• About Us
    • Fact Checking Policy
    • Ownership & funding information
    • Volunteer
  • Subscribe
  • Letter submission
    • Submissions Policy
  • Contact Us
The Online Citizen Asia
  • Opinion
    • Editorial
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • Comments
  • Current Affairs
    • Singapore
    • Malaysia
    • Indonesia
    • China
    • ASEAN
    • Asia
    • International
  • Finance
    • Economics
    • Labour
    • Property
    • Business
  • Community
    • Arts & Culture
    • Consumer Watch
    • NGO
    • Lifestyle
    • Travel
  • Politics
    • Civil Society
    • Parliament
    • Transport
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Health
    • Housing
  • Law & Order
    • Legislation
    • Court Cases
No Result
View All Result
  • Opinion
    • Editorial
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • Comments
  • Current Affairs
    • Singapore
    • Malaysia
    • Indonesia
    • China
    • ASEAN
    • Asia
    • International
  • Finance
    • Economics
    • Labour
    • Property
    • Business
  • Community
    • Arts & Culture
    • Consumer Watch
    • NGO
    • Lifestyle
    • Travel
  • Politics
    • Civil Society
    • Parliament
    • Transport
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Health
    • Housing
  • Law & Order
    • Legislation
    • Court Cases
No Result
View All Result
The Online Citizen Asia
No Result
View All Result

Constitutional right against discrimination is a challenge for all of us

by Howard Lee
30/10/2014
in Commentaries, Current Affairs
Reading Time: 5 mins read
9

Article 155 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Image - Loy Zihao 2010, Wikimedia)

Article 155 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Image - Loy Zihao 2010, Wikimedia)
Article 155 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Image – Loy Zihao 2010, Wikimedia)
By Howard Lee
It was a verdict that most people might have expected, and even lawyer M Ravi, with the best commendations to his effort, might have anticipated the final outcome.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal ruled against the two Constitutional challenges mounted by Tan Eng Hong, Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee, who have sought to remove Section 377A of the Penal Code – the law left over from our Colonial days that criminalises sex between gay men – on grounds that it infringes on their right to equal protection under the law and violates their right to life and liberty.
But what might have surprised some is the way the three judges sitting the two cases ruled in favour of Section 377A, in particular how it relates to Article 12 of Singapore’s Constitution.
As reported in The Straits Times:

“While Article 12 guarantees equal protection, the courts have long held that lawmakers are allowed to pass laws that treat people differently – if it is based on a reasonable classification.
…Under this (reasonable classification) test, a statute that differentiates is constitutional if the classification is based on an “intelligible differentia”, meaning a distinguishing feature that is discernible, and if the differentia bears a rational relation to the objective of the law.
… The court went on to note that Article 12 does not address the issues involved in Section 377A. While the provision specifically prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, descent or place of birth, the words “gender”, “sex” and “sexual orientation” are noticeably absent.”

Not very meaningful for the layperson, unless we also take a look at what Article 12 of our Constitution says:

Equal protection
12.—(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
(3) This Article does not invalidate or prohibit —
(a) any provision regulating personal law; or
(b) any provision or practice restricting office or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion.

Taking the court’s ruling and Article 12 together, the same layperson might find it slightly puzzling. Article 12 basically grants the right against discrimination to all Singaporeans, specifically in how they will be treated in a court of law. Is the court then saying, but ruling against the appeal, that lawmakers can ignore the mandate of Article 12 in preference for other laws, so long as there is grounds for a “discernibly distinguishing feature” in the person involved?
Granted, a gay person is “discernibly distinguishable”, particularly if he flouts Section 337A in public. But what then of other equally distinguishable traits?
For instance, a pregnant woman who gets fired from her job seeks redress on the basis of discrimination. Can the court rule in favour of her employer given that she is “discernibly pregnant”? Of course, I forget – our Employment Act might hopefully offer some protection.
How about those with other traits, traits that often belong to you and me? Single-parent family. Been to jail. Graduated from a specific school. Short in built. Has brown eyes. Has yellow teeth. Has a big nose. Father of three. Father of none. The quiet sort. The noisy sort. Uses mobile phone frequently. Doesn’t use mobile phone frequently enough. Likes to wear pink. Hates pink…
The permutations are endless, and at some point would become ridiculous.
If a particular group is distinguishable for any reason, does it also then mean discrimination against them, if not in contravention to any law, is perfectly reasonable under our Constitution?
Even more oddly, is the court also saying that so long as the discrimination is not “specifically prohibited” under Article 12 – that is, not based on “religion, race, descent or place of birth” – it is either not discrimination, not in contravention to the constitution, or doesn’t really matter?
If so, this is extremely odd indeed. The basis of Article should be inclusive rather than exclusive, and in fact, its words does not seem to give the impression that only discrimination based on religion, race, descent or place of birth is prohibited.
Or is the courts reading – and a very close reading, at that – only the letter, rather than the spirit of our Constitution?
We are fed on a staple of “race and religion are sensitive issues”. As our society matures and become more complicated, we find this might not hold true. Issues of class, wealth, family structure, political beliefs and even personal beliefs have become potential spark points. Why would we want our Constitution to reflect our concerns of the past, when nothing in it prohibits us from taking it into the future?
I believe that every citizen now has a right to be concerned by this ruling. Judgements in court are regularly passed based on precedence of past cases. If this is the benchmark for how we approach our Constitution, everyone who has a “distinguishing feature that is discernible” is at risk of unfettered discrimination without any protection.
Sadly, some of us might already have lost faith in the ability of the Constitution to protect us. Blogger Alex Au reflected this sentiment well:

“If you sit back and take in the bigger picture, you’ll see that basically our constitution, as long interpreted, offers no protection for civil liberties or human rights: not freedom of speech, not freedom of assembly, not a right to transparent and accountable government, nor even a fair electoral process. The questions rush in. Is there something wrong with the Constitution, the interpretation, or both? What is the overarching social and political context that makes this the reality?”

