[ News ] Hate speech against LGBT people in Singapore

[groyn88]

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.wikia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_against_LGBT_people_in_Singapore

Hate speech against LGBT people in Singapore

In Singapore, the Sedition Act not only prohibits seditious acts and speech which undermine the administration of government but also criminalises actions that promote feelings of ill will or hostility between different races or "classes of the population". Despite the statute's statement that it protects all segments of society, which by right should also include the LGBT community, it has mainly been used against individuals who have made offensive rants against the Malay-Muslim community. The LGBT community has not been accorded any shelter under this law and hate speech against it is constantly indulged in with impunity.

Section 298 of the Penal Code makes it an offence to utter a word within hearing distance of a person, with the deliberate intention to wound that person’s religious or racial feelings. The penalty is a jail term of up to 3 years, a fine, or both. Section 298A similarly criminalises the promotion of enmity between different religious or racial groups and carries an identical punishment. No such protection is given to the LGBT community.

This glaring inconsistency was highlighted in a comic strip drawn in 2015 by openly gay cartoonist Otto Fong:

 

Progress in protection against anti-LGBT hate speech

Main article: Explanatory Statement to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act

See also: K Shanmugam's views on homosexuality

 

In 2019, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) was amended by Parliament to protect both religious groups as well as non-religious ones, like the gay community. An Explanatory Statement to the MRHA, passed in Parliament in the first week of October 2019, was added to the Act and specifically referred to the LGBT community, stating that it would be an offence to use force or violence against it on the grounds of religion[1].

It was supposed to do so by dealing with both groups equally as the new provisions were meant not only to reduce conflicts between and within religious groups, but also to prevent religion from being used as a basis to attack groups that may not be of a religious persuasion, such as the LGBT community[2]. However, in practice, no action has been taken against most instances of online hate speech.

Anti-LGBT groups

Main article: Singapore anti-LGBT organisations

In stark contrast to the fact that all groups against any race, religion or minority are banned in Singapore, the Government allows anti-LGBT organisations to flourish. Most of the hate speech against the gay community that can be read by the public surfaces on Facebook groups such as We are against Pinkdot in Singapore[3], Ban Pink Dot & LGBT Activism - Protect Children[4] and Singaporeans Defending Marriage & Family[5]. Many comments made below online news articles, especially those on Yahoo! Singapore, are also virulently anti-gay, abetted by the posters' sanctioned cloak of anonymity.

Instances of anti-LGBT hate speech

Pastor Rony Tan's comments during sermon, February 2010

Main article: Pastor Rony Tan's anti-gay sermon saga

Barely two weeks after being called up by the Internal Security Department (ISD) for his insensitive comments on Buddhism and Daoism[6], another objectionable 80-minute video, uploaded in May 2009, was noted on the the homepage of the 12,000 strong megachurch Lighthouse Evangelism at www.lighthouse.org.sg. It featured then 33-year old Pastor Rony Tan making comments during a sermon like, "Proper sex means life - it propagates life. Lesbianism and homosexuality simply mean death and barrenness.”[7]. He also quipped, "If you allow [homosexuality], next time people will want to get married to monkeys. And they will want rights. They’ll want to apply for HDB. With a donkey or a monkey or a dog and so on. It’s very pathetic.”[8].

The video attracted the attention of the public with local filmmakers Royston Tan and Sun Koh among a total of 85 people lodging a police report over the long Chinese New Year weekend against the pastor for his remarks[9],[10],[11]. It was removed from the church's website one day after the pastor apologised to Buddhists and Daoists for denigrating their beliefs in the second week of February 2010.

Bryan Lim's "open fire" comments, 4 June 2016

Main article: Bryan Lim anti-gay hate speech saga

On 4 June 2016, a Facebook user Bryan Lim, then 37 years of age and a regional performance consultant at Canon, commented on the anti-LGBT Facebook group We are against PinkdDot in Singapore saying,

“I am a Singaporean citizen. I am a NSman. I am a father. And I swore to protect my nation. Give me the permission to open fire. I would like to see these £@€$^*s die for their causes”[12].

He was commenting on the hate group's post entitled, ‘Say No to Foreign Intervention‘.

 

Lim was fined $3,500 by the High Court on Friday, 4 November 2916[13]. He was initially charged with making an electronic record encouraging violence against LGBT people, which would have landed him a maximum of five years' jail and a fine. However, he pleaded guilty to an amended charge of making a threatening, abusive or insulting communication under the Protection from Harassment Act (PHA). District Judge Low Wee Ping said the aggravating factor was his use of the words "open fire" and "die for their causes".

