Representation of social actors in The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore : A comparative critical discourse analysis of the repeal of Section 377A in Singapore

Abstract

Section 377A was a decades-old law introduced in Singapore in 1938, which had made sexual intimacy between gay men, even when consensual, punishable by a maximum sentence of two years in prison. In Aug 2022, in what many considered as a historic moment in Singapore, the Prime Minister announced its repeal. Following the announcement, several related news articles were published by the news outlets The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore. This study, therefore, sets out to undertake a critical discourse analysis of these news articles, focusing on the representation of two groups of social actors, namely the Singapore government and gay people. Guided by a framework that constitutes the theoretical approach of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Fairclough, Van Dijk and Wodak’s perspectives on power relations as discursive, as well as Van Leeuwen's theories on discourse construction and representations of social actors, the analysis of the textual data reveals distinct patterns in how the Singapore government and gay people are represented. In an area where there is little comparative critical discourse research on how more powerful groups and less powerful groups are represented in news coverage following significant legal and sociopolitical changes in a society, this article aims to deepen readers’ understanding of such discursive patterns and foster media literacy, thereby attaining the practical result of pointing readers in the direction of change – a desired outcome that CDA seeks through its research.

Keywords

CDA critical discourse analysis Fairclough power relations recontextualisation representation of social actors Section 377A Social Actor Network Van Dijk Van Leeuwen

Introduction and overview

The Singapore government, in a landmark move, announced in Aug 2022 the repeal of Section 377A, a decades-old, colonial-era law which criminalised gay sex. ‘[Hailed] by LGBTQ+ groups as a win for humanity’ (Ratcliffe, 2022: 1), this historic event immediately received widespread local and international news coverage. Among them, The Straits Times, Singapore’s ‘most widely accessed’ mainstream newspaper (Ho Grace, 2021: 2), was in the forefront of the coverage. Given The Straits Times’ significant reach and influence on public opinion, comparing this government-leaning news outlet’s (BBC, 2011; Ortmann, 2010; Lee Terence, 2010, as cited in Kaur et al., 2016; Rashith, 2012) portrayal of the two groups of social actors most pertinent to this news story – the Singapore government and gay people – with that of The Independent Singapore, another news outlet in Singapore which is ‘generally more critical of the government and its policies (Lee Howard and Lee Terence, 2023: 2) and had ‘1.6 million unique visitors every month’ by 2021 (Liang Annabelle, 2021: 16) makes for an interesting study. The question guiding this study, therefore, is how did The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore represent the Singapore government and gay community following the breaking legal and sociopolitical development that Section 377A will be repealed?

Singapore’s news media is situated within the unique sociopolitical landscape of Singapore, with the ‘state-controlled newspaper’ (Kaur et al., 2016: 28), The Straits Times, being ‘often referred to as a state apparatus serving as a tool for nation building’ (Kaur et al., 2016: 27) for the government and The Independent Singapore ‘position[ing] itself as a middle ground between the mainstream media and the online world that is generally seen as more critical of the government’ (Salleh, 2016: 28). Against this sociopolitical backdrop, understanding Singapore news media’s representations of the powerful state actor of the Singapore government and less powerful groups such as the gay community is important. Although recent discourse research has already shown that news media’s portrayal of particular groups of people has the capacity to perpetuate stereotypes or foster acceptance (Anderson, 2023; Cengiz and Eklund Karlsson, 2021; Holland et al., 2015), there is little comparative discourse research examining news coverage that ensue from significant legal and/or sociopolitical changes in a given society, especially regarding the discursive processes involved in representing ‘more powerful groups’ (Van Dijk, 2001: 355) and ‘less powerful groups’ (355). This study, therefore, aims to address this gap by taking a deep dive on the discursive structures used by The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore to represent the more powerful group of the Singapore government and less powerful group of gay people following the government’s breaking announcement that Section 377A will be repealed.

Guiding this article’s examination of how the two social groups are represented by The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore is a theoretical framework specially put together for this study. The framework constitutes Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), a ‘cross-disciplinary methodological and theoretical approach’ (Brown, 2019: Summary), theoretical perspectives on power relations as discursive (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997; Van Dijk, 1993, 2001), along with Van Leeuwen’s (2008a, 2008b) theoretical perspectives on discourse construction, the recontextualisation process and ‘the principal ways in which social actors can be represented in discourse’ (p. 52). Detailed methodological descriptions will be provided in the section, ‘Theoretical Framework and Methodology’.

Subsequently, the article will present an in-depth analysis of representations concerning the two groups of social actors of the Singapore government and gay people, which shall be substantiated by illustrative examples from 27 news articles from The Straits Times’ and The Independent Singapore’s initial coverage of the government’s breaking announcement that Section 377A will be repealed. By the end of the article, readers should gain a keener understanding of the discursive processes involved in the representation of more powerful groups and less powerful groups in news media discourse, specifically news articles which ensue from significant legal and/or sociopolitical changes in a society.

Theoretical framework and methodology

Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework of a study can ‘guide and clarify’ (Wolcott, 1995: 183) its ‘observations, data collection, and analysis’ (Anfara and Mertz, 2006: 8). In the case of this article’s study, theoretical perspectives and approaches which could provide ‘unveiled understandings of the phenomena being studied’ (Anfara and Mertz, 2006: 191) as well as pertinent ‘concepts that [could] be used in the’ (Anfara and Mertz, 2006: 193) ‘coding’ (Mills and Bettis, 2006: 78) and ‘analysis of the data’ (Merriam, 2006: 36) were selected to constitute the study’s theoretical framework.

The first theoretical perspective that constitutes this study’s theoretical framework is CDA. This is because ‘CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of power and dominance in society’ (Van Dijk, 2001: 353). In this ‘critical’ spirit, this study also seeks to determine whether the actual relations of power between the Singapore government and gay people in Singapore society are confirmed, reproduced and/or challenged in the news articles that are published in The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore following the government’s breaking announcement that Section 377A will be repealed. To achieve this, this study will critically ‘examine . . . in more detail’ (Van Dijk, 2001: 358) the ways discourse structures such as ‘linguistic resources’ (Van Leeuwen, 2005: 162) and social-actor representational ‘options’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 32) are used to portray the more powerful group of the Singapore government and less powerful group of gay people within these articles from the two news outlets of different political leanings.

A discourse theory within CDA, which constitutes this study’s theoretical framework too, is Van Leeuwen’s (2008a) view that ‘discourses [are] recontextualisations of social practices’ (p. 3). In this view, social practices or their elements such as social actors, locations and timings can be transformed in various ways during the process of recontexualisation, that is, the ‘retelling [of events of people] through a different perspective’ (Caldas-Coulthard, 2007: 283). Specifically, Van Leeuwen (2008a) identifies three main forms of transformation which can take place during the process of recontextualisation, namely substitution, deletion and rearrangement. Indeed, due to the transformative nature of recontextualisation, discursive representations of social practices or their elements can differ significantly from the actual social practices or elements themselves. Within this discourse theory on recontextualisation, social actors – a requisite element of social practice – can undergo transformation in various ways too and be represented differently from their actual roles and identities in real life. The Social Actor Network (Van Leeuwen, 2008b) in Figure 1 shows ‘the principal ways in which social actors can be represented’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 52) during the discursive process of recontexualisation. Therefore, the Social Actor Network, a salient part of Van Leeuwen’s discourse theory on recontextualisation, constitutes this study’s theoretical framework too as representations of social actors, specifically the Singapore government and gay people, are this study’s primary objects of investigation.

Figure 1.

The Social Actor Network showing ‘the principal ways in which social actors can be represented in discourse’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 52; reproduced under STM Permissions Guidelines’ allowed uses, Oxford University Press, a signatory to the STM Permissions Guidelines).

