The following is an excerpt from Yawning Bread

Alex Au/

In a judgement dated 15 March 2011, High Court judge Lai Siu Chiu dismissed the first appeal relating to the constitutional challenge against Section 377A of the Penal Code. This is the law that makes “gross indecency” between two men an offence punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment. The challenge was filed by Tan Eng Hong, who was last year charged under this law after he was caught in a shopping centre toilet with another man.

Represented by M Ravi, Tan’s challenge is still at the procedural stage. Ravi intends to appeal against Justice Lai’s dismissal, so this is nowhere near the end of the story.

Readers will probably need to have the background refreshed.

Background

The incident that resulted in two men, Tan and Chin, being caught in a shopping centre toilet was recounted in the article The 377A hide-and-seek. Both men were charged under Section 377A. On 24 September 2010, M Ravi, acting for Tan, filed an Originating Summons challenging the constitutionality of this law. Mid-October, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) withdrew the 377A charges, substituting charges under Section 294 (obscene act in public) instead.

(Section 294 carries a maximum of 3 months’ jail, a fine, or both; Section 377A carries a maximum jail term of 2 years -Editor)

On 10 November 2010, Chin pleaded guilty and was fined S$3,000. In mid December 2010, Tan too pleaded guilty to Section 294 and was likewise fined S$3,000.

However, since the constitutional challenge to Section 377A had been filed, it still needed to be dealt with on a separate track. At a hearing on 7 December 2010, the Assistant Registrar agreed with the Attorney-General’s application to strike out the case. Tan then appealed to the High Court to reverse the Assistant Registrar’s striking-out decision. The latest decision from the High Court was to affirm that striking out order.

The decision by Justice Lai

The judge framed the issue before her in terms of two main questions (there were two lesser questions):

1. Does Tan Eng Hong have locus standi? That is, is he affected by this law to have a legitimate interest in the issue?

2. Is there a real controversy that requires the court’s attention? Here, the words “real controversy” is used in a way different from ordinary language. It simply means: Is there a matter of importance to be decided by a court?

In a nutshell, the judge found that the answer to the first question was a Yes and to the second question, a No. Thus the Assistant Registrar’s striking-out decision was reaffirmed. It’s a highly technical decision, and for this post, I shall only touch on the key points in laymen’s language. The full text is archived here, thanks to M Ravi.

Locus Standi

On the first question, the court rejected the AGC’s contention that since the original 377A charge had been withdrawn, Tan had no further interest at stake. The court stuck to an established principle that “a citizen should not have to wait until he is prosecuted before he may assert his constitutional rights.”

The court also found that there is a real question as to whether Section 377A is constitutional. It reminded itself that constitutionality is to be tested on two measures: (a) whether “the classification [implied by Section 377A] was founded on an intelligible differentia”, and (b) whether “the differentia bears a rational relation” to the purpose of the law. [Note: this was better explained in the earlier post The management of gays, part 1; see the discussion about page 340.] Insofar as Section 377A criminalises male but not female homosexual intercourse, Tan’s constitutional rights, specifically in relation to Article 12(1) of the Singapore Constitution (“All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”) might be said to be called into question.

Since there is a constitutional question and Tan as a practising homosexual is at risk of being prosecuted in future (even though the previous charge was withdrawn), the court ruled that he had locus standi to launch this case.

Click here to read on.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

疫情下工人党成员当热心志工 分发食物、助清寒子弟居家学习

工人党秘书长毕丹星在昨日(25日)的帖文中提及,不少该党成员在冠状病毒19疫情下行动起来,协助有需要的人士。 例如该党前非选区议员余振忠,是货真价实的有牌志工,为需要帮助的群体准备和分发食物,且打从阻断措施落实以来,就自愿参与每日分发食物!仅仅在马林百列选区,就已在数个地点派发超过300分食物给低收入或手头吃紧的人士。 他也介绍该党长期党员Ng Swee Bee,也透过“新加坡客工艺术活动”(Art for SG Migrant Workers campaign),借助艺术来陪伴那些受困、远离家人的客工渡过艰难时期;同时,她也协助阿裕尼-后港市镇会职员,在阿裕尼集选区的市场协助人流管控、劝导和协助年长居民等。 至于该党马林百列区前候选人黄富荣,则和志愿团体一起,为那些低收入家庭解决电脑和通讯商店需求。他们为来自低收入家庭的清寒学生提供二手电脑,方便他们居家学习。他们收集、翻新且分发了约400台电脑,给盛港、榜鹅区,武吉巴督和金文泰等地有需要的清寒家庭。 毕丹星认为,形形色色的人组成这个民主国家,且仍有其他工人党成员在阻断措施期间,用他们自己的方式为社会作出贡献。…

双溪登加宿舍贴通告 不准工友搭公交上班? 交局澄清:不曾限制

双溪登加客工宿舍(Sungei Tengah Lodge)近日出现一则公告,自8月1日起,限制居住在宿舍的员工,避免搭乘公共交通去上班。 本社联系宿舍当局,对方指出,陆交局与人力部曾反映。居住在双溪登加客工宿舍的外来客工已对当地的交通运输造成负荷,续指外来客工去往工地的交通本应由公司负责。 本社英语站记者前往探访,发现从双溪登加客工宿舍的巴士,沿路经数家公共机构,包括军营和内政部培训学校,而不远处则是蔡厝港地铁站,巴士站内总是在尖峰时刻(早上与下午)挤满了人,排队位置并没有标定边界,因此乘客在等待公共汽车时。已形成了非正式的队列。 而记者访问一些在巴士站排队的工友,他们反映并未注意到有关不准搭公交的公告。但他们表示,确有员工专用巴士让他们共乘,但只有在特定时段才行驶。 记者在尖峰时刻造访忙碌的巴士站,发现搭乘公交的人。以工人、外来客工以及当地居民居多,而且巴士在尚未开动前就会坐满。 为此,宿舍负责人向本社英文站记者表示,曾建议那些雇主,为客工提供专巴或安排包车来往工地。目前包车的行程,是早上5点45分至7点15分娩,每隔10分钟一台,将送往三站:文礼、武吉甘柏以及克兰芝站,但并没有提及有无安排下午的员工包车。 宿舍负责人续指,他们也正在调查专巴的需求,以及是否为员工开设其他巴士站点。他亦指,人力部已表明雇主有义务为住在宿舍内的员工提供专车服务。 两周前一名社工也告知记者,当地客工确实有被指示只能搭乘私人交通工具,下令勿搭乘公共交通。社工透露,还是会有非正式的私人交通工具可前往小印度,收费一到三块钱不等。然而,这些私人巴士只有等到坐满人才会开车,这也表示他们无法预测开车的时间。 尽管课题含有歧视意味,但社工表示当地客工大都不敢申诉。 陆交局:不曾限制工友搭公交 为此,本社两周前亦询问陆交局,获得陆交局巴士服务部门(the…

Singapore Red Cross website hacked, details of over 4,000 potential blood donors leaked

The Singapore Red Cross (SRC) has just been hacked, compromising details of…

DAP to propose Mahathir’s renomination for M’sia PM post following his resignation

Malaysia’s Democratic Action Party (DAP) is seeking to back the renomination of…