Johnson Ong Ming aka DJ Big Kid files judicial challenge against Section 377A Penal Code

[Guest Guest]

Johnson Ong Ming aka DJ Big Kid files judicial challenge against Section 377A Penal Code.

 

Page 8, mypaper 12 September 

[G_M]

 

Court challenge filed by Singapore DJ against Section 377A

 

Mr Johnson Ong, better known as DJ Big Kid, filed his challenge against Section 377A of Singapore's Penal Code on Sept 10. TNP FILE PHOTO

SELINA LUM, LAW CORRESPONDENT

Sep 12, 2018 06:00 am

A disc jockey has filed a court challenge against Section 377A of Singapore's Penal Code, arguing that the law, which criminalises sex between men, is unconstitutional.

 

 

Mr Johnson Ong Ming, who is 43 and goes by the stage name DJ Big Kid, filed his challenge on Monday, four days after India's Supreme Court struck down a similar law.

That decision sparked a renewed debate on Section 377A here, with camps on both sides starting petitions either to keep the law or repeal it.

In the wake of the Indian decision, Professor Tommy Koh, who is Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, also suggested that a new attempt be made to challenge Section 377A in the courts.

Mr Ong is being represented by lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam, who confirmed to The Straits Times that the case has been filed. He said he is acting pro bono.

 

The Attorney-General has been listed as the defendant. A pre-trial conference has been fixed on Sept 25.

 

A legal challenge to strike down Section 377A failed in 2014, when the highest court in Singapore rejected that the provision was unconstitutional.

Gay couple Gary Lim, 46, and Kenneth Chee, 38, as well as Mr Tan Eng Hong, 51, had argued then that the provision was discriminatory.

In his filing, Mr Ong, who is in a relationship with another man, said he was aware of the 2014 decision, but argued the court should depart from that precedent, given international judicial developments since 2014, including the Indian Supreme Court's decision to strike down its version of the law.

He is also relying on a 2015 report by the United States Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration which argues that "sexual orientation is unchangeable or suppressible at unacceptable personal cost".

Mr Thuraisingam told The Straits Times: "We will be presenting medical and scientific evidence to show that sexuality is inherent and is not a choice."

He said the previous challenge in Singapore did not deal strongly with this point.

If sexuality is found to be inherent, then Section 377A falls foul of Article 9 of the Singapore Constitution, which guarantees life and personal liberty, he argued.

 

In the court filing, which was obtained by The Straits Times, Mr Ong also argues that Section 377A only targets gay men and not gay women, and so goes against the right to equality enshrined in Article 12 of the Constitution.

'DEEPLY SPLIT'

Last week, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam said Singapore society has to decide which direction it wants to go on this issue of Section 377A, noting that the nation is "deeply split" and that the Government is in the middle.

A recent survey by Ipsos Public Affairs, an independent market research company, found that 55 per cent of the people in Singapore support Section 377A, while 12 per cent said they opposed it.

[Guest My hero]

So good looking, with a beautiful heart:)

[Guest Tielik]

The fate of the minority should not be based on the decision of the majority.   It should be decided based on the concept of fairness.  Right now the rights of gays are being denied by this archaic law.  

[Guest Share]

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/09/11/asia/british-empire-lgbt-rights-section-377-intl/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

[Guest Guest]

While I admire his guts to take on the judicial system like that, I do wonder about the amount of resources and money that he will need in order to pump into a case like that. Lawyers are known to be expensive, and it is not what an average Joe can aftord.

[Guest Guest]

39 minutes ago, Guest Guest said:

While I admire his guts to take on the judicial system like that, I do wonder about the amount of resources and money that he will need in order to pump into a case like that. Lawyers are known to be expensive, and it is not what an average Joe can aftord.

The lawyer already said he's acting pro bono so at least that settled the lawyer's fees.

[tomcat]

I think as society changes over time, and the older conservative / dogmatic thinking is replaced by respect and inclusivity, we have to do our part to continually appeal. Eventually, the right consensus will be made.

