Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

登入

记住我

初到 Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

新闻&特写

« 较新的 | 较旧的 »
2 Jun 2014

Singapore court rules against gay man claiming workplace discrimination

Singapore's highest court has not only dismissed a lawsuit by a gay man fighting workplace discrimination at a multinational departmental store but ruled that he must pay for legal costs.

 

Lawrence Bernard Wee, 40, who was suing former employer Robinsons on the basis that that workplace discrimination against gays was unconstitutional reports m.todayonline.com.
The highest court of the land upheld a High Court ruling on the case last December and dismissed Wee’s case ruling that his claim was without basis. Wee was also ordered to pay 20,000 Singapore dollars (US$15,946) in legal costs.
The suit was filed after Wee, former manager at Robinsons department store quit his job in August 2012. Wee had sued  Robinsons for “constructive dismissal” arising from alleged anti-gay discrimination as his as his former boss had harassed him into leaving the job because he was gay.
Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer makes life so difficult and hostile that an employee is forced to resign.
Wee filed for damages against his employer four months after his resignation.
Robinsons denied any bias, unfair treatment or persecution by anyone at the store, or that Wee faced difficulties or threats when he wanted to leave the company.
Wee sought a declaration from the court last August that Article 12 of Singapore’s Constitution that provides for the equal protection of the law, prohibits workplace discrimination of homosexual men.
A High Court assistant registrar struck out the case after finding that it was without merit but  Wee filed an appeal against this decision, but withdrew it last month.
Attorney-General’s Chambers then applied to have this struck out on the basis that it was not sustainable in law, was frivolous and vexatious or was otherwise an abuse of the Court process.
Singapore courts are notorious in throwing out anti-gay discrimination lawsuits always citing the Section 377A law in Singapore’s penal code. The British colonial era law criminalizes same-sex relations and carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail.
Gay rights activists have been advocating to get the law repealed but with little success  even though the issue of repealing or retaining it has also been brought up in Parliament in recent years.
The government maintains it doesn’t discriminate against LGBT residents  though it has declined to repeal the law banning sex between men.

Lawrence Bernard Wee, 40, who was suing former employer Robinsons on the basis that that workplace discrimination against gays was unconstitutional reports m.todayonline.com.

The highest court of the land upheld a High Court ruling on the case last December and dismissed Wee’s case ruling that his claim was without basis. Wee was also ordered to pay 20,000 Singapore dollars (US$15,946) in legal costs.

The suit was filed after Wee, former manager at Robinsons department store quit his job in August 2012. Wee had sued  Robinsons for “constructive dismissal” arising from alleged anti-gay discrimination as his as his former boss had harassed him into leaving the job because he was gay.

Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer makes life so difficult and hostile that an employee is forced to resign.

Wee filed for damages against his employer four months after his resignation.

Robinsons denied any bias, unfair treatment or persecution by anyone at the store, or that Wee faced difficulties or threats when he wanted to leave the company.

Wee sought a declaration from the court last August that Article 12 of Singapore’s Constitution that provides for the equal protection of the law, prohibits workplace discrimination of homosexual men.

A High Court assistant registrar struck out the case after finding that it was without merit but  Wee filed an appeal against this decision, but withdrew it last month.

Attorney-General’s Chambers then applied to have this struck out on the basis that it was not sustainable in law, was frivolous and vexatious or was otherwise an abuse of the Court process.

Singapore courts are notorious in throwing out anti-gay discrimination lawsuits always citing the Section 377A law in Singapore’s penal code. The British colonial era law criminalizes same-sex relations and carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail.

Gay rights activists have been advocating to get the law repealed but with little success  even though the issue of repealing or retaining it has also been brought up in Parliament in recent years.

The government maintains it doesn’t discriminate against LGBT residents  though it has declined to repeal the law banning sex between men.

