| For a summary of Singapore’s review at the first cycle please click here. |
24th UPR session
Date of review: 27 January 2016
Date of report adoption: 15 April 2016
Document number: A/HRC/32/17
|
SUMMARY SOGIESC issues during Singapore’s 2nd UPR review |
I. SOGIESC issues/recommendations identified by NGOs
Equality and non-discrimination
4. Joint Submission 5 (JS5) stated that Singapore had avoided to enact specific legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
5. JS5 stated that most Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Trans-sexual and Inter-sex (LGBTI) people found obstacles to get employment in the civil service. It also stated that there were clear examples of active discrimination within State departments. JS5 recommended that Singapore eliminate all policies that actively discriminate against LGBTI persons, in particular those which require that people declare their sexual orientation in public and private fields.
Right to privacy, marriage and family life
33. ICJ noted that the Singapore’s Penal Code criminalized consensual sexual relations between men and provided a jail term of up to two years for any person convicted under this provision. Joint Submission 1 (JS1) noted that the Penal Code had been used by a range of government agencies to deny or uphold a wider range of discriminatory policies that effectively strip LGBT Singaporeans of the prerogatives and protections of citizenship. JS5 recommended that Singapore repeal section 377A of the Penal Code and decriminalize sexual relations between men. JS5 also recommended that Singapore take the necessary measures to eliminate legislation and policies that criminalize in a direct or an indirect way same sex relations and discriminate against LGBTI people.
34. JS3 noted that neither the law nor the state recognized same-sex relationships. Consequently, many benefits and rights enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples were denied to same-sex couples, including employee benefits extended to spouses, medical visitation and next-of-kin rights, rights to purchase subsidized public housing from the state and tax allowances for married couples.
Freedom of religion or belief, expression, association and peaceful assembly, and right to participate in public and political life
48. ISHR also noted that media censorship laws in Singapore created a skewed portrayal of LGBTI individuals in local and mainstream media. Male same-sex relations were still criminalized and a 24-hour takedown requirement for ‘material that advocates homosexuality or lesbianism’ on popular websites was being introduced, placing LGBTI human rights defenders and human rights defenders advocating for LGBTI rights at risk. JS5 recommended that Singapore take all necessary measures to allow broadcasting of LGBTI content without any kind of restrictions in all media, including print media, television, film and web broadcasting.
50. JS1 stated that no LGBTI organization had been able to register as a legal society. The Singapore Societies Act gives the registrar of Societies absolute discretion to refuse the registration of a society if the Registrar is merely satisfied that it would be contrary to the national interest for the society to be registered. JS5 stated that the Registrar of Societies had used the broad scope to deny registration of associations as a basis for rejecting applications by LGBTI associations.
Right to work and to just and favourable conditions of work
58. JS1 noted that benefits and workplace policies aimed at levelling access for LGBTI employees were nearly non-existent except for a small handful of multinational organizations. JS1 also noted reports of workplace bullying, prejudice, harassment, blackmail and intimidation, which are often discussed only privately within the LGBTI community.
Right to social security and to an adequate standard of living
61. JS3 noted that more than 80 per cent of the population lived in public housing and people excluded from public housing could find housing only in the vastly more expensive private property market, which results in discrimination on the basis of marital status, gender identity and sexual orientation as it excludes unwed mothers, same-sex couples and transgender people who have not undergone sex reassignment surgery from public housing. JS1 recommended that Singapore allocate resources and implement comprehensive LGBTI-specific services in social service, mental health and healthcare sectors.
Right to health
63. JS1 recommended that Singapore implement anti-discriminatory guidelines in all healthcare and social service institutions; protect the rights of LGBTI service-users, as well as adopt international guidelines on providing sexual health information, prevention and treatment for LGBTI persons, especially LGBT youth. JS1 also recommended that Singapore outlaw all clinical practices that involve conversion therapy or practices that are discriminatory towards LGBTI-identified persons. JS1 further recommended that Singapore reinstate sex reassignment surgeries in public hospitals and allow Medisave and Medishield Life coverage for these procedures.
Right to education
66. JS1 recommended that Singapore introduce comprehensive and evidence-based sexuality and sexual health programmes to all schools to include LGBTI-related issues.
