SINGAPORE: The Court of Appeal on Monday (Feb 28) upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss three challenges to Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men.
The challenges were mounted by: Disc jockey Johnson Ong Ming, retired general practitioner Roy Tan Seng Kee and Bryan Choong Chee Hoong, the former executive director of LGBT non-profit organisation Oogachaga.
High Court judge See Kee Oon had dismissed their challenges in March 2020, and the three men turned to the Apex Court to appeal against the decision.
According to Section 377A of the Penal Code, any man who commits any act of gross indecency with another man in public or in private can be jailed for up to two years. This extends to any man who abets such an act, procures or attempts to procure such an act.
While all previous challenges against Section 377A had failed, the trio's court actions came after former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong called for a review of Section 377A, with two former attorneys-general also making public comments on the law.
Mr Ong was represented by a team of lawyers led by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, while Mr Tan was represented by lawyer M Ravi and Mr Choong by a team led by Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal.
Among the arguments were submissions based on new historical material including recently declassified documents demonstrating that the introduction of Section 377A in 1938 was to criminalise "rampant male prostitution" when Singapore was under British colonial rule.
Other arguments were based on expert scientific evidence on the nature of sexual orientation, arguing that homosexuals cannot wilfully change their orientation and that Section 377A is discriminatory and violates the Constitution.
State Counsels representing the Attorney-General's Chambers had previously argued that Section 377A sends "a certain moral signal" by its mere existence and advances a legitimate and reasonable state interest, reflecting an aspect of societal morality, "regardless of whether and how it is enforced".
They said Section 377A is constitutional and called the issue "a deeply divisive socio-political" one that should be decided by the legislature or Parliament instead of the judiciary.
AGC's lawyers reiterated the Government's position that the police will not take proactive action to enforce Section 377A.
Continue reading...
The challenges were mounted by: Disc jockey Johnson Ong Ming, retired general practitioner Roy Tan Seng Kee and Bryan Choong Chee Hoong, the former executive director of LGBT non-profit organisation Oogachaga.
High Court judge See Kee Oon had dismissed their challenges in March 2020, and the three men turned to the Apex Court to appeal against the decision.
According to Section 377A of the Penal Code, any man who commits any act of gross indecency with another man in public or in private can be jailed for up to two years. This extends to any man who abets such an act, procures or attempts to procure such an act.
While all previous challenges against Section 377A had failed, the trio's court actions came after former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong called for a review of Section 377A, with two former attorneys-general also making public comments on the law.
Mr Ong was represented by a team of lawyers led by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, while Mr Tan was represented by lawyer M Ravi and Mr Choong by a team led by Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal.
Among the arguments were submissions based on new historical material including recently declassified documents demonstrating that the introduction of Section 377A in 1938 was to criminalise "rampant male prostitution" when Singapore was under British colonial rule.
Other arguments were based on expert scientific evidence on the nature of sexual orientation, arguing that homosexuals cannot wilfully change their orientation and that Section 377A is discriminatory and violates the Constitution.
State Counsels representing the Attorney-General's Chambers had previously argued that Section 377A sends "a certain moral signal" by its mere existence and advances a legitimate and reasonable state interest, reflecting an aspect of societal morality, "regardless of whether and how it is enforced".
They said Section 377A is constitutional and called the issue "a deeply divisive socio-political" one that should be decided by the legislature or Parliament instead of the judiciary.
AGC's lawyers reiterated the Government's position that the police will not take proactive action to enforce Section 377A.
Continue reading...