Singapore activists appeal court ruling on gay sex ban

[groyn88]

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3119170/singapore-activists-appeal-court-ruling-gay-sex-ban

Singapore activists appeal court ruling on gay sex ban

The law, known as Section 377A, is rarely enforced but activists say it still jars with the city state’s increasingly modern and vibrant culture

Last year, the High Court dismissed three challenges to the law, which it heard together, by a retired doctor, a DJ and an LGBT rights advocate

Agence France-Presse

Published: 7:35pm, 25 Jan, 2021

Three Singapore campaigners launched an appeal Monday against a court’s decision to uphold a law banning sex between men, the latest effort to overturn the colonial-era legislation.

A holdover from British rule of the city state, the law is rarely enforced but activists say it still jars with the affluent country’s increasingly modern and vibrant culture.

Others, however, argue that Singapore remains conservative at heart, and is not ready for change, while officials also believe most would not be in favour of repealing the legislation, known as Section 377A.

Last year, the High Court dismissed three challenges to the law, which it heard together, by a retired doctor, a DJ and an LGBT rights advocate.

The trio challenged that decision Monday at the Court of Appeal.

M. Ravi, a lawyer representing retired doctor Roy Tan, said in a Facebook post he had argued the gay sex ban should be deemed “absurd”.

Tan, 62, said the appeal was based on the grounds that the judge hearing last year’s case was wrong to reject arguments the legislation breached several articles of the constitution.

These include the right to equality before the law, the right to life and personal liberty and the right to freedom of expression, he said in a statement.

Singapore’s ban, introduced in 1938, can imprison men for engaging in gay sex for up to two years.

Challenges to the law have been rejected twice, first in 2014 and again last year.

The city state has a vibrant LGBT scene and last year Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that while LGBT people were welcome to work in Singapore, Section 377A would remain “for some time”, according to media reports.

Across Southeast Asia, socially conservative attitudes prevail with Myanmar, Malaysia and Brunei also banning sexual relationships between men, and Indonesia seeing an increase in raids targeting LGBT people in recent years.

Elsewhere, there has been progress on LGBT rights.

In 2018, India’s Supreme Court decriminalised gay sex by overturning legislation from its own time under British rule.
Advertisement

In Taiwan, lawmakers in 2019 took the unprecedented step of legalising same-sex marriage, making the island the first place in Asia to do so.

Additional reporting by Reuters

[groyn88]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/challenge-against-section-377a-chief-justice-says-govts-compromise-on
Challenge against Section 377A: Chief Justice says Govt's 'compromise' on enforcement should be considered
Selina Lum
Law Correspondent
SINGAPORE - Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said the "political compromise" struck by the Government in 2007 - to keep Section 377A of the Penal Code but not enforce it - should be a factor in determining whether the law, which criminalises sex between men, passes muster.
The Chief Justice made the point repeatedly on Monday (Jan 25) in the course of arguments on the constitutionality of Section 377A. Three men who separately challenged the law were appealing to a five-judge panel against a High Court decision last year to dismiss their cases.
The trio are Dr Roy Tan Seng Kee, a retired general practitioner and activist for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights; Mr Johnson Ong Ming, a disc jockey; and Mr Bryan Choong, the former executive director of LGBT non-profit organisation Oogachaga.
They contended that Section 377A, which was enacted in 1938, should be struck down as it violates Article 12 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
They argued that the law criminalises sex acts only between homosexual men, but not acts between homosexual women or heterosexuals.
The provision makes it a crime for a man, whether in public or in private, to commit any act of "gross indecency" with another man, and carries a jail term of up to two years.
The court, which also comprised Justices Andrew Phang, Judith Prakash, Tay Yong Kwang and Steven Chong, reserved judgment and will give its decision at a later date.
In 2007, after a heated parliamentary debate over whether Section 377A should be repealed, the law remained on the books, but the Government said it will not be enforced.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said then that status quo must remain despite the "legal untidiness and ambiguity".
On Monday, Mr Choong's lawyers, Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal and Mr Jordan Tan, said men were being treated unequally because women cannot be punished for acts of gross indecency.
Mr Ong's lawyer, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, argued that it was absurd to criminalise a particular sexual orientation when scientific evidence shows that sexual orientation cannot be voluntarily changed.
He argued that Section 377A was arbitrary as it targets gay men, even though the object of retaining the law in 2007 was to reflect societal disapproval of homosexual conduct in general.
Dr Tan's lawyer, Mr M. Ravi, said the ambiguity inherent in Section 377A creates uncertainty as to how other criminal provisions should be construed.
For example, under Section 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a person who is aware of another person's offence has to report it to the police. Mr Ravi said it is unclear if gay men will be prosecuted for failing to report homosexual activity.
State Counsel Kristy Tan said the highly divisive issue of whether to decriminalise male homosexual sex acts should be decided by Parliament.
She said scientific evidence on sexual orientation remains inconclusive and the court was not the appropriate forum to settle the matter.
She argued that although Section 377A only covers men, this distinction was rational as the purpose of the provision in 1938 was to express society's views about sex acts between men.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Menon noted that the legislative act of retaining Section 377A and the undertaking by the Government not to enforce the law has to be factored into the equation.
"In assessing the constitutionality of 377A today, you have to look at the total package," he said at one point.
Mr Singh argued that constitutionality ought to be assessed independently of the undertaking, which he said will not be binding on future governments.
He also made the alternative argument that if the words "in private" were removed from the provision, it would give practical effect to the bargain struck in 2007.

 

[FattChoy]

Sometimes all you can do is laugh out loud.

[Guest Plasticity]

That Kristy Tan got the face of a ball licker. KNN sex doll face come and talk crap in State court.

 

Even when so glaringly obvious vast majority of gays are inborn into homosexuality, she think the act should be criminalised just because of minority who are open minded, experimental, bisexual, questioning or curious.

 

Her education and upbringing has majorly failed her. Lol

[Guest guest]

Ready 4 Repeal has already lost the momentum. Most people can't be bothered, especially gay men who are slightly more mature.

[mate69]

31 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

Ready 4 Repeal has already lost the momentum. Most people can't be bothered, especially gay men who are slightly more mature.

 

maybe more like disheartened? idk man

tho yr statement is quite a sweeping generalisation

[Why?]

1 hour ago, Guest guest said:

Ready 4 Repeal has already lost the momentum. Most people can't be bothered

Not many people cares because they are not gay and it doesn't affect them whether S377A is repealed, which is contradictory to our leader false claim that many Singaporeans cares about the repealing of S377A.

 

On the other hand, Gay people do cares because being Gay is considered crime under the current legal system.  Whether the law is enforced, is beside the point that miss the entire forest. The existence of S377A cast the entire gay population in Singapore as CRIMINAL. Period. 

 

 

[Guest Plastic Surgery Face]

Kristy Tan's supposedly heterosexuality must be socially influenced.

[Guest one decider]

17 hours ago, groyn88 said:

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said then that status quo must remain despite the "legal untidiness and ambiguity".

 

Means, it is now the task of the PM to interpret and judge on issues of the constitution and everyone even the Chief Justice has to follow what the PM said???

What concept of separation of powers is that?

[Guest Leetator]

1 hour ago, Guest one decider said:

 

Means, it is now the task of the PM to interpret and judge on issues of the constitution and everyone even the Chief Justice has to follow what the PM said???

What concept of separation of powers is that?

Our system is one of an autocracy - as indignantly and unceremoniously admitted by an Institute of Policy Studies (yes, that "independent think tank" IPS under Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy under NUS) surveyor to me at my door step after being sufficiently grounded down by my pointed questionings. I was very mean and sarcastic towards her and her set of questions while she was interviewing my mother lol.

[Guest Leetator]

3 minutes ago, Guest Leetator said:

Our system is one of an autocracy - as indignantly and unceremoniously admitted by an Institute of Policy Studies (yes, that "independent think tank" IPS under Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy under NUS) surveyor to me at my door step after being sufficiently grounded down by my pointed questionings. I was very mean and sarcastic towards her and her set of questions while she was interviewing my mother lol.

Which means to say, sorry but we had never been a democracy all along. She got more balls than anyone in IPS or the party to admit that to a citizen.

[auscent]

To those activists who speak up on behalf of us, who will enjoy the fruits of ur hard labour, thank you! Even if law is not repealed (yet), you have made the public know that the rest of us exist too.

[Why?]

On 1/26/2021 at 4:51 AM, groyn88 said:

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said then that status quo must remain despite the "legal untidiness and ambiguity".
 

 

It was like someone after shitting without needing to wipe his own ass and still feeling good about it despite.. the untidiness.  Reason being, it is the custom, a  traditional convservative thing to do, in a first world country. If the people in this country think our leader make sense,  then what is the point of trying to put Singapore on the world map?

[Guest 刻在心底的名字]

I imagine PM Lee and Lawrence khong as the two male leads of Your Name Engraved Herein. Nina Kong as the poor third party Ban Ban.

 

They cannot get over each other until now. And 377a remaining is the result.

 

Sigh. Haha

[upshot]

So much myopic hyperbole. Logic out the window. Sigh.

[Guest entertain the people...]

The local media is always reporting in length on the issue and scrubbing all the arguments up and down the court room or the newspapers.

 

But so far in the end, the judges are always pushing the issue back to the parliament. Until now they never decided on the Constitutional issues.

 

Every reasonable judge must find a criminal charge in place which is not applied, awkward, inconsistent. If you don't want to enforce it, then why not remove it? Since when do you leave offences in a Penal Code and explain you don't enforce them later? Keep it for what? To appease the conservative people in society? Or is it to call out homosexuals criminals but you don't want to punish them as such, because the outcry would be too harsh or negative? Sticking on this statute is already making this country looking very clownish. The only problem it has: the people affected by the statute can't laugh about it.

 

Maybe the whole issue on 377A is used to entertain Singaporeans and keep them busy thinking about pro and cons. Looks like a drama show but misused for other purposes.