Yahoo! article, 20 December 2019

The following comments were made below a Yahoo! article entitled, "Disney cuts same-sex kiss scene in Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker for Singapore market" published on 20 December 2019[14]:

 

Microaggression

Microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group, particularly culturally marginalised groups like the gay community. Although falling short of being hate speech, it nonetheless can be detrimental to an LGBT person’s psychological health and may lead to chronic stress, depression, anxiety, and lowered self-esteem.

Microaggressions occur in three distinct ways:

• Microassaults are conscious, deliberate forms of discriminatory practice that are intended to harm, and most closely resemble traditional forms of discrimination. Examples of microassaults would include intentionally calling a person who identifies as a sexual or gender minority a derogatory slur (eg. ah kua, bapok, pondan, faggot) or telling a trans people that they cannot use a multiple-stall restroom or rejecting their entry into a multiple-stall restroom when they try to use one.

An example of institutionalised microassault is the existence of Section 377A of the Penal Code whereby the State imparts to society and to gay men the conviction that homosexuals are criminals for indulging in sex even when it is consensual, between adults and done in private. Another is the messaging put out by religious organisations which conduct conversion therapy like the Choices ministry at the Church Of Our Saviour and truelove.is[15] that tell gay individuals they are "broken" and that they can "come out" of their sexual orientation to become straight.

• Microinsults include snubs, gestures, and verbal slights. Examples are:

1) Asking a gay man during Chinese New Year or other holiday when he is going to find a girlfriend or get married. This insinuates that he is deficient in some way because he does not have an opposite-sex partner or that he is irresponsible for not getting married and producing children.

2) Asking someone in a gay or lesbian couple who plays the "man" or "woman" role in the relationship.

2) Asking a gay friend after a long hiatus whether he has a new boyfriend, implying that gay relationships are inherently fragile or that homosexuals are promiscuous.

3) Using the phrase “that’s so gay” to refer to something stupid, odd, or undesirable, which is often considered insulting and hurtful.

4) Asking a transgender person about their gender reassignment surgery.

• Finally, microinvalidations serve to exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of certain groups. An example of a microinvalidation would be assuming that all gay individuals had a difficult experience “coming out,” which is defined as the process through which one acknowledges and accepts one’s own sexual or gender identity to their families. Another is telling a young gay person that his same-sex attraction is just a phase and that he will grow out of it.

Edited March 8, 2020 by groyn88

[groyn88]

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.wikia.org/wiki/Explanatory_Statement_to_the_Maintenance_of_Religious_Harmony_Act

Explanatory Statement to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act

The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA), which took effect in 1992, was updated by Parliament in October 2019 to prevent religious organisations from becoming channels for foreigners to bring their agenda and values to Singapore, among other things. An Explanatory Statement was also added to the Act to make it clear that members of the LGBT community, as well as other minorities, were explicitly protected against force or violence incited by religious groups or movements.

 

K Shanmugam's comments

Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam recounted that many LGBT groups "have told us they felt targeted as a community". At the same time, religious groups also felt they were targeted by LGBT groups, he added. Hence, the MRHA was amended so both groups would be dealt with similarly. The approach stemmed from the position that every Singaporean had a place in Singapore, he said. "They must feel safe and we will take actions against anyone who threatens anyone else's physical safety. We should all be free to express our individual views, but in a responsible manner." However, he emphasised that the law “is the same for all”, stressing that it was also an offence if the LGBT community, for example, was to target a religious group in the same way.

On Saturday, 12 October 2019, Shanmugam put up a Facebook post to say that he had been asked why the Explanatory Statement was included. He explained that he had a dialogue with a group of LGBT individuals who told him how they felt. “I told them that the Government’s clear position, was that everyone should feel safe in Singapore. We will not tolerate any threats made to physical safety. No one should threaten someone because they were LGBT; and likewise, no one should threaten someone else, because of religious affiliation. This has always been our position,” Shanmugam said. When the group asked if this position could be stated officially, he told them that it had been said “several times” and that was the law. “But nevertheless, I told them I will ask my officers to study and see how we can be more explicit.”

So the new framework had enhanced religious freedom in Singapore because people of all religions "feel confident and comfortable to go out there and practise their faiths", knowing there is a protective framework in place. It likewise applies to the agnostic, he added. Preventing religious differences was crucial for maintaining Singapore's social harmony, the foundation for its peace, progress and prosperity, he noted, pointing to various countries "struggling with identity politics and the fractured relationships between communities and within communities".

He said surveys and feedback from residents have shown people here "overwhelmingly support" the approach of coming down quite hard on those who use religion to create public and social discord. He said "the success of our policies is shown by the fact that we have never had to actually formally invoke the MRHA" since its creation.

Function of Explanatory Statement

With the changes to the MRHA, a new section - 17E(1) and (2) - was introduced to deal with the offence of urging or using violence against a target group on the basis of religion. The Explanatory Statement clarifies that besides those who practise a certain religion, the target group may also be “made up of atheists, individuals from a specific racial community, who share a similar sexual orientation or have a certain nationality or descent like foreign workers or new citizens”.

Section 17E states:

17E.—(1) A person commits an offence if —

 

(a) the person, on the ground of religion or religious belief or activity, knowingly engages in conduct urging another person, or a group of persons, to use force or violence against a person in Singapore (called in this subsection the target person);

(b) the person does so knowing that force or violence is likely to occur;

(c) the person does so because of the person’s belief that the target person is a member of a group (called in this subsection a target group); and

(d) the target group is distinguished by religion or religious belief or activity, ethnicity, descent, nationality, language, political opinion or by any other characteristic, whether or not of a similar kind.

(2) A person commits an offence if —

(a) the person, on the ground of religion or religious belief or activity, knowingly engages in conduct urging another person, or a group of persons, to use force or violence against a group in Singapore (called in this subsection the target group);

(b) the person does so knowing that force or violence is likely to occur; and

(c) the target group is distinguished by religion or religious belief or activity, ethnicity, descent, nationality, language, political opinion or by any other characteristic, whether or not of a similar kind.

 

On Monday, 14 October 2019, lawyers said that this provision was merely there for greater clarity because the LGBT community was already covered under the law. Law professor Eugene Tan of the Singapore Management University (SMU) said that Explanatory Statements are typically appended at the end of a legislative text of a Bill. “It seeks to explain in plain language what a proposed law sets out to achieve and the intended meaning and effect of specific provisions in the Bill. It may also describe the general impact of the proposed legislation’s financial and policy implications.” While the Explanatory Statement is not part of the legislation after the Bill is passed, it allows those in the legal fraternity to better understand the scope and meaning of a particular provision in an Act, Assoc Prof Tan added.

Lawyers said that while the inclusion of the Explanatory Statement had no legal significance, it helped laypersons to get a better understanding of the law. Assistant Professor Benjamin Ong of SMU’s School of Law said that even without the Explanatory Statement, the law was already clear that any group, including those defined by sexual orientation, would be covered. However, he said that the Explanatory Statement would increase awareness of the law and its significance in an easy-to-understand manner. The statement made it “crystal clear” to the courts, Members of Parliament and laypersons that the group of people specified under the MRHA may refer to those defined by sexual orientation, Asst Prof Ong said. It was also a way for the Government to demonstrate to the LGBT community that their concerns have been taken into account, he noted.

Assoc Prof Tan said that while the Explanatory Statement did not grant any group unique rights since it was not part of the law, it made clear that it was an offence for any faith-based group to target LGBT persons and vice-versa. Lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam, who was leading a court challenge against Section 377A of Singapore’s penal code which criminalises sex between men, said: “Mr Shanmugam has consistently maintained that the Government has a zero-tolerance policy towards those advocating harm or violence against others, including against LGBT persons. The legal inclusion of the LGBT community into the protective umbrella of the MHRA is a much-welcome step forward.”

Reaction of LGBT community

Members of the LGBT community said that they were assured by the Explanatory Statement. Mandy Chng, the programmes and events coordinator for queer women's group Sayoni, said that the explicit mention of the community was “momentous and significant”, especially so when discourse on the minorities in Singapore’s society was usually limited to race. She said that in its research published in early 2019, Sayoni found that LBTQ women in Singapore faced higher risk of encountering physical and psychological violence, especially at home. It also found that there were long-term consequences on the mental health and emotional well-being of women in Singapore who had “encountered religious-incited physical and psychological violence”, such that they had depression and thoughts of suicide, for instance, Chng added. She cited the example of families bullying LBTQ individuals with verbal abuse, harassment, and the performance of religious rituals and prayers over the individual to "correct" their sexuality.

Anti-LGBT acts had been ongoing on cyber space as well. Over the years, Benjamin Xue, co-founder of LGBT youth support group Young Out Here, had observed online trolling, or online bullying, of the community on social media. The Explanatory Statement thus “gives some sort of comfort and assurance” and allows space for young LGBTQ people to come out safely, he added.

Leow Yangfa, executive director of Oogachaga, a non-profit community-based organisation that works with LGBT individuals, said likewise that religiously motivated violence was a “significant part” of the lives of many in the community, and it could come in the form of “forced religious conversion” and hate speech. To Leow, Shanmugam’s statement was a “clear and unambiguous” signal recognising that the LGBT community had been targeted by religiously motivated violence. The Explanatory Statement was also probably the first time in Singapore’s history where there was an explicit mention of the LGBT community as a minority group that was worthy of legal protection, he added. “Knowing that this law provides such protection does provide some reassurance for the community. The next step is for the community to see the application of such law in future cases,” Leow said.