Chin Chee Shyong was convicted under Section 294 of the Penal Code on Wednesday for having oral sex with another man in a shopping mall toilet cubicle on March 9.
The Straits Times said the police received a call from a waiter working at a nearby cafe who had complained of two men having oral sex in the toilet. The waiter and a colleague went to the toilet where the latter recorded the pair having sex on video. The pair however had left the toilet before the police arrived.
Shortly after, the complainant called the police again when he saw another two men entering the toilet. Police then confronted Chin and his partner Tan Eng Hong, 47, and asked the two to come out of the cubicle.
The Times reported on Wednesday: “Sensing a delay, Sergeant Mohd Faizal Bin Rosli climbed on top of the toilet bowl in the third cubicle and saw Tan, wearing only his shirt, throwing an unrolled condom into the toilet bowl. Sgt Faizal told Tan not to flush and to open the door.
“When Tan opened the door, Sgt Faizal climbed on top of the toilet bowl in the second cubicle and saw Chin putting on his socks. When grilled by police, Tan admitted to performing fellatio on Chin. The two were arrested.”
Chin’s charge was amended from Section 377A, which prohibits sexual relations between men and imposes a jail term of up to two years, to Section 294A which imposes a jail term of up to three months, or with fine, or with both.
In September, gay advocacy group People Like Us in a statement with regards to Tan's case urged the state to use “gender-neutral laws, so that whether the specifics are same-sex or opposite-sex, there is parity in treatment."
Tan has not been sentenced and is presented by M Ravi who filed an application in the High Court to challenge the legality of Section 377A.
According to Today newspaper on Sept 24, 2010, Ravi said in his eight-page application: "The continuance of Section 377A on the statute book operates to brutalise a vulnerable minority segment of the citizenry for no fault on its point. A section of society has been thus criminalised and stigmatised to a point where individuals are forced to deny the core of their identity and vital dimensions of their personality."
列印版本
RSS Feed: 
讀者回應
I know that it's "thrilling" to do it in public places but I agree with #1, do it somewhere private where you can really enjoy hot man sex
Many were arrested over the years. Public sexual acts of any nature are a criminal act in most societies.
I think that sex in public is forbidden in most countries. Unfortunately, Singapore still discriminates against its gay population and it's about time to stop that.
Remember ..better to disobey the police rather than give them evidence...also..deny deny deny..never give in to inducement.. you lose...anyhow..
Remember..disobey..get rid of evidence first........and deny deny...refuse to admit..or tell.. protect yourself and the other...
Accept the offer of the 3some earlier... edresh... in his place....
Boycott that cafe... maybe some other ( legal) action to make the point..? at the cafe !
Eh...Shit happens...some people get a kick out of it by bathroom cubicles ;;shrugs;;
Even in the animal kingdom, the male species would be willing to risk their lives to procreate. This is natural.
Now, as for having sex in public toilet cubicle, it's probably not the most ideal of all situations to do it, but as many of you know, when you have got to have it, you've got to have it. It's call being horny. And when you are horny, your judgment is clouded. Throughout history, men of all sexual preferences, have jeopardize their positions and careers because their judgments were clouded by lust. Just ask George Michael. But in his case, that was entrapment. Very different from this case.
In this case, a waiter and subsequently his colleague not only noticed the two gay men behaving strangely, it was so obvious that they decided to follow the two guys and call the police. Later, they even videotaped the act. What is this?
Come on! It’s wrong man.
Reeks of "oral-sex-envy". Who did the two gay men harmed? What happened to "Live-and-let-live"?
No one, that’s who.
No child was involved.
Two consenting adults and our government wants to tell us who, when, where we can have sex?
I hope all gay men in Singapore have learned their lesson from this case.
I don't think having sex with my fellow gay men is wrong.
However, when in “Rome” .... be discreet. Very very discreet.
What do you do then???
I wonder what the fine is for manslaughter??
To ferribal #4
"You are never going to change the PAP and the heartland, let alone the law. "
Of course you wont... especially if you give up without even trying
And I must say, the actions of the waiter and his buddy are highly disturbing.
Agreed with the majority of the comments here about the risks and consequences of public sex. The chance that you may get caught is probably what makes it hot, but I guess not so much when you actually DO get caught. And really, in a shopping mall toilet stall? That's just kind of trashy, gay or straight.
still all the same if you do this in a public toilet with a lot of people around...........well it is risky.
still all the same if you do this in a public toilet with a lot of people around...........well it is risky.
indeed it is strange that one was fined and the other escaped ?
plenty of places for a quicky
look me up if u r free ...
