Veteran diplomat Tommy Koh called again for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises gay sex, in an opinion piece published by The Straits Times on Monday (Sep 24).
The Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is one of the prominent personalities to have spoken out against the legislation after India's Supreme Court struck down a similar law early in September.
"I would encourage our gay community to bring a class action to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A," Professor Koh, 80, wrote in response to a Facebook post a day after the Indian ruling.
read more
GOVERNMENT HAS NOT REMOVED OR RESTRICTED PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION FOR SECTION 377A
Former Attorneys-General, Professor Walter Woon and Mr V K Rajah, have recently suggested that it is not desirable for the Government and Parliament to direct the Public Prosecutor (PP) not to prosecute offences under section 377A of the Penal Code, or to create the perception that they are doing so. Such comments may give rise to the inaccurate impression that the exercise of the PP’s discretion has been removed or restricted in respect of section 377A.
Under Article 35(8) of the Constitution, the discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence is vested in the Attorney-General as the PP. In exercising this discretion, the PP seeks only to advance the public interest, taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, and other matters such as the recommendations of the investigating agencies and the expressed intention of Parliament.
The Government’s position on section 377A is that the Police will not proactively enforce this provision, for instance by conducting enforcement raids. However, if there are reports lodged by persons of offences under section 377A, for example, where minors are exploited and abused, the Police will investigate.
read more
Government has not curbed public prosecutor's discretion for Section 377A: A-G Lucien Wong
The Government has not removed or restricted prosecutorial discretion for Section 377A, Attorney-General Lucien Wong said in a statement released on Tuesday (Oct 2).
He noted that former A-Gs, Professor Walter Woon and Mr V. K. Rajah, "have recently suggested that it is not desirable for the Government and Parliament to direct the public prosecutor (PP) not to prosecute offences under Section 377A of the Penal Code, or to create the perception that they are doing so".
"Such comments may give rise to the inaccurate impression that the exercise of the PP's discretion has been removed or restricted in respect of Section 377A."
read more
AG Lucien Wong rebuts views of Walter Woon and V K Rajah on section 377A
Attorney-General (AG) Lucien Wong has responded to recent comments by two of his predecessors on section 377A, saying that they may give the “inaccurate impression” the public prosecutor’s (PP) discretion in relation to the law has been “removed or restricted”.
Walter Woon and V K Rajah, both former AGs, have pointed out that 377A, which criminalises sex between men, poses a constitutional problem given the government’s position on the law. The government has stated that the authorities will not proactively enforce 377A.
Woon has said that 377A sets a “dangerous precedent” whereby the political authorities are informing the PP – who is supposed to be independent – not to enforce some laws. Rajah echoed the view, saying that selective enforcement undermines the rule of law.
read more
Section 377A: An impotent anachronism
In a recent landmark case, Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India ("Navtej"), the Indian Supreme Court broke new ground by declaring parts of the Indian equivalent of Section 377A of our Penal Code to be unconstitutional.
This promptly reignited local debate as to whether private sexual acts between males (or homo-sex for short) should be similarly decriminalised in Singapore. Section 377A, which penalises only male homo-sex, is regarded by many as an anachronistic expression of Victorian morality imposed on several British colonies.
Far from expressing a universal morality, the sentiments inspiring this provision seem to be misaligned with the contemporary social mores of a multi-cultural, multi-religious & secular society.
read more
'Antiquated' law 377A should be repealed - Tommy Koh
Veteran diplomat Tommy Koh called again for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises gay sex, in an opinion piece published by The Straits Times on Monday (Sep 24).
The Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is one of the prominent personalities to have spoken out against the legislation after India's Supreme Court struck down a similar law early in September.
"I would encourage our gay community to bring a class action to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A," Professor Koh, 80, wrote in response to a Facebook post a day after the Indian ruling.
read more
Repeal 377A organisers urge supporters to reach out to their MPs
Organisers and speakers at the first repeal Section 377A townhall discussion on Sunday (30 September) urged both supporters and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community in Singapore to get their Members of Parliament (MPs) to support the cause of removing the “bad and unjust colonial law”.
The event, held at the Singapore Management University’s School of Law, was attended by over 800 signatories of the Ready4Repeal petition. It was also streamed live on the official Ready4Repeal Facebook page. Under Section 377A, sex between men remains illegal in Singapore although it is rarely enforced.
Ready4Repeal petition authors Glen Goei and Johannes Hadi took to the stage during a two-and-a-half-hour discussion calling for a more proactive role by supporters of the repeal movement to engage the public by sharing their personal stories with loved ones and government representatives.
read more
Section 377A: There is a difference between a sin and a crime
Religious leaders may view homosexuality as a sin, like adultery and fornication, but there is no reason for the state to make it a crime.
Singapore was part of the British Empire. It was once administered by the British from Calcutta (Kolkata). Many of our laws, including the Penal Code, were imported from India. The Indian Penal Code, in Section 377, criminalises "carnal intercourse against the order of nature". Sodomy was considered a crime under Section 377.
Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code makes it a crime for two consenting male adults to have sex with each other in private. It does not penalise sex between two consenting female adults. The first question is whether Section 377A should be repealed. The second question is whether 377A is consistent with our Constitution.
read more
Referendum for 377A repeal
We are told that repeal of Section 377A of the Penal code has the potential to divide Singapore and split us into 2 irreconcilable camps.
However keeping it unchanged is deemed a violation of the rights of a not insignificant percentage of Singaporeans. Repealing it, unfortunately, would offend conservative citizens who claim guidance from their ancient scriptures.
It was not too long ago when women could not vote and humans of colour had to make themselves invisible and use separate toilets, buses and their children attend inferior schools all in the name of these same conservative values.
read more
Singapore still languishing in its colonial past with Section 377a
For a country that has made great strides in economic success and boasts herself as a nation with one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, Singapore is still lagging in its implementation of human rights. We still criminalise people based on their sexual orientation.
Last week, a fifth of humanity was liberated from the 150 years old colonial law, that has dehumanized the LGBT community, when the Indian Supreme Court repealed section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
In Singapore, while there is greater acceptance to same-sex relationships as compared to five years ago, a small segment of our society still holds a deep cultural bias towards the LGBT community and this is often reinforced by religious groups that oppose them.
read more
Law profs, Tommy Koh & Thio Li-ann, elucidate 377A issue with international law & norms as reference
The two most popular online petitions to either repeal or retain 377A has received more than 150,000 signatures.
And it appears that the mood for online petitions is almost over, with the popular online petition to retain 377A already closed.
Now, both camps have moved on to debating the finer points of Section 377A, with international law and norms as reference points.
read more
4 Compelling Arguments Prof Tommy Koh Made About 377A In His ST Premium Article
Veteran diplomat Tommy Koh recently wrote about his views on Section 377A in an opinion piece published on Monday (24 Sep). Unfortunately, The Straits Times restricted access to the full article via their unpopular paywall.
For the kaypoh aunties and uncles out there, don’t worry. We’re giving you the details in all your favourite ways — in brief, and for free. In the exclusive article, Tommy Koh talks at length about his take on the need to repeal Section 377A.
To reduce your read time, here’s what we’ve gathered from his lengthy essay.
- Science says homosexuality is normal
- We have to let go of our colonial history
- Singapore is a secular state
- The court was wrong in 2014
read more
Singapore Shows Clear Divide Over 377A Repeal
Singapore’s Divided Reaction To 377A Shows We’re Still Not Ready
Last Thursday’s (6 Sep) ruling by India’s Supreme Court saw Section 377 of their Penal Code being struck down. It removed India from the list of countries that explicitly outlawed intercourse between men.
Soon after the landmark ruling, a prominent Singaporean diplomat, Tommy Koh, called for a class action suit to challenge Section 377A. But judging by the numerous petitions left in the wake of his comments, Singaporeans remain deeply split about the notion.
Keep 377A pls - An online petition calling on Singapore’s government to retain the ban has picked up over 80,000 signatures since its launch on Saturday (8 Sep).
read more
A Government Stance On 377A Is Unpopular But Necessary
Sadly, that’s what our leaders have chosen to do at this critical juncture. Instead of taking a stand ‘for’ or ‘against’ 377A, they’ve chosen to stay home and avoid the responsibility of a painful moral choice.
They have that right, of course.
But if that’s the ‘position’, then let’s hear no more about the political sacrifices of an ‘unpopular but right’ choice. Principles are only principles when applied consistently.
read more
Please Keep Penal Code 377A in Singapore
Petition Closed -This petition had 108,977 supporters
As a conservative society which values traditional family values, we like to reiterate our desire to keep the penal code to convey to our future generations that marriage act should only be an acceptable norm between a man and a woman.
By repealing the section 377A penal code, it would begin to normalize homosexual behaviours as a societal norm and lead to greater push for other LGBT rights in our conservative society as we have seen played out in other western societies today. We do not think the vocal minority should impose their values and practice on the silent majority who are still largely conservative.
read more
Repeal 377A
26,335 have signed. Let’s get to 35,000!
Keeping things simple, it is time to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code.
Let’s make this a repeal based on justice and equality, the core tenets of our Singaporean psyche.
Update: An email has been sent out to the decision makers on 10th Sep 2018.
read more
Ready for Repeal (#Ready4Repeal)
49,845 Signatures
Section 377A is a colonial law that criminalises consensual sex between men. In the past, Singaporeans have been charged, convicted, and punished under this law. Even if it is not actively enforced, the law still punishes our gay friends and relatives by signalling that what they do, and who they are, is condemnable and wrong.
On 6 September 2018, the Indian Supreme Court struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code for being unconstitutional. In his judgment, India’s Chief Justice opined that “Indian citizens belonging to sexual minorities have waited. They have waited and watched as their fellow citizens were freed from the British yoke while their fundamental freedoms remained restrained under an antiquated and anachronistic colonial-era law − forcing them to live in hiding, in fear, and as second class citizens”.
read more
Should Singapore keep Section 377A?
81,346 VOTES
India’s Supreme Court recently partially struck down Section 377 of the Penal Code, a colonial-era law that criminalised gay sex.
The five-judge bench held that Section 377 is irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary, and hence, unconstitutional.
Soon after that landmark ruling, a prominent veteran Singapore diplomat, Tommy Koh, called on the LGBT community in Singapore to “bring a class action to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A”, which is the particular section of the Singapore law outlawing sex acts between men.
read more
Court challenge filed on 377A arguing that gay sex law ‘violates human dignity’
A man has filed a court challenge against Singapore's gay sex law, saying that it is inconsistent with parts of the Constitution.
Mr Johnson Ong Ming, a 43-yr-old disc jockey and producer, filed the case on Monday (Sep 10). According to court papers, the case argues that Section 377A of the Penal Code is inconsistent with 3 articles in the Constitution concerning liberty of a person and equal protection.
Under 377A, any male person who commits or tries to get another male person to commit "any act of gross indecency with another male person", whether in public or private, can be jailed for up to 2 years.
read more
Court challenge filed by Singapore DJ against Section 377A
A disc jockey has filed a court challenge against Section 377A of Singapore's Penal Code, arguing that the law, which criminalises sex between men, is unconstitutional.
Mr Johnson Ong Ming, who is 43 and goes by the stage name DJ Big Kid, filed his challenge on Monday, f4 days after India's Supreme Court struck down a similar law.
That decision sparked a renewed debate on Section 377A here, with camps on both sides starting petitions either to keep the law or repeal it.
read more
Repeal of section 377A will end ‘online vitriol and abuse’ against LGBTQ community, says DJ who filed legal challenge
The disc jockey who filed a fresh constitutional challenge against section 377A of the Penal Code — which criminalises sex between two men — told TODAY he was spurred to do so by India's recent ruling and comments by veteran diplomat & international lawyer Tommy Koh.
Responding to TODAY’s queries on Wed (Sep 12), Mr Johnson Ong said via email that he believes repealing the section would put an end to the "online assaults, vitriol and abuse" against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community.
The 43-yr-old, who also goes by his stage name DJ Big Kid, mounted the latest court challenge against section 377A on Monday, when his lawyers submitted his papers to the High Court.
read more
In the case of 377A, relying on public opinion is not the answer
Much is afoot in the current state of affairs concerning the LGBT community.
On Sep 6, India’s Supreme Court struck down a British colonial-era law criminalizing gay sex. The section in the Indian Penal Code, also called 377, was born of the same legislation inherited from the British that we know as our 377A; back home, the landmark ruling threw Singaporeans into an understandable frenzy. Within hours of the news, veteran Singapore diplomat Tommy Koh made a public call on Facebook for the local gay community to challenge Section 377A. A petition, among others, was quickly started on Change.org, calling for signatures to repeal Section 377A. Around the same time, an opposing petition to “Please Keep Penal Code 377A in Singapore” surfaced, started by a mysterious Paul P, and stands at 90,000 signatures as of press time.
On Sep 9, an official “Ready for Repeal” petition was started by 23 people—authored by Glen Goei and Johannes Hadi with public figures like actress Janice Koh and Chairman of Banyan Tree Holdings Ho Kwon Ping (and his wife) amongst its lead signatories. Open only to Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, the petition will be submitted and sent to the Penal Code Review Committee by Sep 24—in time for the first major review of the Penal Code in more than a decade, on Sep 30.
read more
More than 84,000 people have signed a petition to keep Penal Code 377A in Singapore
A petition to keep Penal Code 377A has been supported by thousands of people. Straits Times
Over 84,000 people have signed an online petition to maintain a law that criminalises consensual sex between adult men since it was created on Sat ( Sep 8).
At the time of writing, “Please Keep Penal Code 377A in Singapore”, a petition set up on the Change.org website by user “Paul P”, has exactly 84,199 signatures in support of it.
Section 377A of Singapore’s Penal Code is a piece of British colonial-era legislation that criminalises sex acts between men; and most recently, the Indian Supreme Court struck down a similar section of the Indian Penal Code last week.
read more
55 per cent of Singapore residents support Section 377A: Ipsos survey
Slightly more than half - or 55% - of the people in Singapore still support Section 377A of the Penal Code, even as 1 in 3 residents here is more accepting of same-sex relationships than he or she was five years ago, a new survey has found.
The online survey by Ipsos Public Affairs, an independent market research company, was conducted over a period of four days from end-July to early August 2018 to understand the current social attitudes towards same-sex relationships.
A total of 750 Singaporean citizens and permanent residents aged 15 to 65 took part in the study.
read more
Decision on Section 377A ‘a matter for Parliament’: Shanmugam
Any decision on Section 377A of Singapore’s Penal Code is “a matter for Parliament”, said Law & Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam on Sat (Sep 8) at a Ministry of Home Affairs event.
Mr Shanmugam was speaking to reporters for the second time on the subject, since a landmark ruling by India’s Supreme Court on Thursday repealing a British colonial-era ban on gay sex.
“In the Singapore context, the Section 377A was challenged as being unconstitutional some years ago, 2014. The Supreme Court decided that it was constitutional, it was not invalid. So whether you decide to keep it, whether you decide to repeal it, amend it, it’s a matter for parliament.”
read more
Online petitions to repeal or retain 377A in S’pore gaining momentum
The current topic that has generated much attention in Singapore revolves around Section 377A of the Penal Code, the law that criminalises sex between men. The heated debate online was in reaction to 1) the Indian Supreme Court striking down Section 377 of its Penal Code on Sept. 6, 2018 and 2) the conclusion of a wide-ranging review of the Penal Code in Singapore that did not include a review of 377A.
Singapore society split on issue - In response to media queries, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam, said the government was “in the middle” with this issue.
He added that society was “deeply split” over this and that the majority of Singaporeans were opposed to any change to 377A, while a growing minority wants it repealed. He said that “society has to decide which direction it wants to go”, and subsequently, the law would change to “keep pace” with the changes in society.
read more
Janadas Devan 6 September at 23:33
Speaking personally, I support Tommy’s position. 377A is a bad law; it is bad law. Sooner or later, it will go. Pray sooner rather than later.
read more
Former President Tony Tan’s son-in-law among several establishment figures against law criminalising gay sex
Section 377A is a British colonial-era legislation that was also retained in the Indian penal code, since India – much like Singapore – was once occupied by the British. Last week, the Indian courts scrapped the law in a landmark ruling, prompting ex-President Tan’s son-in-law to congratulate his friends in India for the change.
NUS Law Faculty dean Simon Chesterman, who is married to ex-President Tan’s daughter Patricia, wrote on Facebook: “India’s s377 is struck down. Kudos to my old classmate Menaka Guruswamy (and many others)!”
read more
Ho Ching appears to join chorus of establishment figures who support repeal of S377A
Ho Ching appears to have joined the chorus of establishment figures supporting the repeal of 377A, with a Facebook post yesterday, when she shared Yale-NUS President Tan Tai Yong’s call for the Government to repeal 377A since it is obsolete.
This is not the first time that Ho Ching has appeared to signalled her support for the LGBT community. In February this year, Ho Ching surprised many when she shared an invitation to this year’s Pink Dot event on her Facebook page, over the Chinese New Year holidays.
Just a week after she made news for that post, Ho Ching, made another LGBT-related post on her Facebook page as she shared an article entitled ‘The colourful origins of the gay pride rainbow flag’ online.
read more
HO Ching shared a photo 23 hrs
"I don’t know what reaction I will get; but that’s OK, if i cannot be honest with myself, how do I function? So I think people have to accept me for my beliefs. I have always made it clear that I’m not advocating anything, I’m saying that a law is out of date, and wrong; it’s time to repeal it.”
President Tan Tai Yong
President, Yale-NUS College
Government can easily keep 377A while showing that they “listened to the people”
This is the problem when you leave a minority rights issue to numbers, without preparing the ground for at least some civil debate or openness to a societal shift. When you call for “public opinion” in the climate of media policies that censor any reference to healthy gay relationships, and in the culture shaped by sexuality education policies that link homosexuality to crime, that pressure school counsellors and teachers to report gay kids to their parents.
What is happening is not even an official referendum that commits to obeying the majority, but offhanded, casual remarks that our leaders want “public opinion”, seemingly without much concern for real consequences for real lives. All this done on an unequal playing field and in a country unused to any sort of civil debate.
Of course, we still have to speak up. I can understand how both camps are compelled to speak up, on the basis of their personal convictions. But as we speak up, perhaps we can do so with some humanity and integrity, and also think about what else got crowded out in this chaos.
read more
Repeal 377A? Sorry Gays, It’s All About the Money, Money, Money (and Lesbians)
The Supreme Court has ruled that Section 377A of the Penal Code will remain embedded in law.
“No prodding each other in the anus, and no point probing us to change that,” that’s the point our judiciary is sending across with this latest ruling. That means, gay men, that you can wear pink T-shirts and walk around, and play house, or whatever you want — except have butt sex.
That also means the feminists win.
read more
Try Again To Fight 377A, Tommy Koh Tells Singapore Gay Community
Tommy Koh Encourages Singapore Gay Community To Challenge 377A
Veteran Singapore diplomat Tommy Koh has called for the gay community to challenge Section 377A, the controversial gay sex ban.
His comments follow this week’s landmark ruling in India that decriminalises consensual gay sex.
Mr Koh issued the challenge in response to a Facebook post by Professor Simon Chesterman, dean of NUS’ Law Faculty. Prof Chesterman had congratulated his former classmate and others on the Indian ruling.
read more
Singapore diplomat urges gay sex ban challenge after India ruling
A veteran Singapore diplomat has called on the gay community to challenge a law that bans gay sex in the conservative city-state, following India's scrapping of similar British colonial-era legislation.
Tommy Koh, a diplomat and lawyer, made the comments on Facebook on Thursday in response to a post by a senior Singapore-based academic on India's landmark ruling. "I would encourage our gay community to bring a class action to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A," Koh wrote.
Under 377A, a man found to have committed an act of "gross indecency" with another man could be jailed for up to two years, although prosecutions are rare. The law does not apply to homosexual acts between women. Previous legal challenges in 2014 failed. Reminded of this by another Facebook user, Koh wrote: "Try again."
read more
Simon Chesterman September 6 at 2:26 PM
I would encourage our gay community to bring a class action to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A
read more
Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)
Section 377A of the Penal Code of Singapore is the main remaining piece of legislation which criminalises sex between mutually consenting adult men, even when it is done in private. In lay terms, it is known as the gross indecency law. This is the phrase commonly used by the press when routinely reporting on criminal cases charged under Section 377A.
Gross indecency was usually taken to mean all forms of non-penetrative sex between two males regardless of age before the repeal in 2007 of the former Section 377. The latter, known as the unnatural sex law, covered penetrative sex (oral and anal) between two persons of any gender. After the repeal of the erstwhile Section 377, Section 377A came to refer to penetrative sex between males as well.
The Penal Code (Chapter 224): Chapter XVI: Offences affecting the human body: Sexual offences: Section 377A (Outrages on decency)[1] states that:
"Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years."
Penal Code section 377A
Section 377 of the Penal Code had stated that “whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine”. This clause was repealed in the Penal Code (Amendment) Act in 2007 and a new section 377, which criminalises sex with a human corpse, was instituted in its place.
Section 377A of the Penal Code had stated that “any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.” This clause was retained in the same 2007 Penal Code review. Whether the act was performed privately or publicly was not relevant in the eyes of the law.
In the second reading in Parliament to amend the Penal Code on 22 October 2007, the senior minister of state for Law and Home Affairs, Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, laid down the justifications for the retention of Section 377A, stating that Singapore was generally still a conservative society and the majority of its people still found homosexual behaviour unacceptable. Hence, the government had chosen to allow section 377A to remain status quo to maintain the country’s social cohesion and let the situation evolve naturally.
WHAT IS READY4REPEAL?
‘Ready 4 Repeal’ is an online movement for the repeal of Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code. We started the movement because Section 377A was being excluded (yet again) from the Penal Code review, and we didn’t want the LGBTQ+ community to be left behind.
WHAT’S SO IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS PENAL CODE REVIEW?
- ‘Ready 4 Repeal’ is an online movement for the repeal of Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code. We started the movement because Section 377A was being excluded (yet again) from the Penal Code review, and we didn’t want the LGBTQ+ community to be left behind.
- The Penal Code review is a long and comprehensive process which doesn’t happen often. The last review was more than a decade ago.
- For this review, some of the key tasks given to the Penal Code Review Committee were to rationalise, recalibrate, and modernise the substantive offences in the Penal Code and update or remove any outmoded offences. There was also a special focus on the protection of women, minors, and other vulnerable people. However, the Government specifically excluded Section 377A from the scope of the review. This is a glaring and problematic omission given that Section 377A is an anachronistic colonial law, and that the LGBTQ+ community is marginalised and vulnerable.
- The last review of the Penal Code took place more than 10 years ago. The last sustained national conversation about the criminalisation of homosexuality also took place then. Singapore and LGBTQ+ Singaporeans cannot afford to wait another 10 years to be liberated from this old and unjust colonial law.
- Poor physical and mental health outcomes for LGBTQ+ people;
- Harassment and discrimination against LGBTQ+ employees in the workplace, often with impunity;
- Denial of legal registration to LGBTQ+ organisations;
- Censorship of any positive portrayals of LGBTQ+ individuals and relationships in the local media;
- Absence of objective and comprehensive education in schools about gender identity and sexual orientation;
- Restrictions on the promotion of HIV prevention and treatment programmes by public health providers amongst the LGBTQ+ community.
read more
related:
The 'Repeal' of Section 377A
Follow the rainbow: LKY’s grandson weds in South Africa
Pink Dot 2019
PM Lee’s Nephew Supports Pink Dot
For or Against Section 377A
Pink Dot 2018
The Great Barricade @ Pink Dot 2017
Foreigners barred from Singapore annual LGBT pride event
Furor over a Pink Dot 2017 advert
Pink Dot 2016 @ Hong Lim Park
Pink Dot 2015
Pink Dots @ Hong Lim Park 2014
'Wear White' 2014
‘Wear White’ vs ‘Pink Dot’
Pink Dots @ Hong Lim Park 2013
Singapore Court Ruling for Gay Rights
FAQs on Sexuality, LGBTs and Section 377A
Section 377A and the LGBTs
Pink Dot 2012
