Tan Eng Hong’s voice wavers as he remembers his 12-year struggle against Section 377A, a law that criminalises sex between men in Singapore. When he heard the announcement this month that the law would finally be repealed, he felt relief. “I thought I would die before I could hear this,” he says. He thanks god, and the universe, that he is alive to witness such a landmark moment.
It was in 2010 that Tan Eng Hong experienced one of the most difficult episodes in his life. He was arrested by police for having oral sex with a consenting adult man in a locked toilet cubicle at a mall in downtown Singapore after staff at a nearby restaurant reportedly called police.
Tan, then 47, was handcuffed, his bags were searched and he taken into custody. “My whole body went paralysed. I was wondering how I was going to carry on,” he says.
Tan, and the man he was with, were charged under Section 377A, a law introduced under British colonial rule.
For Tan, who also goes by the name Ivan, his arrest was deeply traumatic. But that moment would prove hugely consequential in the battle for gay rights in Singapore.
Backed by the prominent human rights lawyer M Ravi, Tan went on to file a lawsuit challenging Section 377A, arguing that it violated his right to liberty, equal protection, and freedom of association. It was the first time that the law had been challenged in the courts as unconstitutional and, though, unsuccessful at the time, has been recognised as a milestone in the struggle against Section 377A.
Fighting the stigma
After his arrest, Tan confided in M Ravi, a trusted friend. “That day when he came to my office, he was kneeling down… he was so full of guilt,” says Ravi. He was struck by the injustice of Tan’s case. If heterosexuals are caught having sex in public places they would typically face a fine, yet Tan had to contend with such disproportionate stigma.
Attitudes towards gay rights in Singapore were shifting at the time. The 1990s had been marked by raids of gay establishments, and the growth of so-called “conversion therapy”, a discriminatory and harmful practice, which Tan himself underwent. His background in Christianity that was not tolerant of gay relationships made his arrest especially difficult. “You can imagine how traumatic those moments were in my life,” Tan says.
In the 2000s tolerance increased in some areas of Singapore, as did activism. Theatres, for example, showed plays that depicted gay characters, a campaign to repeal Section 377A was launched in 2007, and by 2009, the non-profit movement Pink Dot began its inaugural gathering in support of the LGBT community, with thousands turning out dressed in pink.
Tan’s case, however, faced opposition on various fronts. On top of intense lobbying by the religious conservatives, many in the gay community were also critical of his decision to file a lawsuit, says Ravi.
Ravi, who has taken on many sensitive human rights cases, found that Ivan’s lawsuit was the least likely to generate sympathy. “Death penalty challenge is a noble cause … fighting even for a murderer to have his life restored is a noble cause,” he says. But the circumstances of Tan’s arrest were off putting to many.
Tan was not the only Section 377A case at that time, Ravi adds. He had also been approached by a young man who said he had become suicidal because he was being investigated under the same law - despite the government stating in 2007 that it would not be actively enforced.
It was perhaps the exposure associated with being in court that Tan feared most. “The news will have your name all over, you feel the pressure and how they view you,” he says. Court cases are places for legal arguments and jargon. “You don’t have the opportunity to tell your story correctly,” he adds.
Less than one month after Tan filed his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of 377A, he was informed that his charge had been amended to one of public obscenity under Section 294(a) of the Penal Code. He pled guilty, but continued to pursue his challenge to Section 377A, which went to both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The case eventually led to a ruling by the Court of Appeal that a person has legal standing to challenge legislation for being in violation of their constitutional rights. The verdict “opened the doors to all the subsequent challenges,” says Dr Roy Tan, a healthcare professional who, represented by Ravi, was one of three LGBT activists to launch another case against 377A in 2019. Though their challenge was dismissed, the court described the law as “unenforceable”.
‘It affects the whole community’
For Tan, the effects of Section 377A filter down to all aspects of life, from discrimination in housing to affecting what kinds of relationships can be shown on free-to-air TV or what kinds of lessons can be taught in schools. “It doesn’t only affect me, it affects the whole community,” he adds. After the repealing of the law “more people will accept and learn to accept LGBTQ people as they are.”
However, when prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong announced Section 377a would be repealed, he also said the government had no intention of allowing equal marriage. He would change the constitution to prevent future legal challenges to the existing definition of marriage, he said.
Tan who has waited 12 years for Section 377a to be repealed is well aware that change takes time. But he also hopes that awareness and tolerance is growing among Singapore’s younger generation.
Tan refers to the stall in which he was arrested as the Stonewall toilet, because of its significance in his fight for justice. Has the pain of what happened 12 years ago healed?
Tan says his experience has taught him compassion.
“After all that journey, maybe it was worth it, even if there was pain, it is ok. That’s ok.”