WINK WINK
When the case went to court, the judge threw the case out as the police committed an illegal act: filming people in the toilet. What happened if there are other innocent people around.
By the way, though public toilet is not private but it is semi private. It is not like having sex on the street or in the park. That is only my opinion
I don't support public sex, personally I think it's more enjoy able doing it at home or in a hotel. However, I do believe in people rights. I am wondering if this were a male and female would anybody even care?
1) consensual gay sex between adults in their private places is generally tolerated;
2) gay sex in public places, particularly where members of the public (including school children and straight adults) --whether consensual and whether only adults are involved --is generally NOT tolerated;
3) gay sex involving minors (children)--whether consensual and whether done in a private place--is generally NOT tolerated;
4) gay sex involving prohibited drugs--whether consensual, whether done in a private place, and whether only adults are involved--is generally NOT tolerated.
So, if you are HIV-negative and have sex:
A) with consensual partners;
B) who are adults;
C) in a private place; and
D) without prohibited drugs or substance abuse,
you should be quite well-tolerated in Singapore.
There is no reason for you to knowingly cross the line as described above in points #2-#4 if you value your freedom, reputation and hard-earned savings. There is also much room for you to enjoy a satisfying sex life by adhering to points A-D. So, I think those who knowingly choose to have sex in public toilets should be punished when there are so many other options open to them which allow them to both enjoy sex and show respect to other members of the public who may feel offended by their acts. They are also contributing to the gay community's negative publicity if news of such acts become exploited by malicious tabloids to feed those bigoted readers' ego.
*Persons who had been diagnosed as being HIV-positive must comply with certain legal obligations.
is a toilet cubicle considered public or private?
For i know installing cameras in toilets is a crime
secondly
i think 2 other offences were commited here.
1. Taking a film of 2 guys having sex in a private cubicle.
2. Climbing over a partition to peek into a cubicle for whatever reason.
i do feel the 2 individuals privacy was violated
If they didn't admit to doing anything - could they still be charged?
and if no anal sex occured the law can't prosecute them -
But to the two guys - if u have to take ur socks off to get your rocks off, get a hotel room. Even tho it might seem kinky to have sex in public.
Safe and happy sex everyone!
granted really horny, cannot stand anymore, do quietly la guys pls.
I find every party here extremely pathetic!
1) Chin Chee Shyiong & Tan Eng Hong should NOT have done it the public toilet. That show PLUs are desperate & uncivilised. Hello??! Go & chk in hotel or saunas!!! They should know jolly well that sex in public (incl Pearl's Ctr ) is never an option to anyone here, whether u're heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transexual, etc.
2) That darn 2 waiters should be charged for being peeping toms!! Or could it be Chin may have rejected his advances earlier...? Hmm... sweet revenge..?
3) Sgt Faizal should give several firm warning and just kick the cubicle door open since the two were too panic too react. In movies, cops dun climb on toilet seat to perpetually ask the 'accused' to please open the door..?
Please guys, let's be more civilized. Our society is opening up and that is partly because we have several prominent figures who did well & contribute the economy's success. Let's behave in PUBLIC, shall we?
On serious note, always get a hotel number at hand.
On serious note, always get a hotel number at hand.
U r indeed silly. The crime here is indecent act in a public place, regardless of sex.
Anyway, agree on the statement that the waiter and his fren shd be charged too. The same goes to the police man who peep into the cubicle. I seriously think the defendant stands a good chance to fight but too bad we asians are always afraid of public attention. Which is why we are very far behind in terms for gay right revolution compared to our western counterparts.
I agree that an obscene act peformed in "public place" where people can view the complete act by walking pass should not be allowed.
But in a privacy of a cubical should not be classified as "public place" otherwise we will be considered shitting in "public place", urinating in "public place" are we not?
We pay for hotel room to use the facility. We pay for certain toilets to use the facility. If you can be charged for private act in the privacy of toilet cubicle under section 294 means one can also be charged under section 294 when same act is done in hotel room?
What if someone masterbates in a toilet cubicle? does it fall under section 294???
O Pls! have we all done some naughty sex in someway in some times? Don’t be prude.
For G’s sack, he is just sex in CUBICLE, it is not really “in public”. If they a man and women? Were they calling police? S’gapore catches up, don’t be too conservative.
Anyway S$3,000 fined. It is ridiculous.
請先登入再使用此功能。