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

单位天花板脱落 半米长混凝土砸入厕所马桶

大巴窑一单位的厕所天花板忽然掉下一大块,砸进马桶内,吓了外籍女佣一跳,所幸没有人受伤。 55岁的IT经理阿伦(Alan Fu,译音)昨日(27日)向《今日报》指出,他昨日在组屋的底层接获来自家里女佣的手机简讯,展示意外发生的照片。 阿伦90余岁的父亲居住在已有约50年历史,位于大巴窑东部市区的三房式组屋。 外籍女佣险些被砸 天花板上的混凝土块掉下时,20余岁的女佣正准备清理厕所,而阿伦在获知事情发生后,不禁感到庆幸。“对她来说真是千钧一发,真的是好彩。” 他指出,有关事件发生于傍晚5时许,在获得女佣发送过来的简讯和图片后,就到其父亲的朱家查看,发现掉下的混凝土块有约半米长,约10公斤重。 阿伦在事发后就致电向碧山- 大巴窑市镇理事会(Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council)求助,但是他的案件随后被转给了新加坡建屋发展局。…

Temasek’s unit in talk to sink more than $0.5b into PIL run by PBM holder S S Teo

Last Tues (26 May), after months of speculation by industry analysts, the…

证券投资者协会抛23问题质问凯发集团

新加坡证券投资者协会(SIAS)代表证券投资者,向凯发集团(Hyflux)董事会致函,对该集团的运营、估值和董事会信用责任问题表达严正关注,罗列23道问题,以让证券持有人知情并作出明智决定。 在由该协会主席大卫杰乐署名的信函提到,债权人和投资者们们整理出一些问题,要求凯发集团董事会回答,包括几乎所有凯发资产都存在严重缺陷,例如在阿曼 Qurayyat和Magtaa的海水淡化厂有运作缺陷,无法达到营运容量;大泉水电厂和天津大港新泉海水淡化厂蒙受亏损,以及Tuasone和阿尔及利亚的Tlemsen项目无法完成。 投资者质问凯发董事会,究竟对这些主要资产进行了怎样的监管?为何这些严重缺陷却没有在年报上公布? “凯发筹集了五亿新元的永久债券和四亿元的优先股,这些资金要如何使用?对比招股说明书的实际使用情况又是如何?”债权人也质问,来自股东500万元的贷款如何使用在大泉水电厂上。 负现金流仍支付股息 与此同时,凯发集团自2009年以来就呈现负运营现金流。但有没有把这种情况告知债权人和股东?何以在负现金流下仍能继续支付股息,至累积更多债务?在2017年前每年都报告盈利而非亏损,令投资者直问:这怎么可能? 协会也要求凯发出示大泉水电厂的现金储备和现有市值,并且质疑它的14亿元账面价值被高估了。”事实上,在2018年,凯发曾接受比马银行五亿元债务耕地的脱售献议,故此至少高估了九亿元。“再者,投资者们也不认为电价低是导致该厂亏损的原因。 亏损时总裁仍获高额薪酬 与此同时,协会也质疑当股东和债权人都在蒙受投资亏损时,总裁林爱莲仍能从34巴仙普通股权中获得6千万元的股息。在2017年的薪酬和分红分别达到75万元和1百万元。同年,凯发却亏损高达1亿1560万元。在这不久的五个月后,凯发集团就因为亏损巨额资金和建筑项目,向法庭申请保护令。 ”敢问林爱莲在凯发重组中扮演的角色?何以在重组过程中她没有将其所得收益贡献出来?“ 协会的信函也提到,在2017年凯发年报,支付给凯发关键领导层的总薪酬高达265万元。何以该集团可以在当下艰难财务环境下,仍能继续支付高额薪酬?这些公司领导理应清楚公司面对的情况,也要负上很大的责任。

Homeowner of new BTO who found wall covered with mould is now slammed with S$600 water bill despite moving out

Just over a month ago, on 30 March, Facebook user named Newme…