSIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxMDAlIiBmaWxsPSIjY2ZkNGRiIi8+PC9zdmc+)\n   \n   [Court of Appeal’s judgement in “Tan Seng Kee vs AG” does not threaten the status quo of s377A, says Constitutional Law Professor – VOW.sg](http:\/\/vow.sg\/court-of-appeals-judgement-in-tan-seng-kee-vs-ag-does-not-threaten-the-status-quo-of-s377a-says-constitutional-law-professor\/)\n   \n   [14 August 2022 At 8:54 pm](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now\/#comment-834)\n   \n   \\[…\\] to concerns raised by some, as well as in articles like this – <https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now\/> – the Court of Appeal is not about to repeal s377A anytime \\[…\\]\n   \n   [Reply](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now\/#comment-834)\n2. ![Why is the Government Moving on 377A? \\| Regardless](data:image\/svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcvMjAwMC9zdmciIHdpZHRoPSI1MCIgaGVpZ2h0PSI1MCIgdmlld0JveD0iMCAwIDUwIDUwIj48cmVjdCB3aWR0aD0iMTAwJSIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxMDAlIiBmaWxsPSIjY2ZkNGRiIi8+PC9zdmc+)\n   \n   [Why is the Government Moving on 377A? \\| Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/why-is-the-government-moving-on-377a\/)\n   \n   [19 August 2022 At 4:30 pm](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now\/#comment-838)\n   \n   \\[…\\] a previous piece, we examined the legislative environment around S377A to uncover why the status quo was worth \\[…\\]\n   \n   [Reply](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now\/#comment-838)\n### LEAVE A REPLY [Cancel reply](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now\/#respond)\n\n#### Recent comments\n[How Activists Are Quietly Changing Singapore’s Understanding of Family - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/how-activists-are-quietly-changing-singapores-understanding-of-family\/) on [The Cost of Decentralised LGBT Activism in Singapore](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-cost-of-decentralised-lgbt-activism-in-singapore\/#comment-8650)\n\n[Singapore needs shift in societal mindset to boost low fertility rates - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/singapore-needs-shift-in-societal-mindset-to-boost-low-fertility-rates\/) on [The Future of Reproduction: Synthetic Sperm, Artificial Wombs and More](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-future-of-reproduction-synthetic-sperm-artificial-wombs-and-more\/#comment-8649)\n\n[Not Every “Right” Is Real: Hohfeld Shows Us Why - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/not-every-right-is-real-hohfeld-shows-us-why\/) on [What Makes a Right? Understanding Interests and Basic Goods](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/?p=3703\/#comment-8565)\n\n[Human Rights or Human Wants? - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/human-rights-or-human-wants-a-remedy-for-modern-rights-discourse\/) on [Some Adults Are Stealing From Children](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/why-every-child-needs-a-mum-and-dad-and-what-they-miss-out-on-without-both\/#comment-8530)\n\n[Descent Into Depravity: What Happens When We Destroy Marriage - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/descent-into-depravity-what-happens-when-we-destroy-marriage\/) on [Marriage Mirage in Singapore: False Security for Conservatives?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/marriage-mirage-in-singapore-a-false-sense-of-security-for-conservatives\/#comment-8024)\n\n[Descent Into Depravity: What Happens When We Destroy Marriage - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/descent-into-depravity-what-happens-when-we-destroy-marriage\/) on [The Future of Reproduction: Synthetic Sperm, Artificial Wombs and More](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-future-of-reproduction-synthetic-sperm-artificial-wombs-and-more\/#comment-8023)\n\n[Is It Really A Right? Here’s How To Know For Sure - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/is-it-really-a-right-heres-how-to-know-for-sure\/) on [What Equality Really Means](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/what-equality-really-means\/#comment-7925)\n\n[14\\. Not All Rights Are Real: How Basic Goods and the State Draw the Line - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/14-not-all-rights-are-real-how-basic-goods-and-the-state-draw-the-line\/) on [What Makes a Right? Understanding Interests and Basic Goods](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/?p=3703\/#comment-7924)\n\n[MOE is Not the Bad Guy - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/moe-is-not-the-bad-guy\/) on [National University of S\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/national-university-of-s________\/#comment-7696)\n\n[Singapore needs shift in societal mindset to boost low fertility rates - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/singapore-needs-shift-in-societal-mindset-to-boost-low-fertility-rates\/) on [The Elephant in the TFR Room: Female Hypergamy](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-elephant-in-the-tfr-room-female-hypergamy\/#comment-7525)\n\n[Libertarianism and Marriage – ninetwothree](https:\/\/9twothree.wordpress.com\/2026\/01\/06\/libertarianism-and-marriage\/) on [What Equality Really Means](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/what-equality-really-means\/#comment-7168)\n\n[From Tolerance to Tyranny: How LGBTQ Activism Is Reshaping Society - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/from-tolerance-to-tyranny-how-lgbtq-activism-is-reshaping-society\/) on [The Truth About HIV in Singapore: What the Campaign Won’t Say](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-truth-about-hiv-in-singapore-what-the-campaign-wont-say\/#comment-5422)\n\n[From Tolerance to Tyranny: How LGBTQ Activism Is Reshaping Society - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/from-tolerance-to-tyranny-how-lgbtq-activism-is-reshaping-society\/) on [The Cultural Crisis No One Talked About During GE2025](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-cultural-crisis-no-one-talks-about-this-ge\/#comment-5421)\n\n[From Tolerance to Tyranny: How LGBTQ Activism Is Reshaping Society - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/from-tolerance-to-tyranny-how-lgbtq-activism-is-reshaping-society\/) on [What Equality Really Means](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/what-equality-really-means\/#comment-5420)\n\n[Warning: You Are Being Misled by Your Local Media - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/warning-you-are-being-misled-by-your-local-media\/) on [LGBT Activists Attack Singapore Pastor Featured by RICE Media](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/lgbt-activists-attack-singapore-pastor\/#comment-5361)\n\n[Singapore at a Crossroads: The Ethical Risks of “Three-Parent Babies” - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/singapore-at-a-crossroads-the-ethical-risks-of-three-parent-babies\/) on [The Future of Reproduction: Synthetic Sperm, Artificial Wombs and More](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-future-of-reproduction-synthetic-sperm-artificial-wombs-and-more\/#comment-5360)\n\n[Warning: You Are Being Misled by Your Local Media - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/warning-you-are-being-misled-by-your-local-media\/) on [Part 2: When Equality Means Redefinition](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-2-when-equality-means-redefinition\/#comment-5128)\n\n[Warning: You Are Being Misled by Your Local Media - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/warning-you-are-being-misled-by-your-local-media\/) on [Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot’s Scorecard](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard\/#comment-5127)\n\n[Part 3: Equality as Power — The Push for Cultural Control - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-3-equality-as-power-the-push-for-cultural-control\/) on [Part 2: When Equality Means Redefinition](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-2-when-equality-means-redefinition\/#comment-5049)\n\n[Part 3: Equality as Power — The Push for Cultural Control - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-3-equality-as-power-the-push-for-cultural-control\/) on [Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot’s Scorecard](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard\/#comment-5048)\n\n[Part 2: When Equality Means Redefinition - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-2-when-equality-means-redefinition\/) on [Part 3: Equality as Power — The Push for Cultural Control](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-3-equality-as-power-the-push-for-cultural-control\/#comment-5045)\n\n[Part 2: When Equality Means Redefinition - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-2-when-equality-means-redefinition\/) on [Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot’s Scorecard](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard\/#comment-5044)\n\n[Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot's Scorecard - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard\/) on [Part 2: When Equality Means Redefinition](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-2-when-equality-means-redefinition\/#comment-5043)\n\n[Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot's Scorecard - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard\/) on [Non-Binary Nonsense: Too Late for SingPost to Course Correct?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/non-binary-nonsense-too-late-for-singpost-to-course-correct\/#comment-5042)\n\n[Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot's Scorecard - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard\/) on [Sexuality Education: A Contest of Worldviews and Values](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/sexuality-education-a-contest-of-worldviews-and-values\/#comment-5041)\n\n[Part 2: When Equality Means Redefinition - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-2-when-equality-means-redefinition\/) on [Problematic Pronouns: Resisting Their Cultural Takeover](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/problematic-pronouns-resisting-their-cultural-takeover\/#comment-5040)\n\n[Part 2: When Equality Means Redefinition - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-2-when-equality-means-redefinition\/) on [Putting “Born This Way” to Death Once and For All](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/putting-born-this-way-to-death-once-and-for-all\/#comment-5039)\n\n[Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot's Scorecard - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard\/) on [Problematic Pronouns: Resisting Their Cultural Takeover](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/problematic-pronouns-resisting-their-cultural-takeover\/#comment-5037)\n\n[Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot's Scorecard - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard\/) on [What Equality Really Means](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/what-equality-really-means\/#comment-5036)\n\n[From Tolerance to Tyranny: The Rainbow Reprogramming - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/from-tolerance-to-tyranny-the-rainbow-reprogramming\/) on [Conflicted: A Closer Look at Conversion Therapy](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/conflicted-a-closer-look-at-conversion-therapy\/#comment-4890)\n\n[From Tolerance to Tyranny: The Rainbow Reprogramming - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/from-tolerance-to-tyranny-the-rainbow-reprogramming\/) on [LGBT Activists Attack Singapore Pastor Featured by RICE Media](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/lgbt-activists-attack-singapore-pastor\/#comment-4889)\n\n[LGBT Activists Attack Singapore Pastor Featured by RICE Media - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/lgbt-activists-attack-singapore-pastor\/) on [How Activists Are Quietly Changing Singapore’s Understanding of Family](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/how-activists-are-quietly-changing-singapores-understanding-of-family\/#comment-4800)\n\n[HIV PEP in Singapore: Frequently Asked Questions](https:\/\/www.shimclinic.com\/blog\/stigma-still-hurts-why-hiv-misconceptions-remain-in-singapore) on [The Truth About HIV in Singapore: What the Campaign Won’t Say](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-truth-about-hiv-in-singapore-what-the-campaign-wont-say\/#comment-4395)\n\n[How Activists Are Quietly Changing Singapore’s Understanding of Family - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/how-activists-are-quietly-changing-singapores-understanding-of-family\/) on [Singapore, still a colony? A look at “Firstness”, Indigenous people and Rights. (Part Two)](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/singapore-still-a-colony-a-look-at-firstness-indigenous-people-and-rights-part-two\/#comment-4253)\n\n[How Activists Are Quietly Changing Singapore’s Understanding of Family - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/how-activists-are-quietly-changing-singapores-understanding-of-family\/) on [The Core of Singapore’s National Morality: Racial & Religious Harmony](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-core-of-singapores-national-morality\/#comment-4252)\n\n[How Activists Are Quietly Changing Singapore’s Understanding of Family - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/how-activists-are-quietly-changing-singapores-understanding-of-family\/) on [Are We Seeing the Rise of Anti-Police Sentiment in Singapore?