Description of data

Meyer and Wodak (2009: 32) emphasise that ‘there is no accepted canon of data collection but many CDA approaches work with existing data, that is, texts not specifically produced for the respective research projects’. Consistent with this methodological feature of CDA, this study analyses textual data from 27 online news articles. Specifically, these articles are news reports and opinion pieces related to the Singapore government’s announced decision to repeal Section 377A and are published in The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore in August 2022 following the government’s breaking announcement that Section 377A will be repealed.

Next, this study chooses to focus its analysis on news articles from both The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore. The Straits Times is ‘a state-controlled newspaper operating in a highly regulated media environment’ (Kaur et al., 2016: 28), which is known to have a government-leaning editorial line (BBC, 2011; Ortmann, 2010; Lee Terence, 2010, as cited in Kaur et al., 2016; Rashith, 2012) and is ‘often referred to as a state apparatus serving as a tool for nation building’ (Kaur et al., 2016: 27), foregrounding state discourses and communicating them in a more reified and obvious manner to the general population (Lee Terence, 2010, as cited in Kaur et al., 2016). By 2022, this daily newspaper had established itself as ‘Singapore’s newspaper of record, . . . most popular traditional news brand . . . [and had] a strong presence online, with its website ranking third in terms of frequency of use’ (Tandoc, 2022: 3). The influence which The Straits Times has on public opinion about sociopolitical issues in Singapore’s discursive space is undeniable, which makes it an important site for understanding how the event of the repeal of Section 377A as well as the two groups of the Singapore government and gay people are represented in Singapore’s mainstream news discourse.

The Independent Singapore, on the other hand, is an alternative news website set up in August 2013 with the aim of ‘enlarging the space for public discourse on issues that seldom enter mainstream debate’ (Lee Howard and Lee Terence, 2023: 1), catering to readers who are dissatisfied with mainstream newspapers which are ‘often seen as being politically biased in favour of the government’ (1). Headed by Kumeran Pillai, a former Chief Editor of alternative news website, The Online Citizen (Salleh, 2016), The Independent Singapore ‘offer[s] news-related content that differs in slant and focus from mainstream news media’ (Lee Howard and Lee Terence, 2023: 2). Being a news outlet which is ‘generally more critical of the government and its policies’ (2), the news website obtained a strong following over the years, garnering ‘1.6 million unique visitors every month’ by 2021 (Liang Annabelle, 2021: 16). Despite its readership success, The Independent Singapore has had its run-ins with the Singapore government and authorities. For instance, in May 2016, the ‘police initiated an investigation of the news website . . . for violation of the cooling-off rules that prohibited election advertising the day before an election’ (Human Rights Watch, 2017: 16). Kumaran Pillai defended the news website’s actions, arguing that ‘[The Independent Singapore] did what [they] thought was plain reporting of things that happened before Cooling-off Day’ (Human Rights Watch, 2017: 16). Independent journalist and activist, Han Kirsten (2016), also criticised the police investigation and alleged that ‘to disallow websites like The Independent Singapore from publishing on Cooling-off Day while the mainstream media is free to continue as usual simply invites suspicion’ (para. 12).

Therefore, given The Straits Times’ and The Independent Singapore’s different political leanings and editorial lines, comparing their coverage of the government’s announced decision to repeal Section 377A would add a valuable dimension to the analysis of the textual data. This comparative approach to the analysis of the data would also prevent the study from presenting a one-sided or artificial view of how the two groups of social actors are portrayed in the news media coverage of the government’s breaking announcement that Section 377A will be repealed.

Context of data

Oftentimes, understanding the broader historical, sociopolitical and/or cultural contexts the data is situated within is crucial in a study as it would offer the investigator the explanatory context for making sense of certain analytical findings that emerge from the study. Hence, this section shall provide a description of the historical and sociopolitical context within which the Singapore government’s decision to repeal Section 377A was made.

Section 377A of Singapore’s Penal Code (1985) was a colonial-era law which criminalised oral and anal sex between men, be it performed in private or public and was punishable with a jail term of up to two years. This clause in the Penal Code was a hot button in Singapore society before it was repealed, ‘stirring many debates . . . over the years’ (Tang See Kit, 2022: 21) where gay supporters viewed it as discriminatory and wanted it to be repealed while gay-rights opposition, which makes up a ‘significant proportion’ of Singapore’s population, did not want it to be repealed (Shanmugam, as cited in Tang See Kit, 2022: 15). From 2010 to 2022, Section 377A was challenged in the courts multiple times. The first two legal challenges against Section 377A were mounted by Tan Eng Hong and gay couple, Lim Meng Suang and Kenneth Chee Mun-Leon, in 2010 and 2012 (Leo Lakeisha, 2022). The challenges eventually turned out unsuccessful as the High Court upheld Section 377A and the Court of Appeal dismissed the subsequent appeals (Leo Lakeisha, 2022). Then, perhaps encouraged by both India’s historic striking down of a colonial-era law banning gay sex in September 2018 (Safi, 2018) and ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh’s subsequent call for the gay community to mount a similar legal challenge (Yahya, 2018), three legal challenges against Section 377A were once again mounted in 2019 in Singapore, this time by Tan Seng Kee, Johnson Ong Ming and Choong Chee Hong, where they put forward the case that Section 377A was ‘inconsistent with various articles of the Singapore Constitution’ (Kurohi, 2019: 5). Similarly, these three legal challenges and subsequent appeals were dismissed by the High Court and Court of Appeal on 30 March 2020 and 28 February 2022 respectively (Leo Lakeisha, 2022). However, a major turning point in the fight for gay rights in Singapore came following the dismissal in February 2022: Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam and Attorney-General Lucien Wong advised the government that ‘that in a future court challenge, there is a significant risk of [Section 377A] being struck down on the grounds that it breaches Article 12 of the Constitution – the Equal Protection provision’ (Tham Yuen-C, 2022a: 2). In response, the government began consultations with various stakeholders such as ‘religious leaders, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) groups as well as regular Singaporeans’ (Tham Yuen-C, 2022a: 7) to consider the next steps for Section 377A while ensuring they can ‘safeguard the current legal position on marriage from being challenged in the courts, so that it does not get challenged like the way Section 377A was in [the] series of cases’ (Shanmugam, as cited in Tang See Kit, 2022: 8). Ultimately in August 2022, in what many deemed as a historic moment in Singapore’s sociopolitical landscape, the Singapore government announced its decision to repeal Section 377A and amend the Singapore Constitution to protect the definition of marriage between a man and a woman from legal challenges (Leo Lakeisha, 2022).

Method of data analysis

This study adopts an interpretation process, also known as hermeneutics in discourse analysis (Bell, 2001; Meyer and Wodak, 2009; Ricoeur, 1991), as its analytical procedure. This is in alignment with ‘CDA’s place[ment of] its methodology in the hermeneutic . . . tradition’ (Meyer and Wodak, 2009: 28). During the hermeneutic interpretation process, the earlier-presented theoretical framework, with its perspectives, theoretically-based structures and social-actor representational ‘options’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 32), is drawn on to engage in a detailed and ‘careful systematic analysis’ (Meyer and Wodak, 2009: 33) of the textual data collected from the examined news articles to develop ‘an informed understanding’ (Ricoeur, 1991: 130) of how discursive structures such as linguistic resources and representational options are used to shape the representations of the Singapore government and gay people in the news articles. To address some scholars’ concerns that discourse analysis can be subjective (Widdowson, 1995) due to the ‘interpretative and explanatory’ (Van Dijk, 2001: 353) nature of the hermeneutic interpretation process, the analytical process, where applicable, is complemented by corroborative contextual information. Self-reflexivity (Kincheloe and McLaren, 1994) will also be practised throughout the hermeneutic process, where the investigator will strive to engage in ‘self-reflection at every point of [his] research and [maintain] distance from the data which are [sic] being investigated’ (Meyer and Wodak, 2009: 33). Overall, this methodological approach to data analysis would minimise interpretive subjectivity and yield findings which are valid and reliable.

Analysis

Activation of the Singapore government versus activation of gay people

The first social-actor representational choice discussed in this article’s data analysis is ‘activation’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 33), which refers to the sociological category of agency, not to be mistaken with the linguistic category of active voice. When social actors are activated in discourse, they are ‘represented as the active, dynamic forces in an activity’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 33). Such representation can be realised linguistically through transitivity structures (Van Leeuwen, 2008b), namely, the main participants and processes of an actor in material processes, sayer in verbal processes, senser in mental processes, behaver in behavioural processes, etc (Halliday, 1994). In examining the news articles from The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore, the Singapore government is found to have been represented frequently as an active participant through the linguistic resource of transitivity processes, where a majority of the transitivity processes involve the government being coded as a sayer in verbal processes. This can be seen in both news outlets’ articles where the government and its representatives, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam and Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Mr Edwin Tong, are activated as authoritative communicators regarding the government’s decision to repeal Section 377A and commitment to maintain the traditional definition of marriage as one that is between a man and a woman in Singapore society. However, analysis of these verbal processes involving the government as a sayer across the two news outlets also shows a subtle difference: The Straits Times has more statements concerning marriage protection than The Independent Singapore. Above are some illustrative examples from the two news outlets’ articles which demonstrate these findings (Table 1).

Table 1.

Examples illustrating how verbal processes in the news articles from The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore represent the government as authoritative communicators on the repeal of Section 377A and the government’s commitment to protect the traditional definition of marriage in Singapore from legal challenges.

Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Straits Times:	Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Independent Singapore:
1.1 PM Lee said the Government has no plans to change the existing definition of marriage or any of the policies that rely upon it (Lau Jean, 2022a). 1.2 Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong . . . said the Government will propose an amendment to safeguard the existing definition of marriage from constitutional challenge (Goh Yan Han and Baharudin, 2022). 1.3 Mr Shanmugam also elaborated on how the Government will uphold and safeguard the definition of marriage between a man and a woman (Diman, 2022). 1.4 Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said the Government was fully committed to uphold the current definition of marriage. (Tham Yuen-C, 2022b). 1.5 Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced at the National Day Rally on Sunday that Singapore will repeal Section 377A and decriminalise sex between men (Chua Nadine, 2022, 2022b).	1.6 PM Lee said Parliament will amend the Constitution to make sure that traditional institutions [i.e. marriage] and values will be protected (Tan Bah Bah, 2022). 1.7 PM Lee said that he believes repealing Section 377A is the right thing to do and that most Singaporeans will now accept it (Romero, 2022a). 1.8 PM Lee announcing that Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalizes sex between men, would be repealed (Romero, 2022c). 1.9 Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has indicated that no one would ever be prosecuted under this section (Ghui, 2022b). 1.10 ‘I believe this is the right thing to do and that most Singaporeans will now accept it. This will bring the law into line with current social mores and I hope, provide some relief to gay Singaporeans,’ PM Lee had said in his speech (Romero, 2022b).

Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Straits Times:

Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Independent Singapore:

1.1 PM Lee said the Government has no plans to change the existing definition of marriage or any of the policies that rely upon it (Lau Jean, 2022a).
1.2 Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong . . . said the Government will propose an amendment to safeguard the existing definition of marriage from constitutional challenge (Goh Yan Han and Baharudin, 2022).
1.3 Mr Shanmugam also elaborated on how the Government will uphold and safeguard the definition of marriage between a man and a woman (Diman, 2022).
1.4 Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said the Government was fully committed to uphold the current definition of marriage. (Tham Yuen-C, 2022b).
1.5 Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced at the National Day Rally on Sunday that Singapore will repeal Section 377A and decriminalise sex between men (Chua Nadine, 2022, 2022b).

1.6 PM Lee said Parliament will amend the Constitution to make sure that traditional institutions [i.e. marriage] and values will be protected (Tan Bah Bah, 2022).
1.7 PM Lee said that he believes repealing Section 377A is the right thing to do and that most Singaporeans will now accept it (Romero, 2022a).
1.8 PM Lee announcing that Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalizes sex between men, would be repealed (Romero, 2022c).
1.9 Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has indicated that no one would ever be prosecuted under this section (Ghui, 2022b).
1.10 ‘I believe this is the right thing to do and that most Singaporeans will now accept it. This will bring the law into line with current social mores and I hope, provide some relief to gay Singaporeans,’ PM Lee had said in his speech (Romero, 2022b).

The examples also illustrate the subtle difference in the frequency of government statements on marriage protection, with more occurring in The Straits Times than in The Independent Singapore.

Other than being coded as a sayer in verbal processes, the analysis of the textual data also reveals the government being frequently coded as an actor in material processes in the news articles published in both The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore. In these discursive occurrences, the Singapore government is portrayed mainly as a proactive, constructive force shaping the legal and sociopolitical landscape of Singapore society through the legislative actions of repealing Section 377A and safeguarding the definition of marriage between a man and a woman from legal challenges. Illustrative examples 1.11 to 1.20 in Table 2 instantiate these discursive occurrences in the two news outlets’ articles.

Table 2.

Examples illustrating how material processes in the news articles from The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore represent the government as a proactive, constructive force shaping the legal and sociopolitical landscape of Singapore society through the legislative actions of repealing Section 377A and safeguarding the definition of marriage between a man and a woman from legal challenges.

Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Straits Times:	Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Independent Singapore:
1.11 The government will safeguard the institution of marriage (Lau Jean, 2022c). 1.12 The Government will amend the Constitution to protect the definition of marriage as one between a man and a woman to stave off future legal challenges (Baharudin, 2022). 1.13 The Government will amend the Constitution to stave off legal challenges on the definition of marriage (Lau Jean, 2022e). 1.14 The Government will repeal Section 377A, which criminalises sex between men (Yong Clement, 2022). 1.15 The Government would address concerns that the repeal of Section 377A could change the tone of society and spark intolerance towards differing views (Tham Yuen-C, 2022c).	1.16 The government moved to ensure that the constitution would state that marriage is defined as the heterosexual variety (Tang Li, 2022) 1.17 The Govt will repeal S377A and decriminalise sex between men (Romero, 2022a). 1.18 The government will repeal S377A (Tan Bah Bah, 2022). 1.19 The Government . . . has provided a compromise position (Ghui, 2022a). 1.20 [The government] will represent all segments of society who would wish to come under its tent and that it would do its best to take into account all their interests (Tan Bah Bah, 2022).

Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Straits Times:

Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Independent Singapore:

1.11 The government will safeguard the institution of marriage (Lau Jean, 2022c).
1.12 The Government will amend the Constitution to protect the definition of marriage as one between a man and a woman to stave off future legal challenges (Baharudin, 2022).
1.13 The Government will amend the Constitution to stave off legal challenges on the definition of marriage (Lau Jean, 2022e).
1.14 The Government will repeal Section 377A, which criminalises sex between men (Yong Clement, 2022).
1.15 The Government would address concerns that the repeal of Section 377A could change the tone of society and spark intolerance towards differing views (Tham Yuen-C, 2022c).

