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

記住我

初到 Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

新聞&特寫

« 較新的 | 較舊的 »
12 Apr 2007

retention of gay sex laws "cannot be justified": singapore's law society to government

The Law Society of Singapore has released a statement disagreeing with the Ministry of Home Affairs' proposal to retain the country's laws against gay sex.

The Law Society of Singapore - at the invitation of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) last November to comment on the government's proposed amendments to the Penal Code - has advised the government that "the retention of s.377A in its present form cannot be justified."

Last November, MHA announced their intention to retain gay sex laws although laws which criminalise anal and oral sex between consenting heterosexual adults will be repealed as part of Singapore's first major penal code amendments in 22 years.

Section 377A currently makes "gross indecency" between two males an offence punishable by up to 2 years' imprisonment.

The Law Society, the professional association of lawyers in Singapore, which formed an ad hoc committee of 16 members to study the matter has issued a report which was reproduced in part by gay activist group People Like Us on its web site:

"The majority of the Council considered that the retention of s.377A in its present form cannot be justified. This does not entail any view that homosexuality is morally acceptable, but follows instead from the separation of law and morals and the philosophy that the criminal law's proper function is to protect others from harm by punishing harmful conduct. Private consensual homosexual conduct between adults does not cause harm recogniseable by the criminal law. Thus, regardless of one's personal view of the morality or otherwise of such conduct, it should not be made a criminal offence.

"Moreover, the assurance given by [the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)] in the Explanatory Notes to Proposed Amendments to the Penal Code that were initially issued by MHA that prosecutions will not be proactively prosecuted under this section is an admission that the section is out-of-step with the modern world. The retention of unprosecuted offences on the statute book runs the risk of bringing the law into disrepute.

"Council also recognised that the above view did not necessarily represent the views of its members collectively. A significant minority of Council members as well as members of the Society at large have an opposing view, and strongly support retention of s.377A in the Penal Code. They took the view that the criminal law can and should be deployed to define what the majority or a significant proportion of society believe to be unacceptable conduct even when it takes place in private between consenting adults, and that there are sufficient jurisprudential and logical grounds for this.

"Differing views were expressed on the constitutionality of s.377A. In other jurisdictions, legal discrimination based on sexual orientation has been considered against constitutional guarantees of equal protection. Council did not come to a concluded view on the constitutionality of s.377."

Singapore

讀者回應

1. 2007-04-12 22:52  
Your gov thinks plu should not exist.
They are also content on scaring u, not off your pants, but to keep your pants on.
Better luck next life!
2. 2007-04-13 02:19  
Many people go through life bearing major differences with their government. One example is Jesus. I can quote many more. I believe people can make a difference, even through small contributions, and things, can change for the better.
回應#3於被作者刪除。
4. 2007-04-14 02:12  
In the 21st century, being gay should NOT be a big deal anymore. Come on, abolish penal code section 377A.
回應#5於被作者刪除。
6. 2007-04-15 00:42  
Where can we get such news update, apart from fridae? It's appalling that such news are withheld from us Singaporeans. Furthermore, this CONCERNS public interest.
回應#7於被作者刪除。
回應#8於被作者刪除。
9. 2007-04-17 19:03  
The rights of humans to live in a non discriminatory climate has long been enshrined in International law and accepted by the vast majority of world governments.

A number of the members of the Council have dissented without defining their reasons in law in which the Geneva conventions have a part. They were appointed to review the law not to project personal opinions.

Any law on a statute book but 'not enforced' permits of blackmail of the individual and the disdain of society.

Failure by the Singapore government to understand the nature of a free society where the law is to protect people from harm not dictate matters of taste, will damage not only the members its society but also the society itself.

Finally it is a question of fact that nature has not eliminated homosexuality by natural selection either in the human or other animal species.

請先登入再使用此功能。

Social


This article was recently read by

請選擇新聞及專欄版本

精選個人檔案

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

讚好

合作夥伴

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

Advertisement