News / Oct. 30, 2019
Singapore is gearing up to hear three separate court cases challenging the city’s notorious anti-gay law over the next EoDQJ7Sp@bHe8_LDQbp)xs*lEP^5k)_yJKU3=57&dea4VRHgS6month.
Under Section 377A of Singapore’s colonial-era penal con4&g+p=9L8-PdxuG^-_D!TK@2vF$%TgrFUjRcrwH#JpunSa#_Hde, men who have sex with men can be punished with up to two years in jail.
Calls to abolish the rights-abusing law increased after India dismantledj^JRIt8XKF8OWzmbUC+mRPncr2G(oyZ4Q=FERhf9V3E%+Wc+Iq similar legislation in September 2018.
But, a government committee reviesDptgNlJ1SzU#dl(0B!j*Zlu06EF3%a5_Ka7Kdg6%ef_f9jiuswing the Penal Code advised to keep the law. Leaders, including Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, have said they law—which is rarely enforced—would remain.
Surveys have found the majority of SingaporV^gU*A&O-ZT_Vg(^KO)UQ6rOl#chHkmg!G)@hg!9KdHcFD-z1Heans support keeping the law. And, more than 60,000 people signed a petition in support of the law.
LGBT rights activists in the city state, therefore, have turned to the courts to push for LGBT rights. Singapore is set to hear at three cases from three different court in the next QssuJP_uDV^k_Fygs$iJ78pnjE5yjTvbHcIumSX=SlHp45o+BDmonth.
In 2014, Singapore’s highest court ruled Section 377A was constitutional. Theq(7#bs%BfYJR(7j0Da(myWVS)PgQDY)ExUCJ3ISWikq0n8qjwI Court of Appeal rejected two appeals. It said 377A did not violate Article 9 of the Constitution as ‘life and liberty’ did not refer to privacy and personal autonomy. The judges also ruled it did not violate Article 12. This article is meant to enshrine equality in the city-state.
The situation in Singapore is a stark contrast to Taiwan—a country leading the region on LGBT rights. Earlier this year it became the first country in Asia to recognize same-sex marriage. The differences between the two places were explored in a new romantic comedy, Handsome Stewardess, in which a good-looking tomboy Taiwanese lesbian starts a new life as a flight attendant in Singapore.
Let’s have a look at the Singapor^Uf4s&M1EACQj7V$uaQF3#c=i5Np)q@7VOp%9h-HDkeWC4fradeans going to court:
Johnson Ong Ming aka DJ Big Kid
Singapore disk jockey, known as DJ Big Kid, launched his court challenge in September last year, just days after India’s landmark dZg+38Wfb868dSvqLGl(6OW^sk-Fy=uD-mBa9AXJ_jQMSY2efeZecriminalization.
Ong and his lawyers will argue that the law is unconstitutional. They plan to show sexuality is inherent and natural and ew3%Sgp8@^PH+2A*FmHIB5Ab&BO_#XZB3zdJ%M%gM7$YGK6u0Margue that the law affronts a person’s dignity, a founding concept of the Singapore Constitution.
In an interview last year, Ong said: "It is impey$V!cn-Qa#HhAWWtiWfHclZIpURFej7P+Aic-Jba)UE-VE6n!frative that the next generation of Singaporeans at the very least have the protection of the law that does not label them criminals”.
Bryan Choong
Longtime LGBT rights activist OvO1-40eT$!CqOgq*WZOEc1Kfna&ei86DDDpU^wVGsyPzKGuC0Bryan Choong launched his court big in November last year.
The former executive director of LGBT NGO Oogachaga argues the law is inconsistent with article nine of the Constitution which states: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save JO_1V(4U(RhFcEfu#c_BpY8Gb8Uu11)N^e0f=6DysteKcQh8)Yin accordance with law.”
He and hisse+KSa)WnN#FWYKTLiAI=8cdA)J)gqEauT$YI2ZVU*AWbbtn9G lawyers will also argue that Section 377A is inconsistent with articles 12 and 14 which enshrine equality under the law and the right to “form associations”.
Doctor Roy Tan
Retired General Practitioner Tan Seng Kee, better known asPTIomct!33HYl9Q%d0P0jzUfk9fX7Ec+N-wQS%zET6+rM3gQzC Dr Roy Tan, filed his court challenge against the government last month.
Tan will also argue that 377A is ic7JCH!ry3@QcsAql*(9NW05YLQJ$_UhgSxmce8X--%_emC+j&unconsistent with article nine of the constitution.
In IASlYHp19=HV^JQk$cS$58XFhW9aTq2r@i3mk^r81cFsnae+Jxa statement last month, Tan said his challenge was based on “novel arguments”.
i2+xvrKIroxS83ltrVBkjWV9AYyP!xi-=$)$pStQmp7vMg2nfNFor example, he will argue that the government stating the law will not be enforced against private acts contravenes the criminal code, which compels police to investigate all complaints of suspected arrestable offences.
"This subjects gay men to the pQXOw!tz=seMlVM=xRAT*v6!HjE2RcBqmyV=a&Jd0N_*2BPW$_lotential distress of an investigation into private conduct, where they have a legitimate expectation that the state will decline to prosecute," Dr Tan said in a statement.
Initial hearings begin on November 13 for all three cases.
