Test 2

Please select your preferred language.





Remember Me

New to Fridae?

Fridae Mobile


More About Us

14 Feb 2013

Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee vs The Attorney-General (Summary of Submissions for the AG)

Fridae obtained the following statement from the Attorney General's Chambers on Feb 14, 2013.

Summary of Submissions for the Attorney-General in OS 1135/2012

1 The Plaintiffs seek an order by the Court to the effect that section 377A of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“s 377A”) is unconstitutional under Art 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (“the Constitution”), which protects equality under the law.

2 In its previous judgment in Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General [2012] 4 SLR 476 at [185], the Court of Appeal addressed a similar application for a declaration that s 377A is unconstitutional. The Court framed the issues for argument in that matter as follows: (a) whether the classification in s 377A is founded on an intelligible differentia; and (b) whether the differentia bears a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by s 377A.

3 The Attorney-General argues that s 377A is constitutional under Art 12 for the following reasons: (a) the classification in s 377A is founded on an intelligible differentia between men and women; (b) as there is a strong presumption of constitutionality attaching to legislation, the Plaintiffs have the burden of showing that the differentia bears no rational relation to the object of s 377A. They have not done this; and (c) in any event, the differentia underlying s 377A bears a rational relation to its object in the areas of preserving (i) public morality and (ii) public health.

4 We have submitted that the differentiation in s 377A is simply between men and women. Section 377A does not apply specifically to men who identify as homosexual. It equally applies to those who identify as heterosexual or bisexual, so long as the relevant acts are committed.

5 The Attorney-General is relying on the presumption of constitutionality of legislation, which is an entrenched legal principle in Singapore. This presumption arises from the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary, and it recognises that decisions that require the balancing of multiple policy considerations are best left to the democratically-elected legislature. As a result, the Court must assume any state of facts at the time of statutory enactment, within reason, that would justify the classification and the Plaintiffs must disprove all such facts.

6 In addition, the Attorney-General submits that s 377A has the clearly-stated purpose of reflecting public morality. This is based on the fact that the majority of Singaporeans still find homosexual acts unacceptable, as reflected in Parliamentary debates. Although Parliament has chosen to retain the wording of s 377A which does not encompass homosexual acts between females, this decision strikes a legitimate 2 balance between the moral norms of the majority and the interests of homosexuals. As the objective of s 377A to reflect public morality is still substantially advanced even with this differentiation, the differentiation is not of itself unconstitutional.

7 We have further argued that the Court should find s 377A constitutional under Art 12 of the Constitution because there is a scientifically-established difference between the public health risks associated with sex between men and sex between women. The former poses a substantially higher likelihood of transmission of sexually transmitted infections such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”), as well as posing other health risks. By contrast, there have been no documented cases of HIV transmission arising from sex between women and the health risks associated with such acts are generally much lower.

8 We have added that the evidence raised by the Plaintiffs that they face difficulties as homosexual persons in Singapore are not sufficient grounds to discharge the burden of showing that s 377A is unconstitutional under Art 12.

Note: The proceedings are to be heard in Chambers as is normal for such applications. An open court hearing is not normally held as there are no witnesses to be questioned, and the arguments are all legal in nature.

* * *

Reader's Comments

1. 2013-02-15 11:09  
Readers are warned NOT to make any comments FOR or AGAINST the repeal of s377a. Read the Attorney- General's Chambers' Statement:


2. 2013-02-15 12:54  
Do you think I really care? No comment about 377A. Moronic, subvertive, criminal PM and government? Yes. But 377? Never. I wouldn't dream of it.
3. 2013-02-15 19:32  
“Gross Indecency”, which historically is taken to mean mutual masturbation, and sometimes oral sex, is the safest form of sex there is.
4. 2013-02-16 16:29  
i am so confused, not that confused that i will never visit singapore again, but its a law that is not enforced but its a law that, according to the A G is constitutional because it is. wow !
5. 2013-02-18 14:29  
Singapore would look so backward to maintain this archaic law when the Brit's are about to embrace same sex marriage!

6. 2013-02-21 02:30  
S 377A is unconstitutional purely on the grounds it being discriminatory and disrespectful, not to mention the fact that whom anyone has sex with is NOBODY’s business! NOT even the Singapore Government!

And why do straight people get to make these decisions anyway? Why do straight people have so much to say about the LGBT community, when they don’t have the faintest idea what LGBT people are all about? For these are not the kind of people who should be making these decisions for the LGBT community anyway!
7. 2013-02-21 02:49  

This article and the Media Relations statements are flawed and dictatorial in ways that logic and rational thought would not allow!

Never in the history of mankind has freedom or freedom of speech ever been given, so effectively it cannot be taken away! Ultimately freedom and freedom of speech just simply ARE!

When something is out on the internet, in magazines, news papers and on television, it automatically opens itself up to comment and/or criticism, whether people like it or not. So in effect, one can come to only one simple conclusion, that this statement is not even worth the paper it’s written on, and to think otherwise, is not only subverting the human mind, it also smacks of gross disrespect towards the general public, LGBT or straight!

Please log in to use this feature.

Select News Edition

Featured Profiles

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!


View this page in a different language:

Like Us on Facebook


 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia