January 3, 2026

Section 377A, a colonial-era law that criminalised sex between consenting adult males in Singapore, was officially repealed on 3 January 2023. This came after the emergence of a global wave of “backlash politics” in the 21^st century, marked by conservative and culturally retrogressive sentiments, particularly in response to the recognition of LGBT rights. Despite Singapore’s reputation as a “soft authoritarian” state, which might suggest a predisposition to suppress such populist movements, Dr. George Radics (NUS Sociology and Anthropology) compellingly argues that the country’s courts provided a strategic avenue for challenging this trend in ‘Strategic Litigation in the “Soft-Authoritarian” State of Singapore: Attempts to Decriminalize Sodomy from 2010-2020’ (Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 2024).

Politicians upheld Section 377A even after Singapore’s independence to protect the traditional family unit, invoking Asian Values to counter Western democratisation and human rights ideals. While activists repeatedly failed to repeal the law, recent challenges have pressured Singapore to address cultural backlash regarding sexuality, with the courts playing a key role in advancing minority rights and countering populist and authoritarian tendencies. For instance, Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General in 2010 expanded the legal standing for constitutional challenges in Singapore when Tan filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Section 377A. This case opened the door for further lawsuits, which not only highlighted the role of the courts in safeguarding rights but also underscored the growing capacity of lawyers and social actors to engage in cause lawyering. Despite the challenges’ lack of immediate success, they demonstrated the increasing willingness within segments of Singaporean society to challenge conservative norms, pushing the government and civil society to confront their stance on minority rights.

Religious segments of the population resisted repeal efforts, with some extremists seeking to influence government policies, as seen in the 2009 AWARE Saga. During this incident, 9 out of 12 executive committee positions were captured by evangelical Christian women who criticised the Ministry of Education’s Sexual Education program for its “neutral” stance on homosexuality. The growing antagonism and rise of political religiosity targeting LGBT and feminist communities prompted a government response. The Supreme Court, Attorney General, and Members of Parliament emphasised the importance of including homosexual men in society, leading to amendments in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to protect minorities from religiously motivated harm.

This article concludes by recognising the evolving state of Singapore’s LGBT community and its broader connections within the region. For instance, despite restrictions imposed by the amendment of the Public Order Act, Pink Dot successfully garnered support from over 120 local companies and mobilised 20,000 Singaporeans for its 2017 and 2018 events. Additionally, regional alliances like the ASEAN People’s Forum have strengthened networks across Southeast Asia, advocating for rights for all. While Section 377A has since been repealed, the ongoing struggle against outdated laws underscores the judiciary’s crucial role in safeguarding minority rights amidst rising authoritarianism and populism. Dr. Radics thus calls for renewed hope that the challenges to Section 377A and its legacy will continue to stimulate democratic growth across the region.

Read the article here.