1.16 The government moved to ensure that the constitution would state that marriage is defined as the heterosexual variety (Tang Li, 2022)
1.17 The Govt will repeal S377A and decriminalise sex between men (Romero, 2022a).
1.18 The government will repeal S377A (Tan Bah Bah, 2022).
1.19 The Government . . . has provided a compromise position (Ghui, 2022a).
1.20 [The government] will represent all segments of society who would wish to come under its tent and that it would do its best to take into account all their interests (Tan Bah Bah, 2022).

Similar to the activation of the Singapore government, news articles from The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore use transitivity structures to activate gay people. However, the representation of the gay people is markedly different from that of the Singapore government: the Singapore government is represented as a constructive force acting on the legal and social contexts of Singapore society while gay people are depicted as just reacting to the government’s decision to repeal Section 377A. This is evident from the following instances in the two news outlets’ articles where gay people are activated as sayer in a verbal process and senser in a mental process reacting to the repeal of Section 377A: ‘express[ing] relief that the law which criminalises sex between men will be repealed’ (Lau Jean, 2022c: 1), ‘calling [the repeal] a powerful statement that state-sanctioned discrimination has no place in Singapore’ (1), and ‘hav[ing] to accept that the law will not recognise their union as anything more than that of two men choosing to live together’ (Tang Li, 2022: 3). These representations in both The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore frame gay people as reacting to the legislative changes instead of bringing about the changes and influencing the legislative and sociopolitical landscape like the government. Further illustrating this representation of gay people as reactive, when gay people are activated as a behaver in a behavioural process by the two news outlets, they also simply involve a personal anecdote of a mother’s son ‘com[ing] out to her as gay’ (Chua Mui Hoong, 2022: 1), gay people ‘liv[ing] with the existential shame of loving under the banner of illegality for years’ (Chua Mui Hoong, 2022: 12), and gay people finally being able to ‘rest easy’ (Tang Li, 2022: 2) after the government’s announced decision to repeal Section 377A, all of which are actions that are rather reactive and lacking in agency compared to the government’s high-agency action of effecting legislative changes that shaped the legal and sociopolitical landscape of Singapore.

Other than transitivity structures being used to activate gay people in the news articles from both The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore, it is observed that the linguistic resource of nominalisation – ‘a grammatical process of forming nouns from other parts of speech, usually verbs’ (Richards and Schmidt, 2002: 360) – is also used to activate gay people in the two news outlets’ articles. In particular, the nominalised forms used in these articles are derived from the activity of gay sex, such as ‘sex between men’, ‘gay sexual acts’ and ‘gay sex’, as seen in illustrative examples 1.21–1.30 in Table 3.

Table 3.

Examples illustrating how nominalisation is used in the news articles from The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore to activate gay people.

Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Straits Times:	Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Independent Singapore:
1.21 The [National Council of Churches of Singapore] also sought the government’s assurance that the religious freedom of churches to teach against gay sexual acts would be protected (Lau Jean, 2022c). 1.22 Sex between men should not be a criminal offence (Tham Yuen-C, 2022a). 1.23 He noted that Section 377A–a law in the Penal Code that criminalises sex between men – is a highly sensitive and contentious issue, with strong views on both sides (Lau Jean, 2022b). 1.24 He added that sentiments have shifted over the years as more Singaporeans accept that sex in private between consenting men should not be a criminal offence (Hussain, 2022b). 1.25 Singapore's decision to decriminalise gay sex has been welcomed as a step forward in bolstering rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer communities in Asia-Pacific (Dasgupta, 2022).	1.26 For those unaware, Section 377A criminalises gay sex (Ghui, 2022b). 1.27 Sex between men should not be a criminal offence (Romero, 2022a). 1.28 If the rights of males are challenged under S377A which criminalises sex between consenting males, that law could one day be stuck down because of an issue much, much larger than the actual act itself (Tan Bah Bah, 2022). 1.29 Prime Minister has finally stated that . . . Section 377A, the section that criminalises anal sex between consenting adult men, will finally be removed (Tang Li, 2022). 1.30 It announced the decriminalisation of gay sex, something that activists and other interest groups have long been pushing for – and something the authorities have always avoided (Ghui, 2022a).

Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Straits Times:

Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Independent Singapore:

1.21 The [National Council of Churches of Singapore] also sought the government’s assurance that the religious freedom of churches to teach against gay sexual acts would be protected (Lau Jean, 2022c).
1.22 Sex between men should not be a criminal offence (Tham Yuen-C, 2022a).
1.23 He noted that Section 377A–a law in the Penal Code that criminalises sex between men – is a highly sensitive and contentious issue, with strong views on both sides (Lau Jean, 2022b).
1.24 He added that sentiments have shifted over the years as more Singaporeans accept that sex in private between consenting men should not be a criminal offence (Hussain, 2022b).
1.25 Singapore's decision to decriminalise gay sex has been welcomed as a step forward in bolstering rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer communities in Asia-Pacific (Dasgupta, 2022).

1.26 For those unaware, Section 377A criminalises gay sex (Ghui, 2022b).
1.27 Sex between men should not be a criminal offence (Romero, 2022a).
1.28 If the rights of males are challenged under S377A which criminalises sex between consenting males, that law could one day be stuck down because of an issue much, much larger than the actual act itself (Tan Bah Bah, 2022).
1.29 Prime Minister has finally stated that . . . Section 377A, the section that criminalises anal sex between consenting adult men, will finally be removed (Tang Li, 2022).
1.30 It announced the decriminalisation of gay sex, something that activists and other interest groups have long been pushing for – and something the authorities have always avoided (Ghui, 2022a).

Summary of findings and discussion

From this section’s findings on the activation of social actors through the linguistic resources of transitivity structures and nominalisation, it can be seen that there are close similarities and subtle differences in how The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore activate the Singapore government and gay people in their initial coverage of the government’s announced decision to repeal Section S377A.

In the case of the Singapore government, both The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore used material processes to activate the government frequently as an implementer making changes to the legislation to bring about the new and progressive policy shift of repealing an anti-gay sex law that has stood for decades, all while protecting the social institution of traditional marriage. Both The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore also activate the government extensively as a sayer in a verbal process, representing the government (and its representatives) as authoritative and decisive leaders communicating new decisions and policies pertaining to the repeal of Section 377A and protection of traditional marriage to the public. Although both news outlets were similar in depicting the government in this particular light through the use of verbal processes, The Straits Times has more government statements about marriage protection than The Independent Singapore. This higher frequency of government statements about marriage protection in The Straits Times contributes to a portrayal of the government as a protector of Singapore society’s traditional social institutions to the public, which aligns with The Straits Times’ government-leaning editorial line and nation-building role in ‘evinc[ing] state discourses’ (Lee Terence, 2010, as cited in Kaur et al., 2016: 32). In contrast, The Independent Singapore’s less frequent mention of the government statements on their commitment to protect the traditional definition of marriage from legal challenges could be due to the alternative news outlet not wanting to be perceived by readers as the mouthpiece of the government since it has an editorial line that is different from The Straits Times and caters mainly to readers who are dissatisfied with mainstream newspapers which are ‘often seen as being politically biased in favour of the government’ (Lee Howard and Lee Terence, 2023: 1). The relative scarcity of government statements on marriage protection in The Independent Singapore could also be seen as a discursive attempt by the alternative news website to represent the government as a unilateral force in shaping social institutions in Singapore society instead of a participant among many.

