Talk:Section 377A (Singapore)

We had an entire section about Henry the 8th?!

Named Ecclesiastical roots in Britain under Henry VIII, we had an entire section that read as follows:

Extended content

Henry VIII, the monarch who enacted Britain's anti-sodomy laws An analysis of the origin of British laws that sought to prohibit buggery and their evolution into Section 377 is found in an academic paper entitled 377 and the Unnatural Afterlife of British Colonialism in Asia by Professor Douglas E. Sanders at Thailand's Chulalongkorn University. In summary, the British anti-buggery law was enacted in 1534, taking over from ecclesiastical law. The wording used, which included "abominable" (taken from the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament), "buggery" (which, by the 13th century, had become associated with sodomy), and "vice", confirms its religious character. It was formulated in the context of King Henry VIII's break from papal authority to establish the Anglican church. Its purpose was to justify the seizure of Catholic monasteries and the confiscation of their other wealthy properties. The pretext was the alleged sexual immorality of those in the religious vocation. Without this anti-Catholic agenda, it seems unlikely that it would have been enacted. Codification of law, particularly criminal law, became a major reform project in Britain in the 19th century, pushed by Jeremy Bentham and the utilitarians. Codes were well-suited to British colonialism, providing a single, orderly written version of areas of law - easy to enact for a colony.

I have deleted it: its connection to the current Singaporean legislation appears tenuous at best and like original research at worst. AGK ■ 19:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I also think that we should do something about the chatter relating to earlier British Empire laws (in 1800s India and such), but it's not as obviously irrelevant as the stuff about Henry VIII was so I shall leave some time for comments. AGK ■ 19:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This deletion was not warranted especially in light of the 28 Nov 2022 debate in Parliament on the second reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, where the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr. K. Shanmugam) began his speech with much detail and emphasis on the role that the ecclesiastical roots of s377A under Henry VIII play in showing that s377A was not created for any of the purposes or objectives mentioned in the present day's arguments in favour of retaining s377A. Bcmh (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

On a related matter, if the chatter relating to earlier British Empire laws is referring to the Labouchere Amendment, then the deletion was also not warranted in light of the 28 Nov 2022 debate in Parliament on the second reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, where the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr. K. Shanmugam) began his speech with much detail and emphasis on the role that the Labouchere Amendment plays in showing that s377A was not created for any of the purposes or objectives mentioned in the present day's arguments in favour of retaining s377A. Bcmh (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Section 377A (Singapore) per consensus below. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore) → Section 377A – The extensive disambiguation of this article's title seems undue, as there are no other articles on Sections with this code. I propose it to be moved to the much simpler title of Section 377A. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Maplestrip I thought of 'the Penal Code (Singapore)' as a natural primary topic of the subtopic, Section 377A though (WP:CONSUB). I have no preference either way since WP:SHORTFORM allows for it. You may wish to format this into a RM request so that it get listed at WP:RMC as well for the wider editor community to help determine if the article should be moved. – robertsky (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I would propose Section 377A (Singapore) instead. Malaysia also has Section 377A with the same law from British rule. Seloloving (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• 337A of Malaysia is not covered on Wikipedia, so no disambiguation between the two is necessary. If there were a Wikipedia article covering "Section 377A" of another country, I would agree that a disambiguation would be necessary. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• There may not be a WP article on the Malaysian version of 377A right now, but somebody might (and probably should) write one. I support Seloloving's proposal, "Section 377A (Singapore)". -- Alarics (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment I tend to prefer the current title, in that I would question whether Section 377A is, on its own, sufficiently recognizable, even to someone with some familiarity with the topic. Even for legislative provisions with which I am very familiar, I would find it hard to recognize them completely devoid of the usual context of act and jurisdiction.--Trystan (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose move as currently proposed. Section 377A is not sufficiently precise for an article dealing only with Singapore, as Malaysia and possibly other former British colonies have or have had similar laws by exactly this name. There may be room for some rescoping of our coverage, see the article at Section 377. But I note from existing redirects and their histories that there have been several previous moves of this one, so it would be good to get a stable title. Support alternate Section 377A (Singapore) as proposed below. Best suggestion yet. Andrewa (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support Section 377A (Singapore) to make it more recognizable. Section 377A should probably redirect to Section 377 in that case. Vpab15 (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Alternate Section 377A (Singapore) as is it is concise and alsp as this article's scope is only about Section 377A within Singapore's law. SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section 377A has not been repealed

The Parliament passed a bill to repeal Section 377A on 29 Nov but it has not been assented to by the President and published in the Gazette. The current version of the Penal Code still shows Section 377A https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871. 219.79.79.20 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore:

Exercise of legislative power

58.—(1) Subject to the provisions of Part 7, the power of the Legislature to make laws shall be exercised by Bills passed by Parliament and assented to by the President.

(2) A Bill shall become law on being assented to by the President and such law shall come into operation on the date of its publication in the Gazette or, if it is enacted either in such law or in any other law for the time being in force in Singapore that it shall come into operation on some other date, on that date.