Credits go to Johnson for being one drop from this ocean. We should not give up because this battle will not be worn by a singular huge bazooka but rather with the gentle persuasion of water.

 

Remember, water even though formless can reshape stone. 

[Fit4Masc]

It is so sad that our bunch of highly paid scholars MPs won't even voice out, about this very obviously unfair and unjust law.  I guess they are afraid of their boss, who said he is comfortable with just not enforcing, but want to leave it as it is (To appease the homophobes).   I also have no faith in our judicial system, unlike the  Indian judges, ours seem to be also afraid of their boss

Edited September 13, 2018 by Fit4Masc

[Guest dehydration]

1 hour ago, Fit4Masc said:

It is so sad that our bunch of highly paid scholars MPs won't even voice out, about this very obviously unfair and unjust law.  I guess they are afraid of their boss, who said he is comfortable with just not enforcing, but want to leave it as it is (To appease the homophobes).   I also have no faith in our judicial system, unlike the  Indian judges, ours seem to be also afraid of their boss

 

be careful with what you say, about the judges, 

 

its called scandalising the judiciary...

 

even lawyers can be charged with contempt of court or scandalising the judiciary.

 

I know you feel frustrated and wronged,  but its no use to waste your ammunition unnecessarily,  already the general public's sympathy and sentiments are already not really in our favor, and then to have one of us hauled to court for those charges do not serve our long term interest. 

 

Do  Stick around for our victory march and not behind bars.

[Fit4Masc]

2 hours ago, Guest dehydration said:

 

be careful with what you say, about the judges, 

 

its called scandalising the judiciary...

 

even lawyers can be charged with contempt of court or scandalising the judiciary.

 

I know you feel frustrated and wronged,  but its no use to waste your ammunition unnecessarily,  already the general public's sympathy and sentiments are already not really in our favor, and then to have one of us hauled to court for those charges do not serve our long term interest. 

 

Do  Stick around for our victory march and not behind bars.

Yes I am fully aware that they are very touchy about others accusing them of things.  Even PM's Nephew is not spared, because he accused them of being Litigious, on a FB post. I think the exact words he used are that, they are litigious. But I am not accusing them of anything.   I am very careful in selecting my words.  I did use words such as "guess" and "seem", meaning these are only my personal assumptions and not accusations. which are based on my observation of the outcome of the previous case here Vs the recent Indian case i.e. Similar but with 2 completely different outcome!   Even in Singapore, I don't think it is that dictatorial that one is not even allowed to have any personal opinions. Lets see how they deliberate and the verdict this time around, who knows they might even change my personal perception and opinion and restore my faith in the system.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Fit4Masc

[sum1outhere_03]

On 9/12/2018 at 10:42 AM, G_M said:

 

Court challenge filed by Singapore DJ against Section 377A

 

Mr Johnson Ong, better known as DJ Big Kid, filed his challenge against Section 377A of Singapore's Penal Code on Sept 10. TNP FILE PHOTO

SELINA LUM, LAW CORRESPONDENT

Sep 12, 2018 06:00 am

Mr Ong, who is in a relationship with another man, said he was aware of the 2014 decision, but argued the court should depart from that precedent, given international judicial developments since 2014, including the Indian Supreme Court's decision to strike down its version of the law.

 

Hmm... he's contradicting himself? Or probably he don't need sex...?

 

Out of topic, he's actually one of my cup of tea  

Edited September 13, 2018 by sum1outhere_03

[Fit4Masc]

I also hope the lawyers here involve, will consult those lawyers involved in that Indian case.

[Guest 哇涩好凉快！！！]

18 hours ago, Guest Share said:https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/09/11/asia/british-empire-lgbt-rights-section-377-intl/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F

 

暖男出现!!!!!!

His name Ong Ming, so he orgiginerly from China?

I knew no singaporean is that BRAVE...

