[emptyfile]

Actually, allowing gay sex between women was a 2007. revision of a British law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Singapore

>Singapore law inherited from the British Empire prohibited sodomy regardless of sex. As such, heterosexual and homosexual anal or oral sex was illegal. In 2007, such sexual activity was legalised for heterosexuals and lesbians, but not for gay men.

Indeed the law was reviewed in 2019 and the government didn't see anything wrong with gay sex between men being illegal.

[3dbrows]

Astonishing. Not only the modern conservatism in this regard, but also that lesbianism was legal in the UK even in early C20, so the SG position was even more strict. A morbid but interesting area of study perhaps is the long tail of repressive laws left by the Empire around the world still in force today, particularly in African countries.

One wonders why a country (SG) which professes extreme economic liberalism (well, until it doesn’t…) cares so much about social illiberaism like this. It’s not like the PAP needs to appeal to tubthumping angry populism for votes, is it? (Genuinely asking. I assume that people vote for them on the basis of administrative competence. Wrong?)

Perhaps it’s more a case of “rocking the boat on this topic can only harm us, and gain us nothing”.

[jhanschoo]

> It’s not like the PAP needs to appeal to tubthumping angry populism for votes, is it?

Liberals in Singapore think this is the case. An informal survey at that time observed that a majority were against homosexual relationships and sexual acts. https://web.archive.org/web/20190605181337/https://www.strai...

The ruling party won't throw away legitimacy points just to do what only a minority of its base regards as the ethically correct thing to do.