Fridae

Arguing that section 377A is constitutional, the Attorney-General argues that the law applies to all men, not just self-identified gay men, who have sex with other men; the law “reflects public morality”; and "because there is a scientifically-established difference between the public health risks associated with sex between men and sex between women."

Members of the LGBT community in Singapore today expressed their disappointment and outrage over the prime minister's reasoning as to why section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises gay sex should remain.

A date has been set to hear a challenge filed by a gay couple who are seeking to have section 377A, which outlaws sexual relations between men, declared unconstitutional.

A fresh challenge has been made today against s377A of the Penal Code, which criminalizes physical relations between two men.

While the language of the judgement may sound “gay-friendly”, it does not necessarily mean the judges are leaning towards the merits of the case against 377A, says pioneer gay rights activist Alex Au. He also highlights that Tan Eng Hong, who filed the case, may face bankrupcy should an order of costs be made against him.

In a judgment that has taken nearly a year, Tan Eng Hong and his lawyer M Ravi are now one step closer to challenging the constitutionality of section 377A of the Penal Code that prohibits sexual relations between men.

The Court of Appeal will hear an appeal filed by human rights lawyer M. Ravi on behalf of his client Tan Eng Hong who is seeking to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code that prohibits sexual relations between men.

Defamation and privacy laws are the twin tools of a media lawyer to help his clients control their image. Both try to prevent information or expressions from being published in an attempt to shield a public figure from potential dip in popularity polls. Fridae’s legal columnist George Hwang explains the two.

When queried by France, UK, and other countries, the Singapore delegate at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva reiterates that the Singapore police will not take action "against consenting adult males... unless their conduct breaks other laws, for instance laws against indecent public behaviour or paedophilia."

Although the Singapore High Court last week affirmed an earlier decision to dismiss the case, it also found that while the original 377A charge had been withdrawn against Tan Eng Hong who filed the constitutional challenge, he has indeed a legitimate interest in pursuing the case.