We normally beri 贪生怕死，苟且偷生 one...

 

And he beri satki！！！！

 

哇他即牛逼，又别出心裁，扭转乾坤，大刀阔斧，推陈出新，别具匠心，鹤立鸡群，一枝独秀，独领风骚！

 

他让本宫 beri beri scared leh! 很厉害好吗？

 

But larkerli i stand next to him i look beri thin...

 

[Guest Aww]

https://dearstraightpeople.com/2016/02/15/out-of-the-closet-johnson-ong-aka-dj-big-kid-shares-his-story/

[LeanMature]

18 hours ago, tomcat said:

I think as society changes over time, and the older conservative / dogmatic thinking is replaced by respect and inclusivity, we have to do our part to continually appeal. Eventually, the right consensus will be made.

Credits go to Johnson for being one drop from this ocean. We should not give up because this battle will not be worn by a singular huge bazooka but rather with the gentle persuasion of water.

 

Remember, water even though formless can reshape stone. 

 

Credit should also go to Prof Tommy Koh who has openly urged the gay community to challenge 377A again after India passed the law.

[Guest Nairfew]

14 hours ago, Fit4Masc said:

Yes I am fully aware that they are very touchy about others accusing them of things.  Even PM's Nephew is not spared, because he accused them of being Litigious, on a FB post. I think the exact words he used are that, they are litigious. But I am not accusing them of anything.   I am very careful in selecting my words.  I did use words such as "guess" and "seem", meaning these are only my personal assumptions and not accusations. which are based on my observation of the outcome of the previous case here Vs the recent Indian case i.e. Similar but with 2 completely different outcome!   Even in Singapore, I don't think it is that dictatorial that one is not even allowed to have any personal opinions. Lets see how they deliberate and the verdict this time around, who knows they might even change my personal perception and opinion and restore my faith in the system.

 

Lech me explain a lil beet...

 

The word the courts took issue is “pliant”. Litigious was directed towards the govt, which is true and the world fucking world already knows. The “pliant” bit is new.... it simply means they are not independent.

 

And.... they scared the whole world know wor...... scully become infamous like LKY!

 

But LKY already got such strong branding.... so he almost invincible and immune to flak from around the world.

 

Our courts on the other hand.... world famous for death penalty and caning ONLY.....

 

Scully become famous for being ‘pliant’.... that means ah kwa, sleeping aka kena fucked by our govt, so gay wor....

 

Of cos they bueh tahan lah...

[thickhead79]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/national-council-of-churches-of-singapore-says-it-does-not-support-repeal-of-377a?xtor=CS3-17

[Guest 干它们鸟事？]

5 minutes ago, thickhead79 said:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/national-council-of-churches-of-singapore-says-it-does-not-support-repeal-of-377a?xtor=CS3-17

干他们屁事。

 

OH FARK THEM! 

 

A bunch of FOSSILS.

 

[tomcat]

2 hours ago, thickhead79 said:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/national-council-of-churches-of-singapore-says-it-does-not-support-repeal-of-377a?xtor=CS3-17

And in other breaking news: "Water: It's wet"

[Guest Churchilly]

2 hours ago, Guest 干它们鸟事？ said:

干他们屁事。

 

OH FARK THEM! 

 

A bunch of FOSSILS.

 

 

LOL, best comment i read this year.

[thickhead79]

God said men cannot sex each other

 

But god said guy can go around sex other woman. Especially sex ppl wife daughter 

[Guest Church belongs to Prada]

18 minutes ago, Guest Churchilly said:

 

LOL, best comment i read this year.

I have more news for them:

 

They can take their oh-so-important support, and shove it up their holy arses?

 

Why do we need their support in everything we do?

 

Since when have they agreed with gays?

 

So WHO needs their support now and why release that statement now? lmfao

[tomcat]

7 minutes ago, Guest Church belongs to Prada said:

I have more news for them:

 

They can take their oh-so-important support, and shove it up their holy arses?