As for the representation of gay people, even though gay people are beneficiaries of the government’s policy shift on Section 377A, both The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore use transitivity structures to activate gay people as merely reacting to the government’s decision to repeal Section 377A, playing a limited role in the repeal. Additionally, both news outlets use nominalisation extensively to activate gay people, ‘refer[ing] to [them] in terms of [sexual] activit[ies]’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 42), as in ‘sex between men’, ‘gay sexual acts’ and ‘gay sex’. Activating gay people in this way does positively allow the sensitive topic of ‘sex between men’ to be brought up in the news articles while obscuring the participants of these carnal acts, thus avoiding the assigning of blame or responsibility to specific gay individuals involved in the sexual activities. However, the obscuring of the participants of these carnal acts also results in gay people being perceived as lacking in agency. This is because when an action is turned into a noun through the use of nominalisation, the emphasis shifts away from the actor carrying out the action to the action itself. Both The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore also hardly use the linguistic resource of active voice – ‘the grammatical form in which the subject performs the action of the verb’ (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.: 1) – to represent gay people in high-agency roles such as mounting legal challenges against Section 377A in court which had played an instrumental role in the fight for gay rights and the eventual repeal of Section 377A (Leo Lakeisha, 2022; Tham Yuen-C, 2022a).

Concluding this section’s discussion, we can see that gay people and the Singapore government are ‘referred to in terms of [totally different] activities’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 42) in the two news outlets’ initial coverage of the repeal of Section 377A. The state actor of the Singapore government is consistently represented as doing things which benefit not only the gay community in Singapore (e.g. ‘repealing Section 377A’), but also the wider Singapore society (e.g. ‘safeguarding the definition of marriage between a man and a woman from legal challenges’ and ‘maintaining prevailing norms and social values’). The consistent foregrounding of these deeds of the government by the two news outlets presents the government as a proactive, noble and protective entity to the public. Gay people, on the other hand, are consistently represented by the two news outlets as lacking in agency and not depicted in high-agency roles such as mounting legal challenges against Section 377A in court, which had played a crucial role in the eventual repeal of Section 377A. This differential representation leads to the ‘construction of [different] public identities’ (Fairclough, 2003: 212) for the two groups of social actors, which has the capacity to shape the public’s ‘mental picture’ (Halliday, 1994: 106) of the respective groups’ roles in and contributions to the repeal of Section 377A.

Determination of the Singapore government versus indetermination of gay people

Determination (Van Leeuwen, 2008b) occurs when social actors’ ‘identity is, one way or another, specified’ (39). Indetermination (Van Leeuwen, 2008b), on the other hand, occurs ‘when social actors are represented as unspecified, anonymous individuals or groups’ (39). In the examined news articles from The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore, the Singapore government is found to be determined in terms of ‘nomination’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 41) through the linguistic resources of ‘proper names’ and ‘honorifics’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 41). Both news outlets frequently use nomination to depict the government, realised through phrases such as ‘Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’, ‘PM Lee’, ‘Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’, ‘Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam’ and ‘Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Mr Edwin Tong’. However, a subtle difference can be seen in these nominations of the government: The Straits Times mentions a range of government actors such as Lee Hsien Loong, K Shanmugam, Lawrence Wong and Edwin Tong while The Independent Singapore predominantly names Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Illustrative examples 1.31–1.40 in Table 4 instantiate these discursive occurrences in greater detail.

Table 4.

Examples illustrating how both The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore nominate the government through the use of ‘proper names’ and ‘honorifics’.

Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Straits Times:	Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Independent Singapore:
1.31 Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said the Government was fully committed to uphold the current definition of marriage. (Tham Yuen-C, 2022b). 1.32 Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong . . . said the Government will propose an amendment to safeguard the existing definition of marriage from constitutional challenge (Goh Yan Han and Baharudin, 2022). 1.33 Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has said that it will be irresponsible of the Government to not act (Diman, 2022). 1.34 The Government has sought to achieve a new balance that reflects societal attitudes while preserving unity, said Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong (Goh Yan Han and Baharudin, 2022). 1.35 It was responding to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's announcement in his National Day Rally speech that the Government will repeal Section 377A, which criminalises sex between men (Yong Clement, 2022).	1.36 Yet, other power brokers such as Minister for Law and Home Affairs, K Shanmugam have sounded a more progressive approach (Ghui, 2022b). 1.37 PM Lee said Parliament will amend the Constitution to make sure that traditional institutions [i.e. marriage] and values will be protected (Tan Bah Bah, 2022). 1.38 One of the highlights of the speech had been PM Lee announcing that Section 377A of the Penal Code . . . would be repealed (Romero, 2002c). 1.39 This week saw Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (PM Lee) give his National Day Rally speech . . . [which] announced the decriminalisation of gay sex (Ghui, 2022a). 1.40 Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s announcement . . . that the government will repeal S377A coupled with unusually inclusive words of support for gay Singaporeans as an integral part of the community was an act of statesmanship (Tan Bah Bah, 2022).

Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Straits Times:

Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Independent Singapore:

1.31 Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said the Government was fully committed to uphold the current definition of marriage. (Tham Yuen-C, 2022b).
1.32 Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong . . . said the Government will propose an amendment to safeguard the existing definition of marriage from constitutional challenge (Goh Yan Han and Baharudin, 2022).
1.33 Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has said that it will be irresponsible of the Government to not act (Diman, 2022).
1.34 The Government has sought to achieve a new balance that reflects societal attitudes while preserving unity, said Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong (Goh Yan Han and Baharudin, 2022).
1.35 It was responding to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's announcement in his National Day Rally speech that the Government will repeal Section 377A, which criminalises sex between men (Yong Clement, 2022).

1.36 Yet, other power brokers such as Minister for Law and Home Affairs, K Shanmugam have sounded a more progressive approach (Ghui, 2022b).
1.37 PM Lee said Parliament will amend the Constitution to make sure that traditional institutions [i.e. marriage] and values will be protected (Tan Bah Bah, 2022).
1.38 One of the highlights of the speech had been PM Lee announcing that Section 377A of the Penal Code . . . would be repealed (Romero, 2002c).
1.39 This week saw Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (PM Lee) give his National Day Rally speech . . . [which] announced the decriminalisation of gay sex (Ghui, 2022a).
1.40 Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s announcement . . . that the government will repeal S377A coupled with unusually inclusive words of support for gay Singaporeans as an integral part of the community was an act of statesmanship (Tan Bah Bah, 2022).

The examples also illustrate the subtle difference in the variety of government actors mentioned by the two outlets, with a wider variety occurring in The Straits Times than in The Independent Singapore.

In contrast, while the government is frequently determined in terms of nomination frequently by The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore, the social actors of gay people are ‘indeterminated’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 39), hardly being nominated by the two news outlets – a discursive occurrence that is also worthy of attention as ‘absences are as significant in critical discourse analysis as are presences’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 42). Indeed, rather than nominating gay people, The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore indeterminate them extensively through the use of generic terms and ‘plurality’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 37) as with ‘gay people’, ‘gay men’, ‘gay Singaporeans’, ‘gay community’, ‘homosexuals’, ‘men’ and ‘consenting men’, where they are portrayed essentially as ‘nameless characters’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 41). Table 5 provides some examples from the two news outlets’ articles which illustrate this finding.

Table 5.

Examples illustrating how both The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore indeterminate gay people by (i) not nominating them and (ii) using generic terms and plurality.

Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Straits Times:	Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Independent Singapore:
1.41 Sentiments have shifted over the years as more Singaporeans accept that sex in private between consenting men should not be a criminal offence (Goh Yan Han, 2022). 1.42 Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced in his National Day Rally speech on Sunday that Section 377A, which criminalises sex between men, will be repealed (Lau Jean, 2022d). 1.43 Sunday’s announcement goes a significant way in recognising the concerns of the gay community (Tan Eugene KB, 2022). 1.44 The first is a repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men (Hussain, 2022a). 1.45 In announcing the repeal, PM Lee said that societal attitudes towards gay people have shifted appreciably (Liew Isabelle and Lau Jean, 2022).	1.46 Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalizes sex between men, will be repealed (Romero, 2022b). 1.47 The group also underlined what has been problematic with Section 377A, writing that it . . . stigmatises sexual activity between consenting gay men (Romero, 2022a) 1.48 This will bring the law into line with current social mores and I hope, provide some relief to gay Singaporeans (Romero, 2022b). 1.49 Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s . . . inclusive words of support for gay Singaporeans as an integral part of the community was an act of statesmanship (Tan Bah Bah, 2022). 1.50 The law is very specific that it targets homosexuals rather than lesbians (Tang Li, 2022).

Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Straits Times:

Illustrative examples from news articles published in The Independent Singapore:

1.41 Sentiments have shifted over the years as more Singaporeans accept that sex in private between consenting men should not be a criminal offence (Goh Yan Han, 2022).
1.42 Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced in his National Day Rally speech on Sunday that Section 377A, which criminalises sex between men, will be repealed (Lau Jean, 2022d).
1.43 Sunday’s announcement goes a significant way in recognising the concerns of the gay community (Tan Eugene KB, 2022).
1.44 The first is a repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men (Hussain, 2022a).
1.45 In announcing the repeal, PM Lee said that societal attitudes towards gay people have shifted appreciably (Liew Isabelle and Lau Jean, 2022).

1.46 Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalizes sex between men, will be repealed (Romero, 2022b).
1.47 The group also underlined what has been problematic with Section 377A, writing that it . . . stigmatises sexual activity between consenting gay men (Romero, 2022a)
1.48 This will bring the law into line with current social mores and I hope, provide some relief to gay Singaporeans (Romero, 2022b).
1.49 Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s . . . inclusive words of support for gay Singaporeans as an integral part of the community was an act of statesmanship (Tan Bah Bah, 2022).
1.50 The law is very specific that it targets homosexuals rather than lesbians (Tang Li, 2022).

Summary of findings and discussion

The findings from the analysis of The Straits Times’ and The Independent Singapore’s initial coverage of the government’s announced decision to repeal Section 377A revealed insights into the workings of the discursive strategies of determination and indetermination applied to the Singapore government and gay people. First, both The Straits Times and The Independent Singapore frequently nominates (a form of determination) the Singapore government in terms of ‘Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’ and ‘PM Lee’. In so doing, the historic decision to repeal Section 377A is associated with the leader of the government, thereby giving the announced decision much authority and legitimacy. The association of the repeal decision with the leader of the government could also influence the public to view the government as ‘personally’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 24) accountable for the legal and sociopolitical consequences of such a significant decision, which can lead to a richer critique of or praise for the government depending on the readers’ perspective and which news outlet the article is from.

In spite of this similar approach in representing the government, there is a slight difference in The Straits Times’ and The Independent Singapore’s application of the discursive strategy of nomination. The Straits Times mentions a range of political actors such as Lee Hsien Loong, K Shanmugam, Lawrence Wong and Edwin Tong while The Independent Singapore predominantly names Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. This mentioning of a range of government actors involved in the historic decision to repeal Section 377A contributes to a representation of the government as a unified entity by The Straits Times. Often seen as a tool for ‘evincing state discourses’ (Lee Terence, 2010, as cited in Kaur et al., 2016: 32), quoting multiple government officials also allows this government-leaning news outlet to embed the state’s perspective more deeply within the societal discourse and make the government’s decision to repeal Section 377A look more well-rounded, considered and authoritative. On the other hand, The Independent Singapore’s nomination of the government, mainly in terms of Prime Minister Lee Hsien, places the spotlight on the top leadership. This narrower focus not only puts the Prime Minister and his decision to repeal Section 377A and protect the traditional definition of marriage under closer scrutiny, but also has the discursive effect of making the government appearing top-down in its decision-making process, aligning with the news outlet’s ‘critical [stance] of the government and its policies’ (Lee Howard and Lee Terence, 2023: 2).

Then, differing significantly from how the government is nominated, the representation of gay people in The Straits Times’ and The Independent Singapore’s news articles shows gay people being hardly nominated. Indeed, gay individuals such as Tan Eng Hong, Lim Meng Suang, Kenneth Chee Mun-Leon, Johnson Ong Ming and Choong Chee Hong who had played an instrumental role in the repeal of Section 377A through the legal challenges they mounted against Section 377A in court from 2010 to 2022 are not nominated at all in the coverage. This indetermination effectively represents gay people as ‘nameless characters . . . who do not become points of identification for the [public]’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008b: 41) and could lead the public to develop an incomplete ‘mental picture’ (Halliday, 1994: 106) of the role gay people played in the advancement of gay rights in Singapore society and the repeal of Section 377A.

Concluding remarks

Having discussed the analysis of the textual data, this concluding section reflects on the implications of The Straits Times’ and The Independent Singapore’s representations of the Singapore government and gay people in their initial coverage of the government’s announced decision to repeal Section 377A and safeguard the definition of marriage between a man and a woman from legal challenges. Given that The Straits Times has a government-leaning editorial line while The Independent Singapore has a more critical editorial stance towards the government, one would expect stark differences in the way the two news outlets represent the Singapore government and gay people following such significant legal and sociopolitical developments in Singapore. Yet, the findings reveal that the two news outlets’ representations of these two social groups, notwithstanding the two mentioned subtle differences, are largely similar: Both news outlets activate the Singapore government frequently in high-agency and high-impact roles while gay people are often activated in passive and reactive roles. Both news outlets also determine and nominate the Singapore government extensively while gay people are predominantly indeterminated and rendered nameless. From a CDA standpoint (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997; Van Dijk, 1993, 2001), this uniformity in representation as well as similar ‘framing’ (Hubner, 2021) of the repeal as an outcome of a government-led effort rather than the legal challenges mounted by gay people and their supporters over the years from 2010 to 2022 (Leo Lakeisha, 2022) in the two news outlets’ initial coverage reflect a ‘reproduction’ and ‘confirmation’ (Van Dijk, 2001: 353) of the actual sociopolitical dynamics and power relations between the ‘more powerful group’ (Van Dijk, 2001: 355) of the Singapore government and ‘less powerful group’ (355) of gay people in Singapore society. If Singapore’s news media, irrespective of its editorial stance, continues to consistently portray the government in more powerful and high-agency roles and less powerful groups in passive and reactive roles, the existing power imbalances between social groups in Singapore society could worsen. Incomplete or inaccurate perceptions of less powerful social groups such as gay people could also be reinforced or perpetuated further. All these would make it more challenging for less powerful groups in Singapore society to have greater influence on policy reforms and societal changes.

In conclusion, the way ‘news media . . . fram[es]’ (Lee Seow Ting and Basnyat, 2013, as cited in Hubner, 2021: 4) and represents more powerful and less powerful social groups can ‘influence . . . audiences’ (Van Dijk, 1993: 259) and ‘change [their] minds . . . in one’s interests’ (Van Dijk, 1993: 254). By ‘mak[ing] explicit’ (Meyer and Wodak, 2009: 20) the discursive structures involved in The Straits Times’ and The Independent Singapore’s representation of the Singapore government and gay people, it is hoped that the work presented in this study has provided readers with a helpful starting point in understanding the discursive processes involved in representing more powerful groups and less powerful groups in news media discourses that ensue from significant legal and sociopolitical changes in a society. This heightened awareness of discourse as being made up of discursive constructions could lead to the empowerment of readers to, for example, resist the pressure to accept a news outlet’s portrayal of a particular social group, thereby attaining the ‘practical’ result (Meyer and Wodak, 2009: 20) of ‘pointing people in the direction of change’ (Bloor and Bloor, 2007: 3), a desired outcome that CDA seeks through its research (Bloor and Bloor, 2007). Ultimately, it is hoped that the work presented in this study will also be critiqued and expanded upon by fellow critical discourse analysts as such exchange of ideas and perspectives can help to keep our field of CDA alive.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biography

Wee Boon Wong is a Lecturer at Singapore University of Social Sciences. Formerly a PhD Research Scholar at National University of Singapore (NUS), he was a recipient of two graduate student teaching awards conferred by NUS Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and completed his doctoral studies under the guidance of Associate Professor Michelle M Lazar. Possessing a passion for raising people’s awareness of the discursive strategies that can be involved in the construction of multi modal discourses, his research interests include critical discourse analysis, multi modal communication and representation, and social semiotics.