Is this what we want as a society? If not, then we must necessarily see that the discrimination that plagues any citizen – be it on account of their sexual orientation, skin colour, the causes they champion or something as basic as the families they are born into – is an issue of concern for all citizens. The Constitution binds us all as Singaporeans, and to it we must respond.

For just US$7.50 a month, sign up as a subscriber on The Online Citizen Asia (and enjoy ads-free experience on our site) to support our mission to transform TOC into an alternative mainstream press.
Tags: featured

Related Posts

Current Affairs

China cannot be absent: Xi Jinping, in new year message

01/01/2016
Current Affairs

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss launches Mountbatten Manifesto

31/08/2015
Current Affairs

AHPETC Chairman’s Review

31/08/2015
Current Affairs

Is the “controversial” AHPETC management fee really that controversial?

31/08/2015
Current Affairs

Workers’ Party releases video of candidates

31/08/2015
Commentaries

Is the PAP really listening, or just hearing us?

31/08/2015
Subscribe
Connect withD
Login
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Notify of
Connect withD
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
9 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Latest posts

Family of student killed in accident involving retired police officer, calls for transparency from Indonesian police

Family of student killed in accident involving retired police officer, calls for transparency from Indonesian police

04/02/2023
【财政预算案2021】2020年预算赤字达649亿元 占国内生产总值13.9%

China’s mega-rich move their wealth, and partying, to Singapore

04/02/2023
2024 Olympic torch relay to start in Marseille

2024 Olympic torch relay to start in Marseille

03/02/2023
India’s Adani shares plunge again after stock sale cancelled

India’s Adani denies rise due to Modi as shares fall again

03/02/2023
TotalEnergies says Adani exposure ‘limited’ at US$3.1 bn

TotalEnergies says Adani exposure ‘limited’ at US$3.1 bn

03/02/2023
India’s finance minister says markets ‘well regulated’ after Adani storm

India’s finance minister says markets ‘well regulated’ after Adani storm

03/02/2023
A man can be sentenced to death by a testimony of another, but CPIB finds it hard to prosecute with mountain of evidence and self-confession?

A man can be sentenced to death by a testimony of another, but CPIB finds it hard to prosecute with mountain of evidence and self-confession?

03/02/2023

Myanmar junta imposes tough new measures on resistance strongholds

03/02/2023

Trending posts

Former Singaporean shares change of life in Australia with annual pay of S$80,000 as a plumber

Former Singaporean shares change of life in Australia with annual pay of S$80,000 as a plumber

by Yee Loon
30/01/2023
25

...

They have done a fine job of confusing us about the jobs situation

They have done a fine job of confusing us about the jobs situation

by Augustine Low
01/02/2023
47

...

Adani’s brother runs SG company and registers as director with local ID

Adani’s brother runs SG company and registers as director with local ID

by Correspondent
03/02/2023
23

...

Singapore warns slower economic growth in 2023

Less than 1 in 10 jobs created in first three quarters of 2022 went to Singaporeans?

by Leong Szehian
28/01/2023
69

...

Earning only S$400 a month, delivery-rider turned hawker threw in the towel after two years of running a rojak stall

Earning only S$400 a month, delivery-rider turned hawker threw in the towel after two years of running a rojak stall

by Yee Loon
26/01/2023
24

...

Excessively charging for an essential need, and calling it affordable because people still can pay for it?

by Terry Xu
31/01/2023
40

...

October 2014
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
« Sep   Nov »

The Online Citizen is a regional online publication based in Taiwan and formerly Singapore’s longest-running independent online media platform.

Navigation

  • Editorial
  • Commentaries
  • Opinion
  • Politics
  • Community

Support

  • Contact Us
  • Letter submission
  • Membership subscription

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Fact Checking Policy
  • Privacy Policy

© 2022 - 2023 The Online Citizen Asia

No Result
View All Result
  • Opinion
    • Editorial
    • Commentaries
    • Comments
  • Current Affairs
    • Malaysia
    • Indonesia
    • China
    • ASEAN
    • Asia
    • International
  • Finance
    • Economics
    • Labour
    • Property
    • Business
  • Community
    • Civil Society
    • Arts & Culture
    • Consumer Watch
    • NGO
  • Politics
    • Parliament
    • Transport
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Health
    • Housing
  • Law & Order
    • Legislation
    • Court Cases
  • Lifestyle
    • Travel
  • Subscribers login

© 2022 - 2023 The Online Citizen Asia

wpDiscuz