II. Excerpts on SOGIESC issues from the national report
LGBT community
111. The retention of section 377A of the Penal Code was thoroughly and passionately debated in Parliament in 2007. In 2013, two legal applications were made to challenge the constitutionality of section 377A and the Court of Appeal upheld its constitutionality in both cases. This is a sensitive issue in multi-religious Singapore and the decision to retain section 377A of the Penal Code was a carefully considered and finely balanced decision taken by Parliament. Segments of Singapore society continue to hold strong views against homosexuality for various reasons including religious convictions and moral values. Petitions to repeal section 377A were often met with counter-petitions.
112. While section 377A is retained, the Government does not proactively enforce it. All Singapore citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation, are free to lead their lives and pursue their activities in their private space without fear of violence or personal insecurity. Members of the LGBT community are also not discriminated against in schools or the workplace. The Government does not discriminate against persons seeking a job in the civil service on the basis of their sexual orientation.
113. We believe that each country should be allowed to deal with such sensitive issues in its own way, taking into account its evolving social and cultural context. Our approach seeks to accommodate the sensitivities of different communities so that there is room for all to exist harmoniously together. We believe this to be a pragmatic and reasonable compromise in the current circumstances.
III. Excerpts on SOGIESC issues by UN agencies
Right to life, liberty and security of person
16. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women […] urged Singapore to specifically criminalize domestic violence and marital rape, ensure that the definition of rape covers any non-consensual sexual act, and encourage women to report incidents of domestic and sexual violence.
IV. References to SOGIESC issues during the Working Group review
18. Norway encouraged Singapore to take more concrete measures to protect the human rights of sexual minorities. […]
50. The United States […] expressed concern about respect for individuals’ civil and political rights, including those of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, and restrictions on freedom of expression.
76. Singapore affirmed that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons were part of Singaporean society and their contributions were acknowledged like those of all citizens. The Government had to manage lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex issues sensitively and pragmatically without fracturing society because Singapore was basically a conservative society.
77. Section 377 A of the Penal Code on sodomy, which was inherited during the colonial history of Singapore, was not proactively enforced. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons were free to lead their lives. Parliament decided after an intense debate in 2007 to retain this law. The Prime Minister noted at that time that it was better to accept the legal untidiness and ambiguity of leaving the law as it was, and it would not be wise to force this issue by settling it one way or the other. Singapore firmly opposed discrimination and harassment, and did not discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex applicants to the civil service. The approach was “to live and let live”, preserve the common space for all communities, and let society evolve gradually and decide collectively.
108. Finland […] encouraged decriminalization of consensual sexual activity and revoking censorship guidelines discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons.
157. Montenegro welcomed the National Family Violence Networking System, and asked about plans to criminalize domestic violence and marital rape, and ensure that the definition of rape covered any non-consensual sexual act.
161. Uruguay welcomed social policies for vulnerable sectors while expressing concern about criminalization of homosexual relations. […]
V. Conclusions and/or recommendations
Singapore noted the following recommendations:
166.60 Enact comprehensive legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, marital status or disability (Canada);
166.68 Abolish section 377 A of the Penal Code (Norway);
166.69 Take necessary measures to eliminate legislation that criminalizes same-sex relations and to repeal section 377 A of the Penal Code (Slovenia);
166.70 Decriminalize consensual homosexual relations between adults (Spain);
166.71 Revoke legal provisions criminalizing sexual activity between consenting adults (Sweden);
166.72 Repeal laws that criminalize homosexuality (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);
166.73 Repeal the anti-sodomy law, which criminalizes the private consensual conduct of gay men (United States of America);
166.74 Formally repeal section 377 A of the Penal Code criminalising homosexual acts (Austria);
166.75 Take the necessary measures to eliminate legislation and policies that criminalize, in a direct or an indirect way, same sex relations and discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons (Brazil);
166.76 Eliminate provisions in national legislation that discriminate against women and other groups such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, including revising the section 377 A of the Penal Code (Czech Republic);
166.77 Repeal section 377 A of the Penal Code to decriminalize homosexuality (France);
166.78 Consider de-criminalizing same-sex relations (Greece);
166.154 Remove discriminatory media guidelines to provide a more balanced representation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons (Canada).
VI. Further information
You will find all documents relating to Singapore’s second review at UPR-Info and OHCHR’s websites.