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/are-we-seeing-the-rise-of-anti-police-sentiment-in-singapore\/#comment-4251)\n\n[Deryne Sim is Not a Threat To Conservative Values - For Now - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/deryne-sim-is-not-a-threat-to-conservative-values-for-now\/) on [Marriage Mirage in Singapore: False Security for Conservatives?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/marriage-mirage-in-singapore-a-false-sense-of-security-for-conservatives\/#comment-4041)\n\n[Janil Puthucheary – brown-dog-808446.hostingersite.com](https:\/\/brown-dog-808446.hostingersite.com\/janil-puthucheary\/) on [IPS Singapore Perspectives 2024: What’s all the fuss really about?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/ips-singapore-perspectives-2024\/#comment-3898)\n\n[Janil Puthucheary – brown-dog-808446.hostingersite.com](https:\/\/brown-dog-808446.hostingersite.com\/janil-puthucheary\/) on [“Regardless of Sexuality” a missed opportunity for clarity.](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/regardless-of-sexuality-a-missed-opportunity-for-clarity\/#comment-3897)\n\n[What’s Unsaid About Comprehensive Sexuality Education – lightsteelblue-loris-970032.hostingersite.com](https:\/\/lightsteelblue-loris-970032.hostingersite.com\/whats-unsaid-about-comprehensive-sexuality-education\/) on [What’s Unsaid About Comprehensive Sexuality Education](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/whats-unsaid-about-comprehensive-sexuality-education\/#comment-3294)\n\n[Sexuality Education: A Contest of Worldviews and Values – lightsteelblue-loris-970032.hostingersite.com](https:\/\/lightsteelblue-loris-970032.hostingersite.com\/sexuality-education-a-contest-of-worldviews-and-values\/) on [Sexuality Education: A Contest of Worldviews and Values](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/sexuality-education-a-contest-of-worldviews-and-values\/#comment-3293)\n\n[The Future of Reproduction: Synthetic Sperm, Artificial Wombs and More - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-future-of-reproduction-synthetic-sperm-artificial-wombs-and-more\/) on [Elective Egg Freezing (Part 1): Mum’s the Word on Children’s Rights](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/elective-egg-freezing-part-1-mums-the-word-on-childrens-rights\/#comment-3210)\n\n[Oral.sk - Necenzurované správy Pobúrení Singapurčania úspešne zatvorili pro-LGBT podujatie vo vedeckom centre](https:\/\/oral.sk\/pobureni-singapurcania-uspesne-zatvorili-pro-lgbt-podujatie-vo-vedeckom-centre\/) on [Is Gender Just A Social Construct?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/is-gender-just-a-social-construct\/#comment-2620)\n\n[The Science Centre Got a Drag Queen, a Queer Prof and a Transgender to School Us on Sex & Gender - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-science-centre-got-a-drag-queen-a-queer-prof-and-a-transgender-to-school-us-on-sex-gender\/) on [Conflicted: A Closer Look at Conversion Therapy](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/conflicted-a-closer-look-at-conversion-therapy\/#comment-2591)\n\n[The Science Centre Tried Getting a Drag Queen, a Queer Prof and a Transgender to School Us on Sex & Gender - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-science-centre-tried-getting-a-drag-queen-a-queer-prof-and-a-transgender-to-school-us-on-sex-gender\/) on [Conflicted: A Closer Look at Conversion Therapy](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/conflicted-a-closer-look-at-conversion-therapy\/#comment-2590)\n\n[The Science Centre Tried Getting a Drag Queen, a Queer Prof and a Transgender to School Us on Sex & Gender - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-science-centre-tried-getting-a-drag-queen-a-queer-prof-and-a-transgender-to-school-us-on-sex-gender\/) on [Plot Twist! ‘Sex’ and ‘gender’ are now the same again](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/plot-twist-sex-and-gender-are-now-the-same-again\/#comment-2589)\n\n[The Science Centre got a Drag Queen, a Queer Prof and a Trans Counsellor to School Us on Sex & Gender - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-science-centre-got-a-drag-queen-a-queer-prof-and-a-trans-counsellor-to-school-us-on-sex-gender\/) on [Plot Twist! ‘Sex’ and ‘gender’ are now the same again](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/plot-twist-sex-and-gender-are-now-the-same-again\/#comment-2588)\n\n[LGBT Activists Attack Singapore Pastor Featured by RICE Media - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/lgbt-activists-attack-singapore-pastor\/) on [Has Conservative Discourse on 377A Run Its Course?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/has-conservative-discourse-on-377a-run-its-course\/#comment-2516)\n\n[\"Woke Women\": Making Too Much of the ‘Great Gender Divide’ - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/woke-women\/) on [What’s The Big Deal With Critical Race Theory? (Part 1)](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/whats-the-big-deal-with-critical-race-theory-part-1\/#comment-2209)\n\n[\"Woke Women\": Making Too Much of the ‘Great Gender Divide’ - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/woke-women\/) on [CNA’S Transgender Bias?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/cnas-transgender-bias\/#comment-2208)\n\n[\"Woke Women\": Making Too Much of the ‘Great Gender Divide’ - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/woke-women\/) on [What’s The Big Deal With Critical Race Theory (Part 2)](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/whats-the-big-deal-with-critical-race-theory-part-2\/#comment-2207)\n\n[\"Woke Women\": Making Too Much of the ‘Great Gender Divide’ - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/woke-women\/) on [Plot Twist! ‘Sex’ and ‘gender’ are now the same again](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/plot-twist-sex-and-gender-are-now-the-same-again\/#comment-2206)\n\n[IPS Singapore Perspectives 2024: Welcome, Culture Wars - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/ips-singapore-perspectives-2024-welcome-culture-wars\/) on [IPS Singapore Perspectives 2024: What’s all the fuss really about?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/ips-singapore-perspectives-2024\/#comment-2151)\n\n[IPS Singapore Perspectives 2024: What’s all the fuss really about? - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/ips-singapore-perspectives-2024\/) on [“Regardless of Sexuality” a missed opportunity for clarity.](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/regardless-of-sexuality-a-missed-opportunity-for-clarity\/#comment-2107)\n\n[Gaza Conflict 2023– Part 3: Examining the Root of Conflict - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/gaza-conflict-2023-part-3-examining-the-root-of-conflict\/) on [Gaza Conflict 2023 – Part 2: Arguments For and Against the Palestinian Position](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/gaza-conflict-2023-part-2-arguments-for-and-against-the-palestinian-position\/#comment-1817)\n\n[Gaza Conflict 2023– Part 3: Examining the Root of Conflict - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/gaza-conflict-2023-part-3-examining-the-root-of-conflict\/) on [Gaza Conflict 2023 – Part 1: Arguments For and Against the Israeli Position](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/gaza-conflict-2023-part-1-arguments-for-and-against-the-israeli-position\/#comment-1816)\n\n[Gaza Conflict 2023 – Part 2: Arguments For and Against the Palestinian Position - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/gaza-conflict-2023-part-2-arguments-for-and-against-the-palestinian-position\/) on [Gaza Conflict 2023 – Part 1: Arguments For and Against the Israeli Position](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/gaza-conflict-2023-part-1-arguments-for-and-against-the-israeli-position\/#comment-1815)\n\n[Gaza Conflict 2023 – Part 2: Arguments For and Against the Palestinian Position - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/gaza-conflict-2023-part-2-arguments-for-and-against-the-palestinian-position\/) on [Gaza Conflict 2023– Part 3: Examining the Root of Conflict](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/gaza-conflict-2023-part-3-examining-the-root-of-conflict\/#comment-1791)\n\n[Gaza Conflict 2023 – Part 1: Arguments For and Against the Israeli Position - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/gaza-conflict-2023-part-1-arguments-for-and-against-the-israeli-position\/) on [Gaza Conflict 2023 – Part 2: Arguments For and Against the Palestinian Position](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/gaza-conflict-2023-part-2-arguments-for-and-against-the-palestinian-position\/#comment-1790)\n\n[Problematic Pronouns: Resisting Their Cultural Takeover - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/problematic-pronouns-resisting-their-cultural-takeover\/) on [Problematic Pronouns: How to Respond to Workplace Pressures](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/problematic-pronouns-how-to-respond-to-workplace-pressures\/#comment-1535)\n\n[Problematic Pronouns: How to Respond to Workplace Pressures - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/problematic-pronouns-how-to-respond-to-workplace-pressures\/) on [Problematic Pronouns: Resisting Their Cultural Takeover](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/problematic-pronouns-resisting-their-cultural-takeover\/#comment-1534)\n\n[Problematic Pronouns: Resisting Their Cultural Takeover - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/problematic-pronouns-resisting-their-cultural-takeover\/) on [Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: A Trojan Horse at the Gates of Singapore?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-a-trojan-horse-at-the-gates-of-singapore\/#comment-1525)\n\n[Will Article 156 of the Constitution Protect Singapore? - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/will-article-156-of-the-constitution-protect-singapore\/) on [S377A: Is Article 156 The Best Way Forward?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/s377a-is-article-156-the-best-way-forward\/#comment-1500)\n\n[George Goh: A Man For The People? - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/george-goh-a-man-for-the-people\/) on [Five Thoughts About September’s Presidential Elections… if we even have them.](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/five-thoughts-about-septembers-presidential-elections-if-we-even-have-them\/#comment-1378)\n\n[Cancel Culture: How Could The Government Fight It? - Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/cancel-culture-how-could-the-government-fight-it\/) on [Our Government, the O.G. Canceller?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/our-government-the-og-canceller\/#comment-1045)\n\n[S377A: Is Article 156 The Best Way Forward? \\| Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/s377a-is-article-156-the-best-way-forward\/) on [What’s Unsaid About Comprehensive Sexuality Education](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/whats-unsaid-about-comprehensive-sexuality-education\/#comment-881)\n\n[S377A: Is Article 156 The Best Way Forward? \\| Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/s377a-is-article-156-the-best-way-forward\/) on [S377A doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals. Here’s why.](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/s377a-doesnt-discriminate-against-homosexuals-heres-why\/#comment-880)\n\n[8 Things To Ponder Concerning Govt’s Announcement To Repeal S377A \\| Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/8-things-to-ponder-concerning-govts-announcement-to-repeal-s377a\/) on [Safeguarding Marriage Against The “Non-Immediate” Challenges To Come](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/safeguarding-marriage-against-the-non-immediate-challenges-to-come\/#comment-842)\n\n[When Should the Government Move on 377A? \\| Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/when-should-the-government-move-on-377a\/) on [Why is the Government Moving on 377A?