219.79.79.20 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand the point you and others are making; many legislative systems require such processes. While I know you're right, I think it may be mildly pedantic in this case to revert others wholesale, as we have no sources in the article attesting to this fact; several RSs simply say "Singapore Parliament repealed the section"... Can anyone source when assent and gazetting are likely to be finalised? Please add it to article, if so.

I attempted a small compromise, by shifting the statement about the repeal bill to the first par for emphasis; also tried mildly softening the "IS-ness". Added: detail of low, but occasional, enforcement pre-2007; news items to further reading. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Such pedantic behavior on Wikipedia is no different to subtle vandalism. Show us a source that links these two topics together then. A source that states that 377A will only take effect after it has been assented to by the President? Pauline Muley (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Pauline Muley 377A is still in force and in law. [1] I have undid the edit changing 'is' to 'was'. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

SYNTH and RS are not to be used in this way. They exclude the addition of information that is synthesised or unreliable. They do not prevent the framing of sources in a particular way. Whilst news reports state that parliament has 'repealed' 377A, it does not mean that the law has actually been repealed, just that there has been a successful vote to do so. Technically, the law has not been repealed pending legislative processes. Please do not revert good faith edits without having established a consensus here. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Dawkin Verbier: I do understand about 'bills to repeal' v. 'fait accompli repeal'. My point was that if we cannot say the section was repealed (yet), as assent and gazetting are still pending, then, by the same token, neither can we say it's still pending without a source. (Perhaps you were not addressing me at all. but I thought I would still chime in, as my point still stands.)

What would be most useful, in fact, from people who seem to have more relevant info at their fingertips, is a source that says when assent and gazetting are likely to occur, or when the repeal bill will take effect. Then the WP article can say that, removing all doubt and wiggle room. I'm not a fan of either of the approaches taken on the article thus far, but to be fair to Pauline Muley, I imagine they took my comments as some level of consensus for the "was" approach, as I was critical of the bald "is" approach.

I can't agree with your interpretation of WP:SYNTH at all. Even though that was not my argument, I point out what the policy says:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. ... If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

There is no mention of "unreliability"; it describes "synthesis" exactly as used here. Citing sources for the legislative processes, together with news reports about the bill passing, is a clear example of SYNTH, no matter how reasonable a deduction the synthesised conclusion is. Linking to the WP:PRIMARY source showing the section still on the books is also not sufficient, technically. (Might do at a pinch, if there's really no alternative, but really, I wanted to point out it's a bit rich to split hairs about one editor's approach, while at the same time, not taking a very rigorous approach in terms of WP policy when countermanding that editor.

I repeat: The reliable sources used are actually framing their reporting as "the section has been repealed", despite what you and I know about the operation of the legislative process. (Only one that I have seen frames it as: "the bill to repeal has passed", while none that I can find mention the date it will come into force, nor any timeline.) My understanding is that editors are required to report what RSs actually say, even if we know better. Where uncertainty or disagreement exists, WP is likely to use the phrasing as presented in WP:RSs.

The situation is unsatisfactory as it stands, and I think we need to ask for wider comment on this, unless a source delineating the process or timeline for this specific bill is added. Either that, or events may well overtake us, with the repeal gazetted before we finish discussing, rendering all this moot! AukusRuckus (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

With respect to timeline, it is in the Constitution that the Presidential Council for Minority Rights has at least 30 days to respond with a review of the bill for any discrimination against any racial or religious community. [1] If there's no differing opinion issued that delays the passage of the bill, the President must assent to the bill by then. I don't see anywhere on Bill 31/2022 that exempts the bill of scrutiny. – robertsky (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus @Pauline Muley This is so wrong, how can media sources that prematurely or wrongly use the word "repealed", become the basis for editing this article over Singapore's constitutional, legislative and legal process?

How is anyone able to produce a source that shows when assent and gazetting are likely to be finalised when the only persons who have control over this are the President and the Minister for Home Affairs?

The burden of proof is on you both to show that s377A has been repealed, and to my knowledge of Singapore's constitutional, legislative and legal process, a law is only repealed when (1) the Legislature has passed the amendment Bill by a simple majority, (2) the President has assented to the Bill and (3) the commencement of the Act has been notified by the Minister responsible, with publication in the gazette.

Pauline Muley's allegations of "pedantic behaviour" and "vandalism" on the other editors are absolutely false and unmeritorious.

AukusRuckus' statement that we cannot say that it's still pending without a source flies in the face of the fact that the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill has been passed by Singapore's legislature but has yet to receive assent by the President and yet to have it's commencement notification published in the gazette by the Minister for Home Affairs.

As of now, the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill to repeal s377A has not yet been assented to by the President nor has it's commencement been notified by the Minister for Home Affairs and this article should continue to use present tense instead of past tense when referring to the existence of s377A. Bcmh (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bcmh, Robertsky, AukusRuckus, and Dawkin Verbier: The Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2022 has been gazetted.--119.237.60.33 (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. Much appreciated. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)