References

Anderson

(2023) “OK Boomer”: Demagogic discourse and intergenerational communication. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 21(2): 253–268.

Anfara

Mertz

(eds.) (2006) Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baharudin

(2022) Rising cost of living, health-related issues among top concerns for S’poreans following NDR 2022. The Straits Times, 22 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/rising-cost-of-living-health-related-issues-among-top-concerns-for-singaporeans-following-ndr-2022 (accessed 11 June 2023).

BBC (2011) Singapore media guide. BBC News, 30 November. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-15966553 (accessed 6 August 2023).

Bloor

(2007) Background and theory. In: Bloor

Bloor

(eds) The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. London: Hodder Arnold, pp.1–14.

Brown

(2019) Critical discourse analysis and information and communication technology in education. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-794 (accessed 5 August 2023).

Caldas-Coulthard

(2007) Cross-cultural representation of ‘otherness’ in media discourse. In: Weiss

Wodak

(eds) Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.272–296.

Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.) The active voice. Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/active-voice (accessed 28 April 2024).

Cengiz

P-M

Eklund

Karlsson L

(2021) Portrayal of immigrants in Danish media – : A qualitative content analysis. Societies 11(2): 45–63.

10.

Chua

Mui Hoong

(2022) NDR 2022: S377A repeal a courageous move with symbolic and real impact. The Straits Times, 22 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/national-day-rally-2022-s377a-repeal-a-courageous-move-with-symbolic-and-real-impact (accessed 11 June 2023).

11.

Chua

Nadine

(2022) Govt policies on media content will not alter upon repeal of Section 377A: MCI. The Straits Times, 22 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/govt-policies-on-media-content-will-not-change-following-repeal-of-s377a-mci (accessed 11 June 2023).

12.

Dasgupta

(2022) S’pore’s repeal of Section 377A a step forward for LGBT groups in Asia, say activists. The Straits Times, 24 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/south-asia/spores-repeal-of-section-377a-welcomed-as-step-forward-for-lgbtq-communities-in-asia-pacific (accessed 25 December 2023).

13.

Diman

(2022) The big story: Repealing section 377A is the right thing to do, says Shanmugam. The Straits Times, 22 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/multimedia/the-big-story-repealing-section-377a-is-the-right-thing-to-do-says-shanmugam (accessed 25 December 2023).

14.

Fairclough

(2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London and New York: Routledge.

15.

Fairclough

Wodak

(1997) Critical discourse analysis. In: van Dijk

(ed.) Discourse Studies. A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 2. Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage, pp.258–284.

16.

Ghui (2022a) Decriminalisation of gay sex; A huge step forward in the right direction by PAP, rising costs of living and other stories. The Independent Singapore, 27 August. Available at: https://theindependent.sg/decriminalisation-of-gay-sex-a-huge-step-forward-in-the-right-direction-by-pap-rising-costs-of-living-and-other-stories (accessed 25 December 2023).

17.

Ghui (2022b) Gay agenda vs. religious agenda, and other stories of the week. The Independent Singapore, 23 August. Available at: https://theindependent.sg/opinion-gay-agenda-vs-religious-agenda-and-other-stories-of-the-week (accessed 25 December 2023).

18.

Goh

Yan Han

(2022) 8 highlights from NDR 2022: Masks optional in most indoor settings, Section 377A to be repealed. The Straits Times, August 21. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/8-highlights-from-ndr-2022-masks-optional-in-most-indoor-settings-section-377a-to-be-repealed (accessed 11 June 2023).

19.

Goh

Yan Han

Baharudin

(2022) PAP will not lift whip for Parliament debate on Section 377A repeal: Lawrence Wong. The Straits Times, August 22. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/pap-will-not-lift-whip-for-parliament-debate-on-section-377a-repeal-lawrence-wong (accessed 11 June 2023).

20.

Halliday

MAK

(1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: E. Arnold.

21.

Han

Kirsten

(2016) Comment: Who gets to speak on cooling-off day? Yahoo News, 29 May. Available at: https://news.yahoo.com/comment-who-gets-to-speak-on-cooling-off-day-082407033.html (accessed 29 March 2024).

22.

Grace

(2021) The Straits Times remains best-read title, with clear shift to digital, across all age groups: Survey. The Straits Times, 20 September. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/community/the-straits-times-remains-best-read-title-with-clear-shift-to-digital-across-all (accessed 25 August 2023).

23.

Holland

Blood

Thomas

, et al. (2015) Challenging stereotypes and legitimating fat: An analysis of obese people’s views on news media reporting guidelines and promoting body diversity. Journal of Sociology 51(2): 431–445.

24.

Hubner

(2021) How did we get here? A framing and source analysis of early COVID-19 media coverage. Communication Research Reports 38(2): 112–120.

25.

Human Rights Watch (2017) Singapore: Laws chill free speech, assembly. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/12/13/singapore-laws-chill-free-speech-assembly (accessed 29 March 2024).

26.

Hussain

(2022a) NDR 2022: Trust, unity will be key in post-Covid-19 world. The Straits Times, 22 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/national-day-rally-2022-trust-unity-will-be-key-in-post-covid-19-world (accessed 11 June 2023).

27.

Hussain

(2022b) SG extra podcast: Section 377A to be repealed: Where does Singapore go from here? The Straits Times, 23 August. Singapore. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/sg-extra-podcast-section-377a-to-be-repealed-where-do-we-go-from-here (accessed 25 December 2023).

28.

Kaur

Tan

Dutta

(2016) Media, migration and politics: The coverage of the Little India Riot in the Straits times in Singapore. Journal of Creative Communications 11(1): 27–43.

29.

Kincheloe

McLaren

(1994) Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp.138–157.

30.

Kurohi

(2019) Three court challenges against Section 377A to be heard in November. The Straits Times, October. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/three-court-challenges-against-section-377a-to-be-heard-in-november (accessed 29 March 2024).

31.

Lau

Jean

(2022a) NDR 2022: Five things to know as Singapore moves to repeal Section 377A. The Straits Times, 21 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/ndr-2022-five-things-to-know-as-singapore-moves-to-repeal-section-377a (accessed 11 June 2023).

32.

Lau

Jean

(2022b) NDR 2022: In dealing with Section 377A, policies on family and marriage will not be changed, says PM Lee. The Straits Times, 21 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/ndr-2022-in-dealing-with-section-377a-policies-on-family-and-marriage-will-not-be-changed-says-pm-lee (accessed 11 June 2023).

33.

Lau

Jean

(2022c) NDR 2022: LGBTQ community expresses relief at repeal of Section 377A; religious groups voice concerns. The Straits Times, 22 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/ndr-2022-lgbtq-community-express-relief-at-repeal-of-section-377a-religious-groups-voice-concerns (accessed 11 June 2023).

34.

Lau

Jean

(2022d) S377A repeal: Education policies will remain anchored on prevailing family values, social norms. The Straits Times, 22 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education-policies-will-remain-anchored-on-singapores-prevailing-family-values-and-social-norms-moe (accessed 11 June 2023).