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/why-is-the-government-moving-on-377a\/#comment-840)\n\n[When Should the Government Move on 377A? \\| Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/when-should-the-government-move-on-377a\/) on [The Ipsos Survey on Section 377A](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-ipsos-survey-on-section-377a\/#comment-839)\n\n[Why is the Government Moving on 377A? \\| Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/why-is-the-government-moving-on-377a\/) on [THE STATUS QUO ON 377A WORKS. WHY DISRUPT IT NOW?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now\/#comment-838)\n\n[Court of Appeal’s judgement in “Tan Seng Kee vs AG” does not threaten the status quo of s377A, says Constitutional Law Professor – VOW.sg](http:\/\/vow.sg\/court-of-appeals-judgement-in-tan-seng-kee-vs-ag-does-not-threaten-the-status-quo-of-s377a-says-constitutional-law-professor\/) on [THE STATUS QUO ON 377A WORKS. WHY DISRUPT IT NOW?](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now\/#comment-834)\n#### Follow us on Instagram [@regardless.sg](https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/regardless.sg)\n[![](https:\/\/cdn.regardless.sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/12013111\/Website-Logo_1x.png)](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/)\n\nABOUT US\n\nIndependent media for responsible citizenship, Relooking perspectives from Singapore and abroad.\n\nContact us: [\\[email protected\\]](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/cdn-cgi\/l\/email-protection#e68e838a8a89a69483818794828a839595c89581)\n\nFOLLOW US\n\n[Facebook](https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Regardless.sg\/ \"Facebook\")     [Instagram](https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/regardless.sg\/ \"Instagram\")     [Telegram](https:\/\/t.me\/regardlesssg \"Telegram\")     [X](https:\/\/twitter.com\/regardlesssg \"X\")     [Youtube](https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UC5epz3Oz1BeLpMa5pEp377g \"Youtube\")\n\n- [About](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/about-regardless\/)\n- [Privacy Policy and Data Protection Notice](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/privacy-policy\/)\n- [Disclaimer](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/disclaimer\/)\n- [Write With Regardless](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/write-with-regardless\/)\n\n© Regardless 2026","attrs_readable_markdown":"![](https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/cdn.regardless.sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/08053328\/S377A-Why-Now-1024x539.png?resize=696%2C366&ssl=1)\n\nYa, Why ah?\n\nOn 3 March 2022, Minister Shanmugam announced the Government was reviewing and “considering the best way forward” on Section 377A of the Penal Code.\n\nSubsequent comments followed on 30 July 2022. In response to media queries, Minister Shanmugam shared that the Government had undertaken discussions with selected groups.\n\n“Many agree that men who have sex with each other should not be thrown into prison; gay sex should not be criminalized. At the same time, most do not want any decriminalization to cause other major changes. In particular, most people we’ve spoken with want the current position on marriage to be retained”, he said.\n\n“The two questions we are dealing with are therefore: One, what is to be done with Section 377A. Two, at the same time, we are also considering how can we safeguard the current legal position on marriage from being challenged in the courts.”\n\nA recent [CNA article](https:\/\/www.channelnewsasia.com\/singapore\/377a-marriage-constitution-legal-definition-cna-explains-2861451) referenced the possibility of a repeal of 377A, coupled with an amendment to the Constitution on the current definition of marriage. Admittedly, it’s an interesting question – but it also puts the cart before the horse.\n\nThe first question that Singapore should be asking, is “why now”?\n\n## **LEGAL URGENCY: REAL OR IMAGINARY?**\nMinister Shanmugam’s announcement on 3 March referenced the Court of Appeal [decision](https:\/\/www.elitigation.sg\/gd\/s\/2022_SGCA_16) on 377A made on 28 February 2022 (“*Tan Seng Kee*”).\n\nWe spoke to a number of legal experts to consider whether the decision in Tan Seng Kee provides a justification for disturbing the status quo on 377A. For example, did Tan Seng Kee materially increase the risk of 377A being struck down by the Courts?\n\nMany took the view that it did not.\n\nIn *Tan Seng Kee*, the Court of Appeal effectively blocked off further legal challenges to 377A by ruling that it is now “unenforceable in its *entirety*” (*Tan Seng Kee* at \\[149\\]). In coming to its decision, the Court took an exceptional recourse to the doctrine of [substantive legitimate expectations](https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Legitimate_expectation#:~:text=in%20the%20UK.-,Substantive%20legitimate%20expectations,substantive%20benefit%20of%20some%20kind%22.). It referred to the Attorney-General’s press release in 2018 that prosecution of private sexual conduct between two consenting adults would not be in the public interest, and how Parliament, the Government and the Attorney-General had taken congruent positions with regards to the general non-enforcement of 377A.\n\nThe Court stated that its ruling is to have the effect of:\n\n- “providing homosexual men with the full measure of accommodation contemplated by the Government and expressed by the Prime Minister during the s 377A Debates”; and\n\n- “preserving the legislative status quo on s 377A and reserving the matter of its retention or repeal for further consideration by the Government and Parliament at an appropriate time”\n\n(*Tan Seng Kee* at \\[151\\]).\n\nGiven that 377A is unenforceable in its entirety, **no one in Singapore can be said to face any real or credible threat of prosecution under 377A.** The Court explained that this situation would only change unless and until the Attorney-General provides clear notice that he will no longer abide by the prosecutorial policy in the press release in 2018.\n\n> Therefore, insofar as no one within Singapore would be prosecuted under 377A, no one in Singapore can actually mount any fresh challenge in Court against the constitutionality of 377A. **Without any legal challenge in Court, the risk of 377A being struck down by the Court would be zero.**\n\nWith its decision in Tan Seng Kee to declare 377A as unenforceable in its entirety, the Court of Appeal thus took the active step in stemming any new legal challenges against the constitutionality of 377A. The Court of Appeal concluded that “377A has not been repealed, but neither can it be enforced” (Tan Seng Kee at \\[154\\]). It thus appears from the decision in Tan Seng Kee that the Court of Appeal is content to leave the issue of 377A to the democratic process for now. At the very least, there is no legal urgency to disrupt the status quo mere months after it was achieved. Arguably, one could say that the Court of Appeal not only kept the status quo but even entrenched it. The Court of Appeal’s decision also serves as a clear indication of its deference to the democratic process, suggesting that any further changes to 377A should come from Parliament rather than the courts. This stance aligns with the [High Court ruling on 377A](https:\/\/regardless.sg\/tldr-the-377a-high-court-ruling-part-2\/), which similarly emphasized the need for legislative reform rather than judicial intervention in sensitive social issues. Overall, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Tan Seng Kee demonstrates a cautious and conservative approach to addressing the constitutionality of 377A.\n\n## **IS THERE A CONSENSUS AMONGST SINGAPOREANS FOR THE REPEAL OF 377A? – NOPE**\nThe Minister’s comment that “many agree that men who have sex with each other should not be thrown into prison; gay sex should not be criminalized” was curious.\n\nGiven that it is now legally unenforceable in its entirety, 377A does not raise the issue of whether gay men will be thrown into prison. Why then should it be offered as a preambulatory reason when it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion?\n\nInstead, as with the uniqueness of Singapore as a nation, 377A represents a uniquely Singaporean compromise.\n\n> The non-enforcement of 377A allows LGBT-identifying citizens to live freely in Singapore, without harassment or interference, in peace. At the same time, 377A protects public morality; and the presence but non-enforcement of 377A in the Penal Code symbolises that homosexuality is to be tolerated but not normalised.\n\nSome argue that the political compromise is “legally untidy”. That may be true by standards of legal parsimony. Yet the law exists to serve the interests of society, and the current equilibrium should be protected because it works. It would be misplaced to prioritise the value of legal tidiness over the real day-to-day lives of Singaporeans.\n\nIf traditional family values remain the priority, why change the status quo when it precisely serves that interest?\n\nFurther, to the extent that the Minister was suggesting (through the phrase “gay sex should not be criminalized”) that there is a consensus for the repeal of 377A, this appears to contradict the [2022 IPSOS survey](https:\/\/www.ipsos.com\/en-sg\/attitudes-towards-same-sex-relationships-shift-towards-greater-inclusivity-singapore), where only 20% of respondents opposed 377A (cf. 45% of respondents who supported 377A, and 36% who were either neutral or preferred not to share their views).\n\nThe Protect Singapore Townhall held on 23 July 2022, with approximately 1,200 people in attendance, also called for the retention of 377A, at least until and unless there were adequate safeguards, such as the inclusion of marriage as between a man and a woman in the Constitution.\n\nThese indicate that there is no consensus for 377A to be repealed; and that, in fact, there are more Singaporeans in support of retaining 377A than those in support of repeal.\n\n> There are more Singaporeans in support of retaining 377A than those in support of repeal\n\nUnfortunately, the nature of closed-door discussions held by the Government means that there is no publicly available information to verify (or disprove) the media statements by the Government regarding the tone of these discussions.\n\nTo date, the Government has announced no plans to undertake a public consultation on the issue, or its intentions on any new political package.\n\n## **DOES EVIDENCE SINCE 2007 SUPPORT REPEAL AS GOOD FOR SINGAPORE?**\nIn 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong [said](https:\/\/www.straitstimes.com\/politics\/full-parliamentary-speech-by-pm-lee-hsien-loong-in-2007-on-section-377a), “If we abolish \\[377A\\], we may be sending the wrong signal that our \\[conservative\\] stance has changed and the rules have shifted… I think the gay activists will push for more… \\[and\\] instead of forging a consensus, we will divide and polarise our society.” He concluded by urging Singapore to “stay one step behind the frontline of change \\[and\\] watch how things work out elsewhere before we make any irrevocable moves.”\n\n15 years later, LGBT activists in Singapore have acknowledged that repealing 377A is only the first step. In 2018, Pink Dot announced a list of 10 demands, including thinly veiled aims for the normalisation of LGBT sexuality in schools and the media. On 4 July 2022, IndigNation started preparing for a new conference titled “Beyond Repeal \\[of 377A\\]”, to discuss the next steps beyond 377A.\n\nIn other countries where LGBT ideology has taken precedence, this has led to a slippery slope of ever-advancing pro-LGBT laws that also narrows the rights of free speech and conscience for others.\n\nIn the United Kingdom, for example, the decriminalisation of homosexual acts under the Sexual Offences Act has led to ‘anti-discrimination’ laws used to silence dissent in 2007 (under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations), same-sex adoption (under the Adoption and Children Act) from 2002, and same-sex marriage (under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act).\n\nThe results of social experimentation with a liberal sexual ethos are clear. If the results of LGBT ideology have led countries down the slippery slope, and into fractured societies, why should Singapore embark on this course of action?\n\n## **So why now?**\nThe fact is that given equilibrium has now been attained, we can’t find a compelling legal reason in the light of the latest court decision, to disrupt it, and to move on 377A.\n\nThere are, however, many reasons why we ought not to disrupt the status quo.","meta_canonical":null}