 

Why do we need their support in everything we do?

 

Since when have they agreed with gays?

 

So WHO needs their support now and why release that statement now? lmfao

Buddhism has nothing to oppose in terms of same sex unions. All forms are temporal, all are equally placed on their paths towards either divinity or destruction.

Catholic Church under Pope Francis has already been elevated to a new level of understading, clarity and tolerance. 

Even Muslims are abstaining from getting involved in what people do behind closed doors, outside of their own values. I find the points in this written piece salient and very tolerant.
 https://singapotato.com/2018/09/12/377a-let-the-churches-go-on-their-crusade-mosques-do-not-have-to-go-on-their-jihad/
 

Only the Christians are so adamant to make it known that this is unacceptable by their standards and values. The culture of hypocritical righteousness is strong in Christianity. Or at least, within Singapore.
 

[thorzguy]

Agree very much with @tomcat (I begin to wonder if you are a meow lover. LOL). 

 

I can't comprehend why should religion be involved in this matter. I mean, there are X amount of people who wants to keep and Y amount of people who wants to repeal. This involves the law/govt but not religion. 

 

Remember: All religions are good. It is those who misinterpret or choose to read otherwise who gives nothing but unnecessary trouble to their followers and society. 

Peace to all. 

[Guest Kaching]

28 minutes ago, Nightingale said:

 

No, God opposes that too, as one of his Ten Commandments says "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

But many straights ignore it and go ahead adultering, then later pray for forgiveness (if discovered).

that’s why Sunday services are so good business

[Guest Guest]

Why is he called Big Kid? Is he hinting his lan jiao is Big and juicy?

[Fit4Masc]

2 hours ago, Nightingale said:

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Fit4Masc

[Guest Historian]

 

https://consensusg.com/2018/09/11/digging-deeper-the-fascinating-history-of-section-377a/

 

 

• POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2018
•  by LEE KE LIN

Digging deeper: the fascinating history behind Section 377A

 

Intentionally or not, Law Minister K Shanmugam fired the starting pistol for a new round of petitions both in favour and against the repeal of Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code which criminalizes consensual sex between men.

 

But where did 377A come from? Why does it even exist?

 

Not only was 377A a piece of colonial legislation (not to say that there is anything inherently wrong with colonial legislation), it is a statute with a deep and fascinating history that can be traced back to the late-medieval period. How bizarre that the decisions made by the parliaments of King Henry VIII (pictured above) nearly half a millennium ago continue to impact our society today!

 

Skimming the Surface of 377A

 

Section 377A of Singapore’s Penal Code was derived from the Indian Penal Code, which had a similar Section 377 of its own. Singapore’s 377A was an ‘update’ to the original Section 377A in 2007, courtesy of our Parliament, which itself was revamped by the British in 1938. Not only did it effectively decriminalize female homosexuality while retaining the criminality of male homosexuality, it also further divided each individual offence into a separate law.

 

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code arrived in the Singapore in 1871, when the entire Indian Penal Code was adopted as the criminal code of Singapore with only a few modifications. The penal code was drafted by the Indian Law Commission under the leadership of Thomas Macaulay in 1833, and was adopted for British India in 1860. The commission attempted to distill and narrow down everything within the British code of law into a series of straight-forward statues. The precision, simplicity, and effectiveness of the Indian Penal Code made it a popular ‘template’ for constructing the criminal law in many other British colonies, leaving the world with a string of ‘377s’.

 

At the point of drafting, Section 377 was a part of a series of laws that outlined offences against the physical body of a person – these includes murder, battery, assault and of course 377’s ‘unnatural offences’. This itself was taken from the 1826 Offences against the Person Act of Britain, which itself was derived from the 1533 Buggery Act (buggery being a medieval term for sodomy).

