Transgender S’porean granted sanctuary in UK to protect her from doing reservist

According to The Guardian, a 33-year-old transgender Singaporean woman has been granted sanctuary in the UK to protect her from doing her 10-year reservist cycle.

She had served her National Service as a man from December 2001 to June 2004.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, went to study in the UK in September 2004 and has stayed there ever since.

UK Home Office wanted to send her back to Singapore

The UK home office, who is in charge of a host of internal affairs, including immigration, was actually pushing for the woman to be sent back to Singapore, on the grounds that whatever discrimination she face, would not be substantial.

But the judges found in favour of the woman both times the case went to court.

National Service

Transgender individuals in Singapore can be exempted from serving National Service, provided they undergo gender reassignment surgery by the time they are 18.

A host of reasons, not least of all, the relative youth of the individuals at that point in their lives, prevent many from undergoing surgeries of that nature.

While the woman in question is identified as a woman by the Home Office in the UK, she has chosen not to undergo the complete gender reassignment surgery, which would still deem her potentially liable for future reservist call ups in Singapore.

The judge at her immigration tribunal last November ruled in favour of sanctuary: “I find that the requirement of the appellant to essentially hide her gender and live as a man, even for two weeks a year, wholly unreasonable.”

The ambiguity of laws governing fluidity of gender in Singapore

The case further highlighted a lack of structured legal framework involving the transgender/transsexual community in Singapore.

Earlier this month, there was an outcry when a transgendered/transsexual man was cleared of charges of penetrating a minor, due to gender-specific laws. 40-year-old Zunika Ahmad identifies herself as a man and has two wives but was acquitted on six charges because in the eyes of the law, she was still considered a woman and the particular section of the law under which she was charged does not cover women as offenders.

Perhaps what best highlighted the lack of an adequate legalistic framework for transgendered/ transsexual individuals was this comment from Justice Kan Ting Chiu, the presiding judge of the case:

“The reference to a person who has a penis cannot be construed to include a woman without doing violence to common sense and anatomy”

Outcome of the UK trial

The woman’s solicitors hailed the ruling to allow her to stay in the UK as a victory for gender identity.

“We are pleased that the plight of this transgender woman has been resolved successfully. It means she can now enjoy living a full life without any compromise to her gender identity or her personal integrity. This is a basic right denied to her in Singapore.”

The issue of Singapore’s lack of clarity on transgender rights had been the crux of the hearings, with her barrister arguing that by sending her back to Singapore, it would be tantamount to returning a woman to her home country to be punished as a man.

 

Some background on legislation involving transsexuals/transgenders in Singapore

Sexual reassignment surgeries (SRS) first started in Singapore in 1971. Once having undergone SRS, individuals can then apply to have their identity cards reflect the change in sex.

Transsexuals between 1971 and 1991 could marry members of the opposite sex as long as couples present their identity cards at the Registry of Marriages that showed the couples were of an opposite sex.

That changed in 1991 when the High Court declared the marriage of a transsexual man and woman void. That made transsexual marriage illegal. Couples getting married had to present their birth certificates instead.

However, an amendment to the Women’s Charter in 1996 allowed transsexuals to get married again – as long as the couples’ identity cards showed they were of opposite sex.

In presenting the amendment to Parliament, then Minister for Community Development Abdullah Tarmugi said this in 1996 (emphasis ours):

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that this amendment has raised some concerns among some members of the public. The issue is indeed a complex one and touches on moral, cultural and religious values. Sir, permit me to explain the proposed amendments which were made after much discussion and deliberation with several parties.

Sex reassignment procedure has been allowed in Singapore since 1971. A person who has successfully completed a sex reassignment procedure has to change his or her identity card to reflect the new sex and identity. A small group of individuals in Singapore have indeed undergone the procedure and have had their identity cards changed.

In June 1991, things changed for this group of trans-sexuals who had married when the High Court ruled in the case of Lim vs Hiok that the Women’s Charter did not permit marriages between two persons of the same biological sex. Until the ruling, the Registry of Marriages had all along accepted the identity card as documentary proof of the identity and sex of a person. Those who had undergone sex reassignment procedure were able to marry using their identity cards which reflected their new sex. Following the 1991 court ruling, the Registry of Marriages stopped allowing the use of identity cards and began to require applicants to bring their birth certificates as evidence of their sex instead. For those who got married before the ruling, the court’s decision meant that their marriages were now void. And if they have adopted children, the status of these children is now uncertain.

Sir, I must emphasise that the proposed amendments are not meant to institute a new practice. Rather they are to reinstate what was the position before 1991. The Government’s stand is very clear: it is not a move to encourage or promote lesbianism, homosexuality, transvestism or sex reassignment among our people. We do not believe the amendments will result in our people reassigning their sex in droves. The Bill basically seeks a practical and humane approach to address the problems faced by this group of people and the families they have set up. It is to allow these individuals to lead a life according to their new status, as recorded in their identity cards, as we have all along used the NRIC to verify identity. It is practical. It is sensible.

Those that are starting to fall through the cracks of the practical, sensible legislation, as typified by the woman in the immigration case, are those who identify as a certain gender, but choose not to undergo surgery to biologically align with that identity.

 

Top image from U.S. Department Of Defense

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.

- Thet Nyi Nyi