3. Robots.txt Check

Query:

Response:

4. Spam/Ban Check

Query:

Response:

5. Seen Status Check

ℹ️ Skipped - page is already crawled

📄

INDEXABLE

✅

CRAWLED

8 days ago

🤖

ROBOTS ALLOWED

Page Info Filters

Filter	Status	Condition	Details
HTTP status	PASS	`download_http_code = 200`	HTTP 200
Age cutoff	PASS	`download_stamp > now() - 6 MONTH`	0.3 months ago
History drop	PASS	`isNull(history_drop_reason)`	No drop reason
Spam/ban	PASS	`fh_dont_index != 1 AND ml_spam_score = 0`	ml_spam_score=0
Canonical	PASS	`meta_canonical IS NULL OR = '' OR = src_unparsed`	Not set

Page Details

Property	Value
URL	https://regardless.sg/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now/
Last Crawled	2026-04-09 20:20:06 (8 days ago)
First Indexed	2022-08-08 02:23:02 (3 years ago)
HTTP Status Code	200
Meta Title	THE STATUS QUO ON 377A WORKS. WHY DISRUPT IT NOW? - Regardless
Meta Description	null
Meta Canonical	null
Boilerpipe Text	Ya, Why ah? On 3 March 2022, Minister Shanmugam announced the Government was reviewing and “considering the best way forward” on Section 377A of the Penal Code. Subsequent comments followed on 30 July 2022. In response to media queries, Minister Shanmugam shared that the Government had undertaken discussions with selected groups. “Many agree that men who have sex with each other should not be thrown into prison; gay sex should not be criminalized. At the same time, most do not want any decriminalization to cause other major changes. In particular, most people we’ve spoken with want the current position on marriage to be retained”, he said. “The two questions we are dealing with are therefore: One, what is to be done with Section 377A. Two, at the same time, we are also considering how can we safeguard the current legal position on marriage from being challenged in the courts.” A recent CNA article referenced the possibility of a repeal of 377A, coupled with an amendment to the Constitution on the current definition of marriage. Admittedly, it’s an interesting question – but it also puts the cart before the horse. The first question that Singapore should be asking, is “why now”? LEGAL URGENCY: REAL OR IMAGINARY? Minister Shanmugam’s announcement on 3 March referenced the Court of Appeal decision on 377A made on 28 February 2022 (“ Tan Seng Kee ”). We spoke to a number of legal experts to consider whether the decision in Tan Seng Kee provides a justification for disturbing the status quo on 377A. For example, did Tan Seng Kee materially increase the risk of 377A being struck down by the Courts? Many took the view that it did not. In Tan Seng Kee , the Court of Appeal effectively blocked off further legal challenges to 377A by ruling that it is now “unenforceable in its entirety ” ( Tan Seng Kee at [149]). In coming to its decision, the Court took an exceptional recourse to the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations . It referred to the Attorney-General’s press release in 2018 that prosecution of private sexual conduct between two consenting adults would not be in the public interest, and how Parliament, the Government and the Attorney-General had taken congruent positions with regards to the general non-enforcement of 377A. The Court stated that its ruling is to have the effect of: “providing homosexual men with the full measure of accommodation contemplated by the Government and expressed by the Prime Minister during the s 377A Debates”; and “preserving the legislative status quo on s 377A and reserving the matter of its retention or repeal for further consideration by the Government and Parliament at an appropriate time” ( Tan Seng Kee at [151]). Given that 377A is unenforceable in its entirety, no one in Singapore can be said to face any real or credible threat of prosecution under 377A. The Court explained that this situation would only change unless and until the Attorney-General provides clear notice that he will no longer abide by the prosecutorial policy in the press release in 2018. Therefore, insofar as no one within Singapore would be prosecuted under 377A, no one in Singapore can actually mount any fresh challenge in Court against the constitutionality of 377A. Without any legal challenge in Court, the risk of 377A being struck down by the Court would be zero. With its decision in Tan Seng Kee to declare 377A as unenforceable in its entirety, the Court of Appeal thus took the active step in stemming any new legal challenges against the constitutionality of 377A. The Court of Appeal concluded that “377A has not been repealed, but neither can it be enforced” (Tan Seng Kee at [154]). It thus appears from the decision in Tan Seng Kee that the Court of Appeal is content to leave the issue of 377A to the democratic process for now. At the very least, there is no legal urgency to disrupt the status quo mere months after it was achieved. Arguably, one could say that the Court of Appeal not only kept the status quo but even entrenched it. The Court of Appeal’s decision also serves as a clear indication of its deference to the democratic process, suggesting that any further changes to 377A should come from Parliament rather than the courts. This stance aligns with the High Court ruling on 377A , which similarly emphasized the need for legislative reform rather than judicial intervention in sensitive social issues. Overall, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Tan Seng Kee demonstrates a cautious and conservative approach to addressing the constitutionality of 377A. IS THERE A CONSENSUS AMONGST SINGAPOREANS FOR THE REPEAL OF 377A? – NOPE The Minister’s comment that “many agree that men who have sex with each other should not be thrown into prison; gay sex should not be criminalized” was curious. Given that it is now legally unenforceable in its entirety, 377A does not raise the issue of whether gay men will be thrown into prison. Why then should it be offered as a preambulatory reason when it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion? Instead, as with the uniqueness of Singapore as a nation, 377A represents a uniquely Singaporean compromise. The non-enforcement of 377A allows LGBT-identifying citizens to live freely in Singapore, without harassment or interference, in peace. At the same time, 377A protects public morality; and the presence but non-enforcement of 377A in the Penal Code symbolises that homosexuality is to be tolerated but not normalised. Some argue that the political compromise is “legally untidy”. That may be true by standards of legal parsimony. Yet the law exists to serve the interests of society, and the current equilibrium should be protected because it works. It would be misplaced to prioritise the value of legal tidiness over the real day-to-day lives of Singaporeans. If traditional family values remain the priority, why change the status quo when it precisely serves that interest? Further, to the extent that the Minister was suggesting (through the phrase “gay sex should not be criminalized”) that there is a consensus for the repeal of 377A, this appears to contradict the 2022 IPSOS survey , where only 20% of respondents opposed 377A (cf. 45% of respondents who supported 377A, and 36% who were either neutral or preferred not to share their views). The Protect Singapore Townhall held on 23 July 2022, with approximately 1,200 people in attendance, also called for the retention of 377A, at least until and unless there were adequate safeguards, such as the inclusion of marriage as between a man and a woman in the Constitution. These indicate that there is no consensus for 377A to be repealed; and that, in fact, there are more Singaporeans in support of retaining 377A than those in support of repeal. There are more Singaporeans in support of retaining 377A than those in support of repeal Unfortunately, the nature of closed-door discussions held by the Government means that there is no publicly available information to verify (or disprove) the media statements by the Government regarding the tone of these discussions. To date, the Government has announced no plans to undertake a public consultation on the issue, or its intentions on any new political package. DOES EVIDENCE SINCE 2007 SUPPORT REPEAL AS GOOD FOR SINGAPORE? In 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said , “If we abolish [377A], we may be sending the wrong signal that our [conservative] stance has changed and the rules have shifted… I think the gay activists will push for more… [and] instead of forging a consensus, we will divide and polarise our society.” He concluded by urging Singapore to “stay one step behind the frontline of change [and] watch how things work out elsewhere before we make any irrevocable moves.” 15 years later, LGBT activists in Singapore have acknowledged that repealing 377A is only the first step. In 2018, Pink Dot announced a list of 10 demands, including thinly veiled aims for the normalisation of LGBT sexuality in schools and the media. On 4 July 2022, IndigNation started preparing for a new conference titled “Beyond Repeal [of 377A]”, to discuss the next steps beyond 377A. In other countries where LGBT ideology has taken precedence, this has led to a slippery slope of ever-advancing pro-LGBT laws that also narrows the rights of free speech and conscience for others. In the United Kingdom, for example, the decriminalisation of homosexual acts under the Sexual Offences Act has led to ‘anti-discrimination’ laws used to silence dissent in 2007 (under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations), same-sex adoption (under the Adoption and Children Act) from 2002, and same-sex marriage (under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act). The results of social experimentation with a liberal sexual ethos are clear. If the results of LGBT ideology have led countries down the slippery slope, and into fractured societies, why should Singapore embark on this course of action? So why now? The fact is that given equilibrium has now been attained, we can’t find a compelling legal reason in the light of the latest court decision, to disrupt it, and to move on 377A. There are, however, many reasons why we ought not to disrupt the status quo.
Markdown	[Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/Regardless.sg/ "Facebook") [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/regardless.sg/ "Instagram") [Telegram](https://t.me/regardlesssg "Telegram") [X](https://twitter.com/regardlesssg "X") [Youtube](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5epz3Oz1BeLpMa5pEp377g "Youtube") - [Culture & Media](https://regardless.sg/category/culture-media/) - [Society](https://regardless.sg/category/society/) - [Governance & Policy](https://regardless.sg/category/governance-policy/) - [Global Affairs](https://regardless.sg/category/global-affairs/) - [Invited Opinion](https://regardless.sg/category/invited-opinion/) - [Regardless X](https://regardless.sg/category/regardless-x/) [![](https://cdn.regardless.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/12013111/Website-Logo_1x.png) Regardless](https://regardless.sg/) [![]()](https://regardless.sg/) [![](https://cdn.regardless.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/12013111/Website-Logo_1x.png)](https://regardless.sg/) - [Culture & Media](https://regardless.sg/category/culture-media/) - [Society](https://regardless.sg/category/society/) - [Governance & Policy](https://regardless.sg/category/governance-policy/) - [Global Affairs](https://regardless.sg/category/global-affairs/) - [Invited Opinion](https://regardless.sg/category/invited-opinion/) - [Regardless X](https://regardless.sg/category/regardless-x/) [Governance & Policy](https://regardless.sg/category/governance-policy/) # THE STATUS QUO ON 377A WORKS. WHY DISRUPT IT NOW? [![Regardless Team]()](https://regardless.sg/author/regardless-team/ "Regardless Team") [Regardless Team](https://regardless.sg/author/regardless-team/) \- 8 August 2022 ![](https://i0.wp.com/cdn.regardless.