 

Therefore 1533 is a critical point in the history of our own Section 377A. It was the first instance where what was normally an ecclesiastical (meaning religious) offence was brought into criminal law. Up till this point, England had separate courts – the ecclesiastical courts and the secular King’s court. The ecclesiastical court was responsible for the regulation of faith, and sins were punished with penance. It was the King’s courts that had power of imprisonment and execution.

 

Going Deeper – to 1533

 

Why did King Henry VIII decide to move one specific act of sin out from the ecclesiastical courts and into his own? If there were genuine religious motivations, it could have happened a thousand years earlier, during the Christianization of England.

 

The historical consensus at the moment is that the 1533 Buggery Act (the progenitor of 377A) was rooted in late-medieval politics. During this period, church and state were not entirely separate entities. Henry VIII’s reformation of the church finally managed to divorce the Church of England from the Catholic Church’s control in Rome. After decades of political tension, the King of England is now also the head of the Church in England. With this newfound position, Henry VIII moved to criminalise a series of ‘sins’ as a show of his primacy over the church.

 

On top of buggery in 1533, witchcraft and sorcery were criminalised in 1541, and polygamy in 1603. By taking these affairs out of the hands of the ecclesiastical courts, Henry VIII reinforced his power against his potential enemies in the Church, while shoring up his legitimacy by promising to ‘as well the care of the souls of his subjects as their bodies’. Furthermore, in the aftermath of these laws, commissioners were sent to survey members of the clergy and prepare charges of sodomy and other sins, which was later used to seize church property during the dissolution of the monasteries.

 

What is clear is that what many may hold today as a ‘natural’ or ‘self-evident’ part of our law was never implemented with the intention that defenders of 377A attribute to it. It was more about the struggles between the church and state during the time of Henry VIII, and less about the salvation of the King’s subjects. It is telling that the law was typically used against members of the Church as a way of seizing their property.

 

Of course, the original purpose of the law is likely no longer relevant in the current debate. Those in favour of retaining 377A have since attached a new and personal significance to the law that does not take into account the history behind it.

 

Nonetheless, the fascinating history behind Section 377A is still worth sharing, as it demonstrates how we sometimes take things we take for granted; these things that we might be tempted to view as ‘self-evident’ or ‘natural’ have in fact a historical trajectory that was constructed piece-by-piece by human action, and some might say, human greed.

 

Notes: 

1. Bailey, Sherwin. Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. 1955.
2. Lafitte, Francois. Homosexuality and the Law.

 

==============================================

 

Ironic that S377A originated from King Henry the 8th of Medieval England’s decision to show and grab power from his political rivals in the English Church after separating it from the Vatican one in Rome due to him being enamored by Anne Boleyn that medieval slut of historic infamy! Lol. Well he had to do that in order to divorce his current Queen to marry that harlot.

 

So we have a murderous English King - who slain 2 of his 6 wives - and one amorous, serial adultering Queen to thank for our S377A that is perpetually retained by our Singapore government to professedly preserve our “Asian values”.

 

Homosexuality existed all over the world since antiquity with evidence, and S377A is evidently now the actual Western imported idea, birthed as much from amorous reasons for slutzilla Anne Boleyn as political ones against the English Church. Lol!

 

I find it stupendous this epic and historic piece of grating irony had been largely overlooked by our past S377A repeal efforts! Haha

 

 

 

[LeanMature]

On ‎9‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 2:07 PM, tomcat said:

Only the Christians are so adamant to make it known that this is unacceptable by their standards and values. The culture of hypocritical righteousness is strong in Christianity. Or at least, within Singapore.

 

 

The Church can only speak on behalf of the Christians, whatever standards and values unacceptable to them are not of concern to non-Christians.  So, let it be clear that you are not talking to the whole of Singapore.

[Guest Hem]

On 9/12/2018 at 8:53 AM, Guest Guest said:

Johnson Ong Ming aka DJ Big Kid files judicial challenge against Section 377A Penal Code.

 

Page 8, mypaper 12 September 

 

Did they win?

[Guest Sexy]

Mr Ong is so sexy! 😍