35.

Lau

Jean

(2022e) Section 377A: Religious groups call for unity; poll finds 43% support repeal, double those against. The Straits Times, 25 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/section-377a-religious-groups-call-for-unity-poll-finds-43-per-cent-support-repeal-double-those-against (accessed 25 December 2023).

36.

Lee

Howard

Lee

Terence

(2023) Between two Acts: Competing narratives, activism and governance in Singapore’s digital sphere. Internet Histories 7(4): 295–312.

37.

Leo

Lakeisha

(2022) Timeline: Repealing Section 377A and amending the constitution to protect the definition of marriage. Channel NewsAsia. Available at: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/timeline-repealing-377a-gay-sex-law-amending-singapore-constitution-marriage-definition-3101551 (accessed 5 August 2023).

38.

Liang

Annabelle

(2021) ‘Hard choices’ for Singapore media after controversial law passed. Al Jazeera, 13 October. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/13/singapore-media-face-hard-choices-after-new-law-passed (accessed 7 January 2024).

39.

Liew

Isabelle

Lau

Jean

(2022) Section 377A: Push by LGBTQ activists for change in other areas will lead to strong pushback, says observer. The Straits Times, 22 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/section-377a-push-by-lgbtq-activists-for-change-in-other-areas-will-lead-to-strong-pushback-says-observer (accessed 25 December 2023).

40.

Merriam

(2006) Transformational learning and HIV-positive young adults. In: Anfara

Norma

(eds) Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.23–38.

41.

Meyer

Wodak

(2009) Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. In: Meyer

Wodak

(eds) Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn. London: Sage, pp.1–33.

42.

Mills

Bettis

(2006) Organisational identity and identification during a departmental reorganisation. In: Anfara

Mertz

(eds) Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.73–84.

43.

Ortmann

(2010) Politics and Change in Singapore and Hong Kong: Containing Contention. USA and Canada: Routledge.

44.

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 377 (Singapore). Available at: https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act-Rev/PC1871/Published/20081130?DocDate=19870330 (accessed 29 March 2024).

45.

Rashith

(2012) Ex-Straits Times editor reveals gov’t meddling in tell-all book. Yahoo News. Available at: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/singapore-media-great-survivor-020754478.html (accessed 6 August 2023).

46.

Ratcliffe

(2022) Singapore to repeal law that criminalises sex between men. The Guardian, 21 August. World. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/21/singapore-to-repeal-law-that-criminalises-sex-between-men (accessed 27 April 2024).

47.

Richards

Schmidt

(2002) Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3rd edn. Harlow: Longman.

48.

Ricoeur

(1991) From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics, II (trans. Blamey K and Thompson ). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

49.

Romero

(2022a) Protect Singapore Townhall organisers express disappointment over 377A repealed without “safeguards against LGBTQ+ extremism”. The Independent Singapore, 22 August. Available at: https://theindependent.sg/singapore-377a-repeal-reaction (accessed 25 December 2023).

50.

Romero

(2022b) Workers’ party: While 377A and definition of marriage are important, ‘there are (also) other issues facing the nation’ – GST “adds to inflation at a time when it is wholly unnecessary”. The Independent Singapore, 22 August. Available at: https://theindependent.sg/workers-party-while-377a-and-definition-of-marriage-are-important-there-are-also-other-issues-facing-the-nation-gst-adds-to-inflation-at-a-time-when-i (accessed 25 December 2023).

51.

Romero

(2022c) Singaporeans top concern is high costs of living, post-NDR speech shows. The Independent Singapore, 24 August. Available at: https://theindependent.sg/singaporeans-top-concern-is-high-costs-of-living-post-ndr-speech-shows (accessed 25 December 2023).

52.

Safi

(2018) Campaigners celebrate as India decriminalises homosexuality. The Guardian, 6 September. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/indian-supreme-court-decriminalises-homosexuality (accessed 29 March 2024).

53.

Salleh

MNA

(2016) Political websites creating a buzz in Singapore. The Straits Times, 2 May. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/political-websites-creating-a-buzz-in-singapore (accessed 25 December 2023).

54.

Tan

Bah Bah

(2022) S377A: Opposition parties are at a disadvantage. The Independent Singapore, 28 August. Available at: https://theindependent.sg/377a-opposition-parties-are-at-a-disadvantage (accessed 25 December 2023).

55.

Tan

Eugene KB

(2022) Repeal of Section 377A: Doing the right thing for all while managing pace of social change. The Straits Times, 20 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/repeal-of-s377a-doing-right-thing-for-all-and-managing-pace-of-social-change-to-avoid-society-fracturing (accessed 11 June 2023).

56.

Tandoc

JEC

(2022) Singapore. Reuters Institute Digital News Report. Available at: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2022/singapore (accessed 30 July 2023).

57.

Tang

(2022) The pointless law of Section 377A: Finally, we learn the difference between sin and crime. The Independent Singapore, 29 August. Available at: https://theindependent.sg/opinion-the-pointless-law-of-section-377a-finally-we-learn-the-difference-between-sin-crime (accessed 25 December 2023).

58.

Tang

See Kit

(2022) Views on 377A: Government looking at how to safeguard current legal position on marriage, says Shanmugam. The Straits Times, 22 July. Available at: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/377a-government-looking-how-safeguard-legal-position-marriage-k-shanmugam-2846946 (accessed 29 March 2024).

59.

Tham

Yuen-C

(2022a) NDR 2022: Govt will repeal Section 377A, but also amend constitution to protect marriage from legal challenges. The Straits Times, 21 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/ndr-2022-govt-will-repeal-section-377a-decriminalise-sex-between-men (accessed 11 June 2023).

60.

Tham

Yuen-C

(2022b) Section 377A: Constitution will be amended to protect Parliament's right to define marriage, says Shanmugam. The Straits Times, 22 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/constitution-will-be-amended-to-protect-parliaments-right-to-define-marriage-shanmugam (accessed 25 December 2023).

61.

Tham

Yuen-C

(2022c) Section 377A: Ministries looking at ways to deal with cancel culture, work pressure, says Shanmugam. The Straits Times, 22 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/section-377a-ministries-looking-at-ways-to-deal-with-cancel-culture-work-pressure-says-shanmugam (accessed 25 December 2023).

62.

Van Dijk

(1993) Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4(2): 249–283.

63.

Van Dijk

(2001) Critical discourse analysis. In: Tannen

Schiffrin

Hamilton

(eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp.352–371.

64.

Van Leeuwen

(2005) Introducing Social Semiotics. London and New York: Routledge.

65.

Van Leeuwen

(2008a) Discourse as the recontextualisation of social practice. In: Coupland N and Jaworski A (eds) Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford studies in sociolinguistics. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp.3–22.

66.

Van Leeuwen

(2008b) Representing social actors. In: Coupland N and Jaworski A (eds) Discourse and Practice. Oxford University Press, pp.23–54.

67.

Widdowson

(1995) Discourse analysis: A critical view. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 4(3): 157–172.

68.

Wolcott

(1995) The Art of Fieldwork. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.

69.

Yahya

(2018) Tommy Koh's Facebook comment reignites debate on Singapore’s gay sex law. The Straits Times, 8 September. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/tommy-kohs-facebook-post-on-gay-sex-law-reignites-debate-on-singapores-penal-code (accessed 29 March 2024).

70.

Yong

Clement

(2022) NDR 2022: WP recognises right of people to live free from discrimination, will join S377A debate in Parliament. The Straits Times, 22 August. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/ndr-2022-wp-recognises-right-of-people-to-live-free-from-discrimination-will-join-s377a-debate-in-parliament (accessed 11 June 2023).