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08053328/S377A-Why-Now-1024x539.png?resize=696%2C366&ssl=1) Ya, Why ah? On 3 March 2022, Minister Shanmugam announced the Government was reviewing and “considering the best way forward” on Section 377A of the Penal Code. Subsequent comments followed on 30 July 2022. In response to media queries, Minister Shanmugam shared that the Government had undertaken discussions with selected groups. “Many agree that men who have sex with each other should not be thrown into prison; gay sex should not be criminalized. At the same time, most do not want any decriminalization to cause other major changes. In particular, most people we’ve spoken with want the current position on marriage to be retained”, he said. “The two questions we are dealing with are therefore: One, what is to be done with Section 377A. Two, at the same time, we are also considering how can we safeguard the current legal position on marriage from being challenged in the courts.” A recent [CNA article](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/377a-marriage-constitution-legal-definition-cna-explains-2861451) referenced the possibility of a repeal of 377A, coupled with an amendment to the Constitution on the current definition of marriage. Admittedly, it’s an interesting question – but it also puts the cart before the horse. The first question that Singapore should be asking, is “why now”? ## LEGAL URGENCY: REAL OR IMAGINARY? Minister Shanmugam’s announcement on 3 March referenced the Court of Appeal [decision](https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2022_SGCA_16) on 377A made on 28 February 2022 (“Tan Seng Kee”). We spoke to a number of legal experts to consider whether the decision in Tan Seng Kee provides a justification for disturbing the status quo on 377A. For example, did Tan Seng Kee materially increase the risk of 377A being struck down by the Courts? Many took the view that it did not. In Tan Seng Kee, the Court of Appeal effectively blocked off further legal challenges to 377A by ruling that it is now “unenforceable in its entirety” (Tan Seng Kee at \[149\]). In coming to its decision, the Court took an exceptional recourse to the doctrine of [substantive legitimate expectations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_expectation#:~:text=in%20the%20UK.-,Substantive%20legitimate%20expectations,substantive%20benefit%20of%20some%20kind%22.). It referred to the Attorney-General’s press release in 2018 that prosecution of private sexual conduct between two consenting adults would not be in the public interest, and how Parliament, the Government and the Attorney-General had taken congruent positions with regards to the general non-enforcement of 377A. The Court stated that its ruling is to have the effect of: - “providing homosexual men with the full measure of accommodation contemplated by the Government and expressed by the Prime Minister during the s 377A Debates”; and - “preserving the legislative status quo on s 377A and reserving the matter of its retention or repeal for further consideration by the Government and Parliament at an appropriate time” (Tan Seng Kee at \[151\]). Given that 377A is unenforceable in its entirety, no one in Singapore can be said to face any real or credible threat of prosecution under 377A. The Court explained that this situation would only change unless and until the Attorney-General provides clear notice that he will no longer abide by the prosecutorial policy in the press release in 2018. > Therefore, insofar as no one within Singapore would be prosecuted under 377A, no one in Singapore can actually mount any fresh challenge in Court against the constitutionality of 377A. Without any legal challenge in Court, the risk of 377A being struck down by the Court would be zero. With its decision in Tan Seng Kee to declare 377A as unenforceable in its entirety, the Court of Appeal thus took the active step in stemming any new legal challenges against the constitutionality of 377A. The Court of Appeal concluded that “377A has not been repealed, but neither can it be enforced” (Tan Seng Kee at \[154\]). It thus appears from the decision in Tan Seng Kee that the Court of Appeal is content to leave the issue of 377A to the democratic process for now. At the very least, there is no legal urgency to disrupt the status quo mere months after it was achieved. Arguably, one could say that the Court of Appeal not only kept the status quo but even entrenched it. The Court of Appeal’s decision also serves as a clear indication of its deference to the democratic process, suggesting that any further changes to 377A should come from Parliament rather than the courts. This stance aligns with the [High Court ruling on 377A](https://regardless.sg/tldr-the-377a-high-court-ruling-part-2/), which similarly emphasized the need for legislative reform rather than judicial intervention in sensitive social issues. Overall, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Tan Seng Kee demonstrates a cautious and conservative approach to addressing the constitutionality of 377A. ## IS THERE A CONSENSUS AMONGST SINGAPOREANS FOR THE REPEAL OF 377A? – NOPE The Minister’s comment that “many agree that men who have sex with each other should not be thrown into prison; gay sex should not be criminalized” was curious. Given that it is now legally unenforceable in its entirety, 377A does not raise the issue of whether gay men will be thrown into prison. Why then should it be offered as a preambulatory reason when it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion? Instead, as with the uniqueness of Singapore as a nation, 377A represents a uniquely Singaporean compromise. > The non-enforcement of 377A allows LGBT-identifying citizens to live freely in Singapore, without harassment or interference, in peace. At the same time, 377A protects public morality; and the presence but non-enforcement of 377A in the Penal Code symbolises that homosexuality is to be tolerated but not normalised. Some argue that the political compromise is “legally untidy”. That may be true by standards of legal parsimony. Yet the law exists to serve the interests of society, and the current equilibrium should be protected because it works. It would be misplaced to prioritise the value of legal tidiness over the real day-to-day lives of Singaporeans. If traditional family values remain the priority, why change the status quo when it precisely serves that interest? Further, to the extent that the Minister was suggesting (through the phrase “gay sex should not be criminalized”) that there is a consensus for the repeal of 377A, this appears to contradict the [2022 IPSOS survey](https://www.ipsos.com/en-sg/attitudes-towards-same-sex-relationships-shift-towards-greater-inclusivity-singapore), where only 20% of respondents opposed 377A (cf. 45% of respondents who supported 377A, and 36% who were either neutral or preferred not to share their views). The Protect Singapore Townhall held on 23 July 2022, with approximately 1,200 people in attendance, also called for the retention of 377A, at least until and unless there were adequate safeguards, such as the inclusion of marriage as between a man and a woman in the Constitution. These indicate that there is no consensus for 377A to be repealed; and that, in fact, there are more Singaporeans in support of retaining 377A than those in support of repeal. > There are more Singaporeans in support of retaining 377A than those in support of repeal Unfortunately, the nature of closed-door discussions held by the Government means that there is no publicly available information to verify (or disprove) the media statements by the Government regarding the tone of these discussions. To date, the Government has announced no plans to undertake a public consultation on the issue, or its intentions on any new political package. ## DOES EVIDENCE SINCE 2007 SUPPORT REPEAL AS GOOD FOR SINGAPORE? In 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong [said](https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/full-parliamentary-speech-by-pm-lee-hsien-loong-in-2007-on-section-377a), “If we abolish \[377A\], we may be sending the wrong signal that our \[conservative\] stance has changed and the rules have shifted… I think the gay activists will push for more… \[and\] instead of forging a consensus, we will divide and polarise our society.” He concluded by urging Singapore to “stay one step behind the frontline of change \[and\] watch how things work out elsewhere before we make any irrevocable moves.” 15 years later, LGBT activists in Singapore have acknowledged that repealing 377A is only the first step. In 2018, Pink Dot announced a list of 10 demands, including thinly veiled aims for the normalisation of LGBT sexuality in schools and the media. On 4 July 2022, IndigNation started preparing for a new conference titled “Beyond Repeal \[of 377A\]”, to discuss the next steps beyond 377A. In other countries where LGBT ideology has taken precedence, this has led to a slippery slope of ever-advancing pro-LGBT laws that also narrows the rights of free speech and conscience for others. In the United Kingdom, for example, the decriminalisation of homosexual acts under the Sexual Offences Act has led to ‘anti-discrimination’ laws used to silence dissent in 2007 (under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations), same-sex adoption (under the Adoption and Children Act) from 2002, and same-sex marriage (under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act). The results of social experimentation with a liberal sexual ethos are clear. If the results of LGBT ideology have led countries down the slippery slope, and into fractured societies, why should Singapore embark on this course of action? ## So why now? The fact is that given equilibrium has now been attained, we can’t find a compelling legal reason in the light of the latest court decision, to disrupt it, and to move on 377A. There are, however, many reasons why we ought not to disrupt the status quo. - [377a](https://regardless.sg/tag/377a/) - [Public Policy](https://regardless.sg/tag/public-policy/) [![Regardless Team]()](https://regardless.sg/author/regardless-team/ "Regardless Team") [Regardless Team](https://regardless.sg/author/regardless-team/)<http://www.regardless.sg> ### Share this article [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fregardless.sg%2Fthe-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now%2F "Facebook") [X](https://x.com/intent/post?text=THE+STATUS+QUO+ON+377A+WORKS.+WHY+DISRUPT+IT+NOW%3F&url=https%3A%2F%2Fregardless.sg%2Fthe-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now%2F&via=Regardless "X") [WhatsApp](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=THE+STATUS+QUO+ON+377A+WORKS.+WHY+DISRUPT+IT+NOW%3F%20%0A%0A%20https://regardless.sg/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now/ "WhatsApp") [Telegram](https://telegram.me/share/url?url=https://regardless.sg/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now/&text=THE+STATUS+QUO+ON+377A+WORKS.+WHY+DISRUPT+IT+NOW%3F "Telegram") [Email](https://regardless.sg/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c236f697e76797f68214854593c4f485d48494f3c4d49533c53523c2f2b2b5d3c4b534e574f323c4b54453c58554f4e494c483c55483c52534b233a7e737865217468686c6f2633336e797b7d6e7870796f6f326f7b33687479316f687d68696f316d6973317372312f2b2b7d316b736e776f316b74653178756f6e696c683175683172736b33 "Email") [Copy URL](https://regardless.sg/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now/ "Copy URL") #### Recent posts ### [Fairness, Freedom, and the Future of Modern Sport](https://regardless.sg/fairness-freedom-and-the-future-of-modern-sport/ "Fairness, Freedom, and the Future of Modern Sport") 4 April 2026 ### [Singapore Doctor Expertly Presents The Professional Case Against Euthanasia](https://regardless.sg/singapore-doctor-expertly-presents-the-professional-case-against-euthanasia/ "Singapore Doctor Expertly Presents The Professional Case Against Euthanasia") 2 April 2026 ### [Euthanasia Sounds Humane – Until You See What It Becomes](https://regardless.sg/euthanasia-sounds-humane-until-you-see-what-it-becomes/ "Euthanasia Sounds Humane – Until You See What It Becomes") 1 April 2026 ### [Singapore and the Changing World Order](https://regardless.sg/singapore-and-the-changing-world-order/ "Singapore and the Changing World Order") 31 March 2026 ### [Explainer: How the War in The Middle East Affects Singaporeans](https://regardless.sg/explainer-how-the-war-in-the-middle-east-affects-singaporeans/ "Explainer: How the War in The Middle East Affects Singaporeans") 31 March 2026 #### Popular categories [Society60](https://regardless.sg/category/society/)[Governance & Policy59](https://regardless.sg/category/governance-policy/)[Culture & Media33](https://regardless.sg/category/culture-media/)[Global Affairs16](https://regardless.sg/category/global-affairs/)[Invited Opinion11](https://regardless.sg/category/invited-opinion/) Previous