Under The Angsana Tree: The 'Repeal' of Section 377A

Update 29 Nov 22: Singapore repeals Section 377A

The Singapore Parliament voted to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises gay sex among men. (FILE PHOTOS: Yahoo News Singapore)

The Singapore Parliament voted on Tuesday (29 November) to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, a colonial-era law which criminalises gay sex between men.

It also voted to endorse amendments to the Constitution to protect the current definition of marriage from legal challenge. The repeal of 377A saw 93 Members of Parliament voting in favour of the move. Workers' Party MPs Gerald Giam (Aljunied GRC) and Dennis Tan (Hougang), as well as Nominated MP Hoon Hian Teck, voted against the repeal.

The constitutional amendment saw 85 MPs vote in favour. Progress Singapore Party's Non-Constituency MPs Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa voted against the amendment, while WP's Sylvia Lim and He Ting Ru abstained. Nominated MPs are not allowed to vote on constitutional amendments.

related:

377A repeal - Singapore turns page on dark LGBT history

Singapore's gay sex law Section 377A to be repealed – PM Lee Hsien Loong

read more

Not if but when, says Singapore movement against anti-gay law

Leaders of the “Ready4Repeal” movement during an open Q&A. From left: Petition authors Glen Goei and Johannes Hadi, activist Jean Chong, counsellor Bryan Choong, Clement Tan of Pink Dot SG, lawyer Remy Choo and moderator Alan Seah. (Photo: Justin Ong)

The question is not if but when Singapore’s anti-gay law will be repealed, said members of the “Ready4Repeal” movement on Sunday (Sep 30) at a private town hall discussion attended by over 800 people.

The group is calling for the removal of Section 377A of the penal code, a remnant from British colonial rule which criminalises sex between men.

A similar law was scrapped by India in early September, sparking a nationwide debate in Singapore. An online petition by Ready4Repeal closed on Thursday with 44,650 signatures by Singaporeans and PRs.

read more

Three court challenges to Section 377A: A summary of key arguments

The men mounting challenges to section 377A, and their lawyers. (Photos: Facebook/Remy Choo Zheng Xi, Ching S. Sia, Facebook/Roy Tan)

Three men, flanked by a host of lawyers, took to the High Court this past week to mount challenges to the law that criminalises sex between men, which they claim to be unconstitutional.

The challenges were mounted by Johnson Ong Ming, a 43-year-old disc jockey and producer; Roy Tan Seng Kee, a 61-year-old retired general practitioner; and 42-year-old Bryan Choong Chee Hoong, the former executive director of LGBT non-profit organisation Oogachaga.

The arguments were made in chambers before Justice See Kee Oon and ended on Wednesday (Nov 20), two days ahead of schedule, with a verdict to be released later. All previous challenges against Section 377A have failed.

read more

Sexual orientation cannot be wilfully changed, say lawyers fighting to repeal Section 377A

Mr Johnson Ong Ming (in T-shirt) with his lawyers, (from left) Mr Johannes Hadi, Mr Suang Wijaya and Mr Eugene Thuraisingam.PHOTO: CHING S. SIA

Sexual orientation cannot be wilfully changed and is a product of genetic and environmental factors, said lawyers arguing for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code.

They argued that the law, which criminalises acts of "gross indecency" between men, violates Article 9 of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty, and Article 12 guaranteeing equal protection before the law.

The legal team, consisting of Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, Mr Suang Wijaya and Mr Johannes Hadi of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP, represented disc jockey Johnson Ong Ming in the High Court on Monday (Nov 18) in the second of three cases to be brought against Section 377A this month.

read more

377A challenge: Lawyers use legal, scientific arguments to contest law’s validity

Dr Roy Tan (left), a retired general practitioner, is one of three men filing legal challenges to Section 377A of the Penal Code. Dr Tan is represented by prominent human rights lawyer M Ravi (right)

The second and third of three challenges to Section 377A of the Penal Code were heard in the High Court on Monday (Nov 18), as lawyers used both legal and scientific arguments to support their claim that the law should be struck down. The first of the challenges was heard last week.

One case on Monday was filed by human rights lawyer M Ravi, who was representing Dr Roy Tan Seng Kee, a 61-year-old retired general practitioner and former organiser of the annual Pink Dot event for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

Mr Ravi argued that it remains “impossible” for a gay or bisexual man here to predict when he may be investigated, although the Government had stated that Section 377A, which ostensibly criminalises sex between men, will not be proactively enforced. He said that the element of uncertainty remained because a policeman can be penalised for not acting on the arrestable act.

read more

Christian lawyer in 377A constitutional challenge explains why his involvement is consistent with his faith

Legal team of Mr Bryan Choong, including Mr Jodan Tan (first left) in the 377A constitutional challenge.

Jordan Tan is one of the lawyers bringing the constitutional challenge against Section 377A in the Singapore Court right now. Mr Tan is also a Christian. This is noteworthy now because he mentioned that there have been queries as to why a Christian lawyer would be involved in such a case, given that he is advocating to repeal a law that criminalises consensual sexual acts between adult males which goes against the teachings of the church.

On 15 November, Mr Tan took to Facebook to answer this question. He said, “Although my relationship with God is a personal private matter, Christian accountability and the exhortation not to stumble others (Romans 14:12-13) calls for an open and honest response to such queries.”

He explains why he is acting as a counsel to advocate for the constitutional challenge against 377A and why he considers it consistent with and is an advancement of his Christian Faith. He said, “I am completely at peace with my role advocating the constitutional challenge against section 377A in the Singapore courts.”

read more

Former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong calls for review of Section 377A, says law is outdated

Although not enforced, Section 377A of the Penal Code criminalises sex between men, with offenders facing up to two years’ jail. (Photo: Lianne Chia)

Former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong has called for the constitutional validity of Section 377A, which criminalises sexual acts between men, to be reviewed.

