Ravi Philemon
A recent ruling by the New Delhi High Court reinterpreting Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was devised to prevent and criminalise all sexual activity “against the order of nature”, but especially homosexual activities, prompted Singapore’s Law Minister Mr. K Shanmugam to respond that although Singapore will not decriminalise gay sex, it will accede to the courts in Singapore, the power to decide how the law, is applied. (See Today’s report).
One common misconception is that the IPC Section 377 is similar to Section 377a of Singapore laws – but it is not. Singapore’s section 377a criminalises outrages of decency between males; IPC section 377 criminalises all “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal”. The New Delhi High Court ruled that although Section 377 would still apply to non-consensual sex and sex with minors, it should not criminalise private sexual relations between consenting adults as then, it would violate Article 21 of the Indian constitution, which states “that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law”.
As for Section 377a, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong contented in 2007 that the “continued retention of Section 377A would not be a contravention of the Constitution”. If it truly was not a contravention of the constitution of Singapore, and as suggested by the Law Minister, should be decided how it is applied by the court of law, then, the recent case of the death of Brandon Boh Zhuang Min, would have been a good test case for the Attorney-General’s chambers to have brought up before the courts of Singapore, to determine how the courts will apply and interpret Section 377a.
Mr. Boh, a catering executive died 16 days after consuming a sexual performance enhancing drug, while on a threesome homosexual tryst. The case was investigated by the police and they found “unopened condoms and medication in the bedroom”, which would suggest that they were initially being investigated for homosexual activity, which would be criminal according to Section 377a, but eventually only a verdict of misadventure was pronounced on the death of Mr Boh. The report certainly seems to suggest that investigations were not confined to merely establishing the cause of death. If so, why did the Attorney-General (AG) not see it fit to bring one Mr Daniel to court to determine how the courts will apply Section 377a?
Private drug and sex parties have been a popular alternative to gay saunas and discos for many young gay men for nearly a decade; and mixing drugs, including alcohol with sexual activity has been shown to substantially increase the risk of transmitting HIV as safer sex practices are abandoned along with inhibitions. In the light of this, even if consenting individual gay men were not charged under Section 377a, so as not to send a ‘wrong message’ to the LGBT community, should not such group drug and sex orgies be targeted by the police and especially by the AG chambers to test how this particular law will be applied by the courts here to them?
“To have a law that they articulate they are not going to enforce really brings the law into disrepute”, said Dr Stuart Koe, Chief Executive Officer of Fridae.com even as parliament was debating the repeal of Section 377a in 2007. “Either put the gun down, or pull the trigger”, he said.
—–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Isn’t there are already laws to deal with drug abused etc ?
Why law enforcement officer have the options to chose laws that in their advantages or preferences ?
Ravi ///should not such group drug and sex orgies be targetted by the police///;;;;If the criteria is just group drug and sex orgies why not go the whole hog and also include the group and sex orgies performed by the heteros ; the police will find many more of these compared to the gay-orgies. Now that the govt has softened its stance, and restricted prosecution to only when the act is non-consensual, isn’t it ironic that some people are recommending a more hardline aprroach from the govt.
“Put the gun down or pull the trigger”
I like that analogy. But i dunno if it is smart to make such a bravado statement.
If push comes to shove, the govt has to choose between the two, chances are they will probably pull the trigger.
(reason- my guess is their 66% votes comes from the more conservative part of the population. liberal types are usually not their typical supporters anyway)
In the bigger scheme of things, that won’t be a happy ending.
Isn’t it easier that we all live and let live with the status quo?
This is part of being strategic and seeing two moves ahead.
Call the bluff if you think he is chicken.
But if he is likely to pull the trigger, why be stupid and taunt him?
Ravi,
your assertion in para 3 is quite a large jump. It is routine for criminal reports to record down what they found. Just because the investigators found something does not mean that they were actively searching for it.
What other evidence do you have that the police were investigating him or homosexual activity? If you are only basing it on that single statement, then it really is making mountains out of molehills.
Anyhow, it does seem that the investigation was carried out because Brandon died, not because he was involved in an orgy, so your comments on drug and sex orgies are a non-sequitur.
The Law Society actually disagrees with PM LHL and the Law Minister on whether Section 377A is constitutional. However, the Judiciary is in a rock and hard place.
If there is evidence of violating Section 377A and the Judiciary does not pronounce a charge, then the question whether the Judiciary is indeed independent of the Executive branch of Government.
If the Judiciary pronounces the charge, then it would be openly disagreeing with the executive branch on the S377A. This would contradict the prevailing Neo-Confucian tradition of our Government.
Now is a good opportunity to put up a constitutional challenge on S377A in the Supreme Court.
Simple – just throw the culprits to CNB. Story ends. I believe that 377A is kept as a potential tool to silence opposition politicians, just like how Anwar was silenced on the charge of sodomy by Mat.
mimicry,
that is an interesting theory…
#7 mimicry /// I believe that 377A is kept as a potential tool to silence opposition politicians, just like Anwar was silenced on the charge of sodomy by Mat ///;;;;;;#8 Arix /// that is an interesing theory ///;;;; I agree with mimicry that our politicians will make use of religion to gain more power;;; A clear example, as happened in the territory of our northern neighbours, is Anwar’s case ;; It’s so easy to do;; LKY, on his recent trip up north did not go there, surely, for a long awaited holiday, but to learn how the northerners have the latest methods to silence the opposition;;; LKY is going to keep 377A indefinitely;;; With his greed for power 377A is here to stay and for LKY, another potential option to silence the opposition;; like they are doing, so nicely, up north.