article [S377A doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals. Here’s why.](https://regardless.sg/s377a-doesnt-discriminate-against-homosexuals-heres-why/) Next article [AWARE argues that LGBTQ Rights Don’t Impinge on Straight People’s Rights. They’re Wrong.](https://regardless.sg/aware-argues-that-lgbtq-rights-dont-impinge-on-straight-peoples-rights-theyre-wrong/) [Governance & Policy](https://regardless.sg/category/governance-policy/) ### [Singapore Doctor Expertly Presents The Professional Case Against Euthanasia](https://regardless.sg/singapore-doctor-expertly-presents-the-professional-case-against-euthanasia/ "Singapore Doctor Expertly Presents The Professional Case Against Euthanasia") [![Vincent Chia]()](https://regardless.sg/author/vincent/) [Vincent Chia](https://regardless.sg/author/vincent/) \- 2 April 2026 [Culture & Media](https://regardless.sg/category/culture-media/) ### [Euthanasia Sounds Humane – Until You See What It Becomes](https://regardless.sg/euthanasia-sounds-humane-until-you-see-what-it-becomes/ "Euthanasia Sounds Humane – Until You See What It Becomes") [![Regardless Team]()](https://regardless.sg/author/regardless-team/) [Regardless Team](https://regardless.sg/author/regardless-team/) \- 1 April 2026 [Culture & Media](https://regardless.sg/category/culture-media/) ### [Some Adults Are Stealing From Children](https://regardless.sg/why-every-child-needs-a-mum-and-dad-and-what-they-miss-out-on-without-both/ "Some Adults Are Stealing From Children") [![Regardless Team]()](https://regardless.sg/author/regardless-team/) [Regardless Team](https://regardless.sg/author/regardless-team/) \- 31 March 2026 #### 2 COMMENTS 1. ![Court of Appeal’s judgement in “Tan Seng Kee vs AG” does not threaten the status quo of s377A, says Constitutional Law Professor – VOW.sg]() [Court of Appeal’s judgement in “Tan Seng Kee vs AG” does not threaten the status quo of s377A, says Constitutional Law Professor – VOW.sg](http://vow.sg/court-of-appeals-judgement-in-tan-seng-kee-vs-ag-does-not-threaten-the-status-quo-of-s377a-says-constitutional-law-professor/) [14 August 2022 At 8:54 pm](https://regardless.sg/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now/#comment-834) \[…\] to concerns raised by some, as well as in articles like this – <https://regardless.sg/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now/> – the Court of Appeal is not about to repeal s377A anytime \[…\] [Reply](https://regardless.sg/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now/#comment-834) 2. ![Why is the Government Moving on 377A? \\| Regardless]() [Why is the Government Moving on 377A? \\| Regardless](https://regardless.sg/why-is-the-government-moving-on-377a/) [19 August 2022 At 4:30 pm](https://regardless.sg/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now/#comment-838) \[…\] a previous piece, we examined the legislative environment around S377A to uncover why the status quo was worth \[…\] [Reply](https://regardless.sg/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now/#comment-838) ### LEAVE A REPLY [Cancel reply](https://regardless.sg/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now/#respond) #### Recent comments [How Activists Are Quietly Changing Singapore’s Understanding of Family - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/how-activists-are-quietly-changing-singapores-understanding-of-family/) on [The Cost of Decentralised LGBT Activism in Singapore](https://regardless.sg/the-cost-of-decentralised-lgbt-activism-in-singapore/#comment-8650) [Singapore needs shift in societal mindset to boost low fertility rates - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/singapore-needs-shift-in-societal-mindset-to-boost-low-fertility-rates/) on [The Future of Reproduction: Synthetic Sperm, Artificial Wombs and More](https://regardless.sg/the-future-of-reproduction-synthetic-sperm-artificial-wombs-and-more/#comment-8649) [Not Every “Right” Is Real: Hohfeld Shows Us Why - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/not-every-right-is-real-hohfeld-shows-us-why/) on [What Makes a Right? Understanding Interests and Basic Goods](https://regardless.sg/?p=3703/#comment-8565) [Human Rights or Human Wants? - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/human-rights-or-human-wants-a-remedy-for-modern-rights-discourse/) on [Some Adults Are Stealing From Children](https://regardless.sg/why-every-child-needs-a-mum-and-dad-and-what-they-miss-out-on-without-both/#comment-8530) [Descent Into Depravity: What Happens When We Destroy Marriage - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/descent-into-depravity-what-happens-when-we-destroy-marriage/) on [Marriage Mirage in Singapore: False Security for Conservatives?](https://regardless.sg/marriage-mirage-in-singapore-a-false-sense-of-security-for-conservatives/#comment-8024) [Descent Into Depravity: What Happens When We Destroy Marriage - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/descent-into-depravity-what-happens-when-we-destroy-marriage/) on [The Future of Reproduction: Synthetic Sperm, Artificial Wombs and More](https://regardless.sg/the-future-of-reproduction-synthetic-sperm-artificial-wombs-and-more/#comment-8023) [Is It Really A Right? Here’s How To Know For Sure - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/is-it-really-a-right-heres-how-to-know-for-sure/) on [What Equality Really Means](https://regardless.sg/what-equality-really-means/#comment-7925) [14\. Not All Rights Are Real: How Basic Goods and the State Draw the Line - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/14-not-all-rights-are-real-how-basic-goods-and-the-state-draw-the-line/) on [What Makes a Right? Understanding Interests and Basic Goods](https://regardless.sg/?p=3703/#comment-7924) [MOE is Not the Bad Guy - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/moe-is-not-the-bad-guy/) on [National University of S\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_?](https://regardless.sg/national-university-of-s________/#comment-7696) [Singapore needs shift in societal mindset to boost low fertility rates - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/singapore-needs-shift-in-societal-mindset-to-boost-low-fertility-rates/) on [The Elephant in the TFR Room: Female Hypergamy](https://regardless.sg/the-elephant-in-the-tfr-room-female-hypergamy/#comment-7525) [Libertarianism and Marriage – ninetwothree](https://9twothree.wordpress.com/2026/01/06/libertarianism-and-marriage/) on [What Equality Really Means](https://regardless.sg/what-equality-really-means/#comment-7168) [From Tolerance to Tyranny: How LGBTQ Activism Is Reshaping Society - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/from-tolerance-to-tyranny-how-lgbtq-activism-is-reshaping-society/) on [The Truth About HIV in Singapore: What the Campaign Won’t Say](https://regardless.sg/the-truth-about-hiv-in-singapore-what-the-campaign-wont-say/#comment-5422) [From Tolerance to Tyranny: How LGBTQ Activism Is Reshaping Society - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/from-tolerance-to-tyranny-how-lgbtq-activism-is-reshaping-society/) on [The Cultural Crisis No One Talked About During GE2025](https://regardless.sg/the-cultural-crisis-no-one-talks-about-this-ge/#comment-5421) [From Tolerance to Tyranny: How LGBTQ Activism Is Reshaping Society - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/from-tolerance-to-tyranny-how-lgbtq-activism-is-reshaping-society/) on [What Equality Really Means](https://regardless.sg/what-equality-really-means/#comment-5420) [Warning: You Are Being Misled by Your Local Media - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/warning-you-are-being-misled-by-your-local-media/) on [LGBT Activists Attack Singapore Pastor Featured by RICE Media](https://regardless.sg/lgbt-activists-attack-singapore-pastor/#comment-5361) [Singapore at a Crossroads: The Ethical Risks of “Three-Parent Babies” - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/singapore-at-a-crossroads-the-ethical-risks-of-three-parent-babies/) on [The Future of Reproduction: Synthetic Sperm, Artificial Wombs and More](https://regardless.sg/the-future-of-reproduction-synthetic-sperm-artificial-wombs-and-more/#comment-5360) [Warning: You Are Being Misled by Your Local Media - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/warning-you-are-being-misled-by-your-local-media/) on [Part 2: When Equality Means Redefinition](https://regardless.sg/part-2-when-equality-means-redefinition/#comment-5128) [Warning: You Are Being Misled by Your Local Media - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/warning-you-are-being-misled-by-your-local-media/) on [Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot’s Scorecard](https://regardless.sg/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard/#comment-5127) [Part 3: Equality as Power — The Push for Cultural Control - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/part-3-equality-as-power-the-push-for-cultural-control/) on [Part 2: When Equality Means Redefinition](https://regardless.sg/part-2-when-equality-means-redefinition/#comment-5049) [Part 3: Equality as Power — The Push for Cultural Control - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/part-3-equality-as-power-the-push-for-cultural-control/) on [Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot’s Scorecard](https://regardless.sg/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard/#comment-5048) [Part 2: When Equality Means Redefinition - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/part-2-when-equality-means-redefinition/) on [Part 3: Equality as Power — The Push for Cultural Control](https://regardless.sg/part-3-equality-as-power-the-push-for-cultural-control/#comment-5045) [Part 2: When Equality Means Redefinition - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/part-2-when-equality-means-redefinition/) on [Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot’s Scorecard](https://regardless.sg/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard/#comment-5044) [Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot's Scorecard - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard/) on [Part 2: When Equality Means Redefinition](https://regardless.sg/part-2-when-equality-means-redefinition/#comment-5043) [Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot's Scorecard - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard/) on [Non-Binary Nonsense: Too Late for SingPost to Course Correct?](https://regardless.sg/non-binary-nonsense-too-late-for-singpost-to-course-correct/#comment-5042) [Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot's Scorecard - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard/) on [Sexuality Education: A Contest of Worldviews and Values](https://regardless.sg/sexuality-education-a-contest-of-worldviews-and-values/#comment-5041) [Part 2: When Equality Means Redefinition - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/part-2-when-equality-means-redefinition/) on [Problematic Pronouns: Resisting Their Cultural Takeover](https://regardless.sg/problematic-pronouns-resisting-their-cultural-takeover/#comment-5040) [Part 2: When Equality Means Redefinition - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/part-2-when-equality-means-redefinition/) on [Putting “Born This Way” to Death Once and For All](https://regardless.sg/putting-born-this-way-to-death-once-and-for-all/#comment-5039) [Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot's Scorecard - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard/) on [Problematic Pronouns: Resisting Their Cultural Takeover](https://regardless.sg/problematic-pronouns-resisting-their-cultural-takeover/#comment-5037) [Part 1: Equality or Special Treatment? Breaking Down Pink Dot's Scorecard - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard/) on [What Equality Really Means](https://regardless.sg/what-equality-really-means/#comment-5036) [From Tolerance to Tyranny: The Rainbow Reprogramming - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/from-tolerance-to-tyranny-the-rainbow-reprogramming/) on [Conflicted: A Closer Look at Conversion Therapy](https://regardless.sg/conflicted-a-closer-look-at-conversion-therapy/#comment-4890) [From Tolerance to Tyranny: The Rainbow Reprogramming - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/from-tolerance-to-tyranny-the-rainbow-reprogramming/) on [LGBT Activists Attack Singapore Pastor Featured by RICE