 

读者回应

1. 2014-06-02 22:17  
For as long as I can remember there has been an anti-gay bias in the Singapore government. Little has changed except that there are a few gay venues now. For many years there was only one small bar tucked away on a high floor in Lucky Plaza and a Sunday bash that had to move venues periodically. If enough anti-gay people acquire influence in the Singapore government it may come to that again, no matter what Lee Quan Yew says.
2. 2014-06-02 23:59  
Adding insult to injury :(
3. 2014-06-03 00:28  
Sad, sad Singapore. So progressive, yet so backward.
4. 2014-06-03 04:44  
Courageous of Bernard Wee to bring the case — I hope he is not ruined by having the costs awarded against him
5. 2014-06-03 04:44  
Courageous of Bernard Wee to bring the case — I hope he is not ruined by having the costs awarded against him
6. 2014-06-03 04:44  
Courageous of Bernard Wee to bring the case — I hope he is not ruined by having the costs awarded against him
回应#7於於2014-06-03 12:24被作者删除。
8. 2014-06-03 12:24  
Having worked at Robinsons before and seeing how they have quite a few gays working there with no issue whatsoever, I find this a little hard to believe.

Not ruling out the possibility that the situation is different at other levels of the company's hierachy, of course, but we only have his word on this; on the other hand I've seen many a case of people claiming workplace discrimination in all its forms (even racism and sexism) when much simpler (and obvious) traits would adequate explain their retrenchment - poor work ethic, disagreeable personality, a lapse in integrity or even just sheer incompetence.
9. 2014-06-04 17:57  
It would be nice to read the full wording of the judgment, and the case brought by this Robinson's firm. But if Singaporean authorities are giving tacit approval to discrimination against gay people then it's time Singapore was subject to boycott action. I for one will now avoid buying products made in Singapore and will avoid flying on Singapore Airlines.
10. 2014-06-05 06:29  
Dennynz - true that, I too would like to hear Robinson's side of the story.
11. 2014-06-05 12:26  
Is this the same Robinsons' that you find in Bangkok and Manila?? I must remember to not spend one USD in them and If "PINK DOT" has any kind of backbone they should set up an account to help this Mr Wee pay off his legal fees. Do not think that this kind of discrimination will not happen to you in your lifetime. It happens in housing, showbiz and the tech industry and many others. ONe day you may want a job and because you speak with sssssss's left and right ..your not qualified or the best one I heard is you overqualified. March for Mr. Wee. 1985 some friends and I from AA/LAX took a trip to SIN.. and yes Capitan I remember that little disco/bar tucked I a high rise at LUcky Plaza.. It was wonderful as I met MR Royal Singapore Airforce member. Mahood.
Singapore was one of my favorite countries to visit as each time I go I see the gay populas getting bigger and more outspoken.. But they still want to revert back to British Colonial Law... Make your own laws Singapore your not in the Colonial area anymore... wake up HIGH Court.
12. 2014-06-06 00:13  
The gay network and their families should start to 'boycott' Robinson's--not by standing out front of the stores--but to quit buying their products and shop elsewhere.

If you notice many world governments use this technique to cause economic havoc to countries that do not abide--therefore, we the gay population have great numbers of silent individuals and with our buying power, can make a noticeable dent in the revenue of Robinson's.

Not only individuals can participate, but those who are in company positions that use Robinson's as a supplier can divert purchases elsewhere!

In the USA they have done such to the Boy Scouts and Chick-a-Filet for their anti-gay tactics.

Start Today!
13. 2014-06-10 19:23  
- Robinson had hurt Singapore LGBT
- Singapore LGBT are our brothers and sisters too
- Yes we all LGBT in the world should make action by boycott any related Robinson business and should investigate all related to Robinson at everwhere.

- We do not want any LGBT get hurt at everywhere because we all are big Family

- We should save Singapore LGBT too

请先登入再使用此功能。

请选择新闻及专栏版本

精选个人档案

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

赞好

合作伙伴

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

Advertisement