He made the call in a paper titled Equal Justice under the Constitution and Section 377A of the Penal Code which was published online by the Singapore Academy of Law Journal on Monday (Oct 14).

In his paper, Mr Chan notes that Section 377A criminalises acts of gross indecency between males, whether homosexual or bisexual, but not similar acts between males and females, or between females.

read more

Law experts set out two options in former CJ Chan Sek Keong’s analysis of 377A

Former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong argued that Section 377A of the Penal Code may have to be read in a way that it applies to all persons, not just men, who commit acts of gross indecency in public.PHOTO: ST FILE

Legal experts have weighed in on former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong's analysis of a gay-sex law, saying his arguments suggest there are two options open to a court of law:

Either declare the clause unconstitutional
Or read it in a way that conforms to the constitutional requirement.

While the former lies with Parliament, it is unclear if Mr Chan is pushing for the latter.

read more

Section 377A doesn't criminalise gay sex and its purpose no longer exists, argues former chief justice

Former chief justice Chan Sek Keong (pictured), who was appointed National University of Singapore's first Distinguished Fellow in the Faculty of Law in 2013 after he retired from legal service, has written a paper on the much-talked-about Section 377A of the Penal Code

A former Singapore chief justice has argued that Section 377A of the Penal Code, which is often referred to as the law that criminalises gay sex, does not actually cover this offence at all.

Writing in a 72-page article in the Singapore Academy of Law Journal, Mr Chan Sek Keong said: "Section 377A was enacted for the purpose of dealing with the mischief of male prostitution and its associated activities (which involved male homosexual conduct) which were rife in 1938, and not because homosexual conduct was not acceptable in Singapore society in 1938."

Section 377A does not criminalise penetrative sex, only non-penetrative sex acts of a grossly indecent nature such as masturbation and other kinds of sexual touching and "lewd" acts, Mr Chan added.

read more

Ex-CJ Chan Sek Keong: 377A’s original aim outdated, so reading of law may have to change

Former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong argued that Section 377A of the Penal Code may have to be read in a way that it applies to all persons, not just men, who commit acts of gross indecency in public.PHOTO: ST FILE

Former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong has weighed in on a controversial law that criminalises sex between two homosexual or bisexual men.

He argued that Section 377A of the Penal Code may have to be read in a way that it applies to all persons, not just men, who commit acts of gross indecency in public.

He suggested that the existing provision fails the reasonableness test as set out in a 2015 case and, therefore, violates Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

read more

Three court challenges against Section 377A to be heard in November

In this file picture, attendees of The Pink Dot SG event at Hong Lim Park on June 29, 2019 are seen holding up pink and white lights to form a display calling for the repeal of Section 377A, which criminalises acts of "gross indecency" between men.PHOTO: ST FILE

Three court cases filed separately by three different men - all with one single goal in challenging the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises consensual sex between men - will be heard in November.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights activist Tan Seng Kee, a retired general practitioner better known as Roy Tan, said on Wednesday (Oct 9) that his lawyer M. Ravi from Carson Law Chambers had attended a pre-trial conference on Tuesday.

Dr Tan, 61, who filed the latest challenge against the law in September, said his case and two other similar cases have been scheduled to be heard on Nov 13, 15, 18, 20, 21 and 22.

read more

LGBT activist launches fresh High Court challenge to Section 377A

Dr Roy Tan, 61, a retired general practitioner, has lodged a High Court challenge to the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men. A long-time activist for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights in Singapore has mounted a fresh legal challenge to Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men.

Dr Roy Tan, a 61-year-old retired general practitioner, filed the application in the High Court on Saturday (Sept 21) through his lawyer M Ravi. The application contends that the provision is discriminatory and should be declared void by the court.

Dr Tan said in a media statement on Wednesday that his legal challenge is based on “novel arguments conceived by Mr Ravi”, who has been involved in various high-profile human rights cases. One of the arguments relates to what he called the “selective enforcement” of the law as to whether or not to prosecute a person under Section 377A.

read more

PM Lee: 377A will be around ‘for some time’

Section 377A of the Penal Code — the law that criminalises sex between men — will be around for some time, but this will not hinder Singapore's efforts to attract tech talent, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in response to a question on Wednesday (June 26)

He was answering an unidentified audience member at the Smart Nation Summit, who had asked about how the country’s regulations can be made more diverse to attract tech talent, including those with other sexual orientations.

The session, which was held at the Marina Bay Sands, also saw Mr Lee tackling audience questions that ranged from Singapore’s digital economy to his favourite durian.

On the issue of inclusiveness, Mr Lee said that Singapore has been open to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

read more

For or Against Section 377A

'Antiquated' law 377A should be repealed: Tommy Koh

Veteran diplomat Tommy Koh called again for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises gay sex, in an opinion piece published by The Straits Times on Monday (Sep 24).

The Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is one of the prominent personalities to have spoken out against the legislation after India's Supreme Court struck down a similar law early in September.

"I would encourage our gay community to bring a class action to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A," Professor Koh, 80, wrote in response to a Facebook post a day after the Indian ruling.

read more

Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore)

Section 377A is a Singaporean law criminalising sex between consenting adult men. The item of legislation was added to the Penal Code in the 1930s. The item remained part of the Singapore body of law after the Penal Code review of October 2007 that removed most of the other provisions in Section 377. The section is entitled Outrages on decency and reads:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

Its mother statute, Section 377, criminalised any sexual act that went "against the order of nature":

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.