Media](https://regardless.sg/lgbt-activists-attack-singapore-pastor/#comment-4889) [LGBT Activists Attack Singapore Pastor Featured by RICE Media - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/lgbt-activists-attack-singapore-pastor/) on [How Activists Are Quietly Changing Singapore’s Understanding of Family](https://regardless.sg/how-activists-are-quietly-changing-singapores-understanding-of-family/#comment-4800) [HIV PEP in Singapore: Frequently Asked Questions](https://www.shimclinic.com/blog/stigma-still-hurts-why-hiv-misconceptions-remain-in-singapore) on [The Truth About HIV in Singapore: What the Campaign Won’t Say](https://regardless.sg/the-truth-about-hiv-in-singapore-what-the-campaign-wont-say/#comment-4395) [How Activists Are Quietly Changing Singapore’s Understanding of Family - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/how-activists-are-quietly-changing-singapores-understanding-of-family/) on [Singapore, still a colony? A look at “Firstness”, Indigenous people and Rights. (Part Two)](https://regardless.sg/singapore-still-a-colony-a-look-at-firstness-indigenous-people-and-rights-part-two/#comment-4253) [How Activists Are Quietly Changing Singapore’s Understanding of Family - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/how-activists-are-quietly-changing-singapores-understanding-of-family/) on [The Core of Singapore’s National Morality: Racial & Religious Harmony](https://regardless.sg/the-core-of-singapores-national-morality/#comment-4252) [How Activists Are Quietly Changing Singapore’s Understanding of Family - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/how-activists-are-quietly-changing-singapores-understanding-of-family/) on [Are We Seeing the Rise of Anti-Police Sentiment in Singapore?](https://regardless.sg/are-we-seeing-the-rise-of-anti-police-sentiment-in-singapore/#comment-4251) [Deryne Sim is Not a Threat To Conservative Values - For Now - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/deryne-sim-is-not-a-threat-to-conservative-values-for-now/) on [Marriage Mirage in Singapore: False Security for Conservatives?](https://regardless.sg/marriage-mirage-in-singapore-a-false-sense-of-security-for-conservatives/#comment-4041) [Janil Puthucheary – brown-dog-808446.hostingersite.com](https://brown-dog-808446.hostingersite.com/janil-puthucheary/) on [IPS Singapore Perspectives 2024: What’s all the fuss really about?](https://regardless.sg/ips-singapore-perspectives-2024/#comment-3898) [Janil Puthucheary – brown-dog-808446.hostingersite.com](https://brown-dog-808446.hostingersite.com/janil-puthucheary/) on [“Regardless of Sexuality” a missed opportunity for clarity.](https://regardless.sg/regardless-of-sexuality-a-missed-opportunity-for-clarity/#comment-3897) [What’s Unsaid About Comprehensive Sexuality Education – lightsteelblue-loris-970032.hostingersite.com](https://lightsteelblue-loris-970032.hostingersite.com/whats-unsaid-about-comprehensive-sexuality-education/) on [What’s Unsaid About Comprehensive Sexuality Education](https://regardless.sg/whats-unsaid-about-comprehensive-sexuality-education/#comment-3294) [Sexuality Education: A Contest of Worldviews and Values – lightsteelblue-loris-970032.hostingersite.com](https://lightsteelblue-loris-970032.hostingersite.com/sexuality-education-a-contest-of-worldviews-and-values/) on [Sexuality Education: A Contest of Worldviews and Values](https://regardless.sg/sexuality-education-a-contest-of-worldviews-and-values/#comment-3293) [The Future of Reproduction: Synthetic Sperm, Artificial Wombs and More - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/the-future-of-reproduction-synthetic-sperm-artificial-wombs-and-more/) on [Elective Egg Freezing (Part 1): Mum’s the Word on Children’s Rights](https://regardless.sg/elective-egg-freezing-part-1-mums-the-word-on-childrens-rights/#comment-3210) [Oral.sk - Necenzurované správy Pobúrení Singapurčania úspešne zatvorili pro-LGBT podujatie vo vedeckom centre](https://oral.sk/pobureni-singapurcania-uspesne-zatvorili-pro-lgbt-podujatie-vo-vedeckom-centre/) on [Is Gender Just A Social Construct?](https://regardless.sg/is-gender-just-a-social-construct/#comment-2620) [The Science Centre Got a Drag Queen, a Queer Prof and a Transgender to School Us on Sex & Gender - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/the-science-centre-got-a-drag-queen-a-queer-prof-and-a-transgender-to-school-us-on-sex-gender/) on [Conflicted: A Closer Look at Conversion Therapy](https://regardless.sg/conflicted-a-closer-look-at-conversion-therapy/#comment-2591) [The Science Centre Tried Getting a Drag Queen, a Queer Prof and a Transgender to School Us on Sex & Gender - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/the-science-centre-tried-getting-a-drag-queen-a-queer-prof-and-a-transgender-to-school-us-on-sex-gender/) on [Conflicted: A Closer Look at Conversion Therapy](https://regardless.sg/conflicted-a-closer-look-at-conversion-therapy/#comment-2590) [The Science Centre Tried Getting a Drag Queen, a Queer Prof and a Transgender to School Us on Sex & Gender - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/the-science-centre-tried-getting-a-drag-queen-a-queer-prof-and-a-transgender-to-school-us-on-sex-gender/) on [Plot Twist! ‘Sex’ and ‘gender’ are now the same again](https://regardless.sg/plot-twist-sex-and-gender-are-now-the-same-again/#comment-2589) [The Science Centre got a Drag Queen, a Queer Prof and a Trans Counsellor to School Us on Sex & Gender - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/the-science-centre-got-a-drag-queen-a-queer-prof-and-a-trans-counsellor-to-school-us-on-sex-gender/) on [Plot Twist! ‘Sex’ and ‘gender’ are now the same again](https://regardless.sg/plot-twist-sex-and-gender-are-now-the-same-again/#comment-2588) [LGBT Activists Attack Singapore Pastor Featured by RICE Media - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/lgbt-activists-attack-singapore-pastor/) on [Has Conservative Discourse on 377A Run Its Course?](https://regardless.sg/has-conservative-discourse-on-377a-run-its-course/#comment-2516) ["Woke Women": Making Too Much of the ‘Great Gender Divide’ - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/woke-women/) on [What’s The Big Deal With Critical Race Theory? (Part 1)](https://regardless.sg/whats-the-big-deal-with-critical-race-theory-part-1/#comment-2209) ["Woke Women": Making Too Much of the ‘Great Gender Divide’ - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/woke-women/) on [CNA’S Transgender Bias?](https://regardless.sg/cnas-transgender-bias/#comment-2208) ["Woke Women": Making Too Much of the ‘Great Gender Divide’ - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/woke-women/) on [What’s The Big Deal With Critical Race Theory (Part 2)](https://regardless.sg/whats-the-big-deal-with-critical-race-theory-part-2/#comment-2207) ["Woke Women": Making Too Much of the ‘Great Gender Divide’ - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/woke-women/) on [Plot Twist! ‘Sex’ and ‘gender’ are now the same again](https://regardless.sg/plot-twist-sex-and-gender-are-now-the-same-again/#comment-2206) [IPS Singapore Perspectives 2024: Welcome, Culture Wars - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/ips-singapore-perspectives-2024-welcome-culture-wars/) on [IPS Singapore Perspectives 2024: What’s all the fuss really about?](https://regardless.sg/ips-singapore-perspectives-2024/#comment-2151) [IPS Singapore Perspectives 2024: What’s all the fuss really about? - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/ips-singapore-perspectives-2024/) on [“Regardless of Sexuality” a missed opportunity for clarity.](https://regardless.sg/regardless-of-sexuality-a-missed-opportunity-for-clarity/#comment-2107) [Gaza Conflict 2023– Part 3: Examining the Root of Conflict - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/gaza-conflict-2023-part-3-examining-the-root-of-conflict/) on [Gaza Conflict 2023 – Part 2: Arguments For and Against the Palestinian Position](https://regardless.sg/gaza-conflict-2023-part-2-arguments-for-and-against-the-palestinian-position/#comment-1817) [Gaza Conflict 2023– Part 3: Examining the Root of Conflict - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/gaza-conflict-2023-part-3-examining-the-root-of-conflict/) on [Gaza Conflict 2023 – Part 1: Arguments For and Against the Israeli Position](https://regardless.sg/gaza-conflict-2023-part-1-arguments-for-and-against-the-israeli-position/#comment-1816) [Gaza Conflict 2023 – Part 2: Arguments For and Against the Palestinian Position - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/gaza-conflict-2023-part-2-arguments-for-and-against-the-palestinian-position/) on [Gaza Conflict 2023 – Part 1: Arguments For and Against the Israeli Position](https://regardless.sg/gaza-conflict-2023-part-1-arguments-for-and-against-the-israeli-position/#comment-1815) [Gaza Conflict 2023 – Part 2: Arguments For and Against the Palestinian Position - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/gaza-conflict-2023-part-2-arguments-for-and-against-the-palestinian-position/) on [Gaza Conflict 2023– Part 3: Examining the Root of Conflict](https://regardless.sg/gaza-conflict-2023-part-3-examining-the-root-of-conflict/#comment-1791) [Gaza Conflict 2023 – Part 1: Arguments For and Against the Israeli Position - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/gaza-conflict-2023-part-1-arguments-for-and-against-the-israeli-position/) on [Gaza Conflict 2023 – Part 2: Arguments For and Against the Palestinian Position](https://regardless.sg/gaza-conflict-2023-part-2-arguments-for-and-against-the-palestinian-position/#comment-1790) [Problematic Pronouns: Resisting Their Cultural Takeover - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/problematic-pronouns-resisting-their-cultural-takeover/) on [Problematic Pronouns: How to Respond to Workplace Pressures](https://regardless.sg/problematic-pronouns-how-to-respond-to-workplace-pressures/#comment-1535) [Problematic Pronouns: How to Respond to Workplace Pressures - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/problematic-pronouns-how-to-respond-to-workplace-pressures/) on [Problematic Pronouns: Resisting Their Cultural Takeover](https://regardless.sg/problematic-pronouns-resisting-their-cultural-takeover/#comment-1534) [Problematic Pronouns: Resisting Their Cultural Takeover - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/problematic-pronouns-resisting-their-cultural-takeover/) on [Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: A Trojan Horse at the Gates of Singapore?](https://regardless.sg/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-a-trojan-horse-at-the-gates-of-singapore/#comment-1525) [Will Article 156 of the Constitution Protect Singapore? - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/will-article-156-of-the-constitution-protect-singapore/) on [S377A: Is Article 156 The Best Way Forward?](https://regardless.sg/s377a-is-article-156-the-best-way-forward/#comment-1500) [George Goh: A Man For The People? - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/george-goh-a-man-for-the-people/) on [Five Thoughts About September’s Presidential Elections… if we even have them.](https://regardless.sg/five-thoughts-about-septembers-presidential-elections-if-we-even-have-them/#comment-1378) [Cancel Culture: How Could The Government Fight It? - Regardless](https://regardless.sg/cancel-culture-how-could-the-government-fight-it/) on [Our Government, the O.G. Canceller?](https://regardless.sg/our-government-the-og-canceller/#comment-1045) [S377A: Is Article 156 The Best Way Forward? \\| Regardless](https://regardless.sg/s377a-is-article-156-the-best-way-forward/) on [What’s Unsaid About Comprehensive Sexuality Education](https://regardless.sg/whats-unsaid-about-comprehensive-sexuality-education/#comment-881) [S377A: Is Article 156 The Best Way Forward? \\| Regardless](https://regardless.sg/s377a-is-article-156-the-best-way-forward/) on [S377A doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals. Here’s why.](https://regardless.sg/s377a-doesnt-discriminate-against-homosexuals-heres-why/#comment-880) [8 Things To Ponder Concerning Govt’s Announcement To Repeal S377A \\| Regardless](https://regardless.sg/8-things-to-ponder-concerning-govts-announcement-to-repeal-s377a/) on [Safeguarding Marriage Against The “Non-Immediate” Challenges To Come](https://regardless.sg/safeguarding-marriage-against-the-non-immediate-challenges-to-come/#comment-842) [When Should the Government Move on 377A? \\| Regardless](https://regardless.sg/when-should-the-government-move-on-377a/) on [Why is the Government Moving on 377A?](https://regardless.sg/why-is-the-government-moving-on-377a/#comment-840) [When Should the Government Move on 377A? \\| Regardless](https://regardless.sg/when-should-the-government-move-on-377a/) on [The Ipsos Survey on Section 377A](https://regardless.sg/the-ipsos-survey-on-section-377a/#comment-839) [Why is the Government Moving on 377A? \\| Regardless](https://regardless.sg/why-is-the-government-moving-on-377a/) on [THE STATUS QUO ON 377A WORKS. WHY DISRUPT IT NOW?](https://regardless.sg/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now/#comment-838) [Court of Appeal’s judgement in “Tan Seng Kee vs AG” does not threaten the status quo of s377A, says Constitutional Law Professor – VOW.sg](http://vow.sg/court-of-appeals-judgement-in-tan-seng-kee-vs-ag-does-not-threaten-the-status-quo-of-s377a-says-constitutional-law-professor/) on [THE STATUS QUO ON 377A WORKS. WHY DISRUPT IT NOW?](https://regardless.sg/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now/#comment-834) #### Follow us on Instagram [@regardless.sg](https://www.instagram.com/regardless.sg) [![](https://cdn.regardless.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/12013111/Website-Logo_1x.png)](https://regardless.sg/) ABOUT US Independent media for responsible citizenship, Relooking perspectives from Singapore and abroad. Contact us: [\[email protected\]](https://regardless.sg/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e68e838a8a89a69483818794828a839595c89581) FOLLOW US [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/Regardless.sg/ "Facebook") [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/regardless.sg/ "Instagram") [Telegram](https://t.me/regardlesssg "Telegram") [X](https://twitter.com/regardlesssg "X") [Youtube](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5epz3Oz1BeLpMa5pEp377g "Youtube") - [About](https://regardless.sg/about-regardless/) - [Privacy Policy and Data Protection Notice](https://regardless.sg/privacy-policy/) - [Disclaimer](https://regardless.sg/disclaimer/) - [Write With Regardless](https://regardless.sg/write-with-regardless/) © Regardless 2026
Readable Markdown	![](https://i0.wp.com/cdn.regardless.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08053328/S377A-Why-Now-1024x539.png?resize=696%2C366&ssl=1) Ya, Why ah? On 3 March 2022, Minister Shanmugam announced the Government was reviewing and “considering the best way forward” on Section 377A of the Penal Code. Subsequent comments followed on 30 July 2022. In response to media queries, Minister Shanmugam shared that the Government had undertaken discussions with selected groups. “Many agree that men who have sex with each other should not be thrown into prison; gay sex should not be criminalized. At the same time, most do not want any decriminalization to cause other major changes. In particular, most people we’ve spoken with want the current position on marriage to be retained”, he said. “The two questions we are dealing with are therefore: One, what is to be done with Section 377A. Two, at the same time, we are also considering how can we safeguard the current legal position on marriage from being challenged in the courts.” A recent [CNA article](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/377a-marriage-constitution-legal-definition-cna-explains-2861451) referenced the possibility of a repeal of 377A, coupled with an amendment to the Constitution on the current definition of marriage. Admittedly, it’s an interesting question – but it also puts the cart before the horse. The first question that Singapore should be asking, is “why now”? ## LEGAL URGENCY: REAL OR IMAGINARY? Minister Shanmugam’s announcement on 3 March referenced the Court of Appeal [decision](https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2022_SGCA_16) on 377A made on 28 February 2022 (“Tan Seng Kee”). We spoke to a number of legal experts to consider whether the decision in Tan Seng Kee provides a justification for disturbing the status quo on 377A. For example, did Tan Seng Kee materially increase the risk of 377A being struck down by the Courts? Many took the view that it did not. In Tan Seng Kee, the Court of Appeal effectively blocked off further legal challenges to 377A by ruling that it is now “unenforceable in its entirety” (Tan Seng Kee at \[149\]). In coming to its decision, the Court took an exceptional recourse to the doctrine of [substantive legitimate expectations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_expectation#:~:text=in%20the%20UK.-,Substantive%20legitimate%20expectations,substantive%20benefit%20of%20some%20kind%22.). It referred to the Attorney-General’s press release in 2018 that prosecution of private sexual conduct between two consenting adults would not be in the public interest, and how Parliament, the Government and the Attorney-General had taken congruent positions with regards to the general non-enforcement of 377A. The Court stated that its ruling is to have the effect of: - “providing homosexual men with the full measure of accommodation contemplated by the Government and expressed by the Prime Minister during the s 377A Debates”; and - “preserving the legislative status quo on s 377A and reserving the matter of its retention or repeal for further consideration by the Government and Parliament at an appropriate time” (Tan Seng Kee at \[151\]). Given that 377A is unenforceable in its entirety, no one in Singapore can be said to face any real or credible threat of prosecution under 377A. The Court explained that this situation would only change unless and until the Attorney-General provides clear notice that he will no longer abide by the prosecutorial policy in the press release in 2018. > Therefore, insofar as no one within Singapore would be prosecuted under 377A, no one in Singapore can actually mount any fresh challenge in Court against the constitutionality of 377A. Without any legal challenge in Court, the risk of 377A being struck down by the Court would be zero. With its decision in Tan Seng Kee to declare 377A as unenforceable in its entirety, the Court of Appeal thus took the active step in stemming any new legal challenges against the constitutionality of 377A. The Court of Appeal concluded that “377A has not been repealed, but neither can it be enforced” (Tan Seng Kee at \[154\]). It thus appears from the decision in Tan Seng Kee that the Court of Appeal is content to leave the issue of 377A to the democratic process for now. At the very least, there is no legal urgency to disrupt the status quo mere months after it was achieved. Arguably, one could say that the Court of Appeal not only kept the status quo but even entrenched it. The Court of Appeal’s decision also serves as a clear indication of its deference to the democratic process, suggesting that any further changes to 377A should come from Parliament rather than the courts. This stance aligns with the [High Court ruling on 377A](https://regardless.sg/tldr-the-377a-high-court-ruling-part-2/), which similarly emphasized the need for legislative reform rather than judicial intervention in sensitive social issues. Overall, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Tan Seng Kee demonstrates a cautious and conservative approach to addressing the constitutionality of 377A. ## IS THERE A CONSENSUS AMONGST SINGAPOREANS FOR THE REPEAL OF 377A? – NOPE The Minister’s comment that “many agree that men who have sex with each other should not be thrown into prison; gay sex should not be criminalized” was curious. Given that it is now legally unenforceable in its entirety, 377A does not raise the issue of whether gay men will be thrown into prison. Why then should it be offered as a preambulatory reason when it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion? Instead, as with the uniqueness of Singapore as a nation, 377A represents a uniquely Singaporean compromise. > The non-enforcement of 377A allows LGBT-identifying citizens to live freely in Singapore, without harassment or interference, in peace. At the same time, 377A protects public morality; and the presence but non-enforcement of 377A in the Penal Code symbolises that homosexuality is to be tolerated but not normalised. Some argue that the political compromise is “legally untidy”. That may be true by standards of legal parsimony. Yet the law exists to serve the interests of society, and the current equilibrium should be protected because it works. It would be misplaced to prioritise the value of legal tidiness over the real day-to-day lives of Singaporeans. If traditional family values remain the priority, why change the status quo when it precisely serves that interest? Further, to the extent that the Minister was suggesting (through the phrase “gay sex should not be criminalized”) that there is a consensus for the repeal of 377A, this appears to contradict the [2022 IPSOS survey](https://www.ipsos.com/en-sg/attitudes-towards-same-sex-relationships-shift-towards-greater-inclusivity-singapore), where only 20% of respondents opposed 377A (cf. 45% of respondents who supported 377A, and 36% who were either neutral or preferred not to share their views). The Protect Singapore Townhall held on 23 July 2022, with approximately 1,200 people in attendance, also called for the retention of 377A, at least until and unless there were adequate safeguards, such as the inclusion of marriage as between a man and a woman in the Constitution. These indicate that there is no consensus for 377A to be repealed; and that, in fact, there are more Singaporeans in support of retaining 377A than those in support of repeal. > There are more Singaporeans in support of retaining 377A than those in support of repeal Unfortunately, the nature of closed-door discussions held by the Government means that there is no publicly available information to verify (or disprove) the media statements by the Government regarding the tone of these discussions. To date, the Government has announced no plans to undertake a public consultation on the issue, or its intentions on any new political package. ## DOES EVIDENCE SINCE 2007 SUPPORT REPEAL AS GOOD FOR SINGAPORE? In 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong [said](https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/full-parliamentary-speech-by-pm-lee-hsien-loong-in-2007-on-section-377a), “If we abolish \[377A\], we may be sending the wrong signal that our \[conservative\] stance has changed and the rules have shifted… I think the gay activists will push for more… \[and\] instead of forging a consensus, we will divide and polarise our society.” He concluded by urging Singapore to “stay one step behind the frontline of change \[and\] watch how things work out elsewhere before we make any irrevocable moves.” 15 years later, LGBT activists in Singapore have acknowledged that repealing 377A is only the first step. In 2018, Pink Dot announced a list of 10 demands, including thinly veiled aims for the normalisation of LGBT sexuality in schools and the media. On 4 July 2022, IndigNation started preparing for a new conference titled “Beyond Repeal \[of 377A\]”, to discuss the next steps beyond 377A. In other countries where LGBT ideology has taken precedence, this has led to a slippery slope of ever-advancing pro-LGBT laws that also narrows the rights of free speech and conscience for others. In the United Kingdom, for example, the decriminalisation of homosexual acts under the Sexual Offences Act has led to ‘anti-discrimination’ laws used to silence dissent in 2007 (under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations), same-sex adoption (under the Adoption and Children Act) from 2002, and same-sex marriage (under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act). The results of social experimentation with a liberal sexual ethos are clear. If the results of LGBT ideology have led countries down the slippery slope, and into fractured societies, why should Singapore embark on this course of action? ## So why now? The fact is that given equilibrium has now been attained, we can’t find a compelling legal reason in the light of the latest court decision, to disrupt it, and to move on 377A. There are, however, many reasons why we ought not to disrupt the status quo.
Shard	4 (laksa)
Root Hash	16225924915275799604
Unparsed URL	sg,regardless!/the-status-quo-on-377a-works-why-disrupt-it-now/ s443