The High Court of Singapore has on Monday rejected an application filed by lawyer M Ravi who sought to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code that prohibits sexual relations between men.
The prominent human rights lawyer had filed the legal action on behalf of his client Tan Eng Hong, who was originally charged under Section 377A for allegedly having oral sex with another consenting male in a public toilet. The charge was later reduced to one under Section 294 which provides for a jail term of up to three months, or fine, or both for "any obscene act in any public place." If convicted under Section 377A, he could face up to two years in jail.
In his 22-page submission, M Ravi sought to argue that although the applicant was eventually not prosecuted under 377A, he has the right to seek a declaration against an infringement of his constitutional rights.
"The applicant engages in conduct that, were 377A to be actively enforced, results in him being liable for conviction. Such conduct is a consequence of his sexual orientation, a scientifically immutable aspect of his personal identity. The applicant has a personal interest in living a dignified life free from something that he is not able to change. Such personal interest exists even in the absence of an actual prosecution of the applicant under the contested provision." M Ravi wrote in the submission.
Speaking with Fridae on Tuesday, M Ravi quoted the Assistant Registrar of the High Court as saying that the applicant did not have the standing for the case to proceed. He added that the Assistant Registrar said that Singapore law is different from Hong Kong, India and other Commonwealth jurisdictions whereby there's a very narrow ground to challenge the law. In his submission, M Ravi cited a successful unequal age of consent challenge (Leung T C William Roy v Secretary of Justice) in Hong Kong in 2006 where the applicant who was then aged 20 and not prosecuted under the law sought to equalise the age of consent for gay men as it was five years higher than for vaginal sex.
M Ravi also cited a 1996 case in which the Singapore Court of Appeal held that, "A citizen should not have to wait until he is prosecuted before he may assert his constitutional rights." In the case (Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister of Information and the Arts), the applicants were Jehovah's Witnesses seeking a judicial review against the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts' prohibition on the importation, sale and distribution of certain publications.
Last month, another man who has arrested in the same case as Tan was fined $3,000 after being convicted under Section 294 of the Penal Code.
M Ravi has told Fridae that he plans to appeal the High Court's decision.
列印版本
RSS Feed: 
讀者回應
"...the judge as saying that the applicant did not have the standing for the case to proceed." I think the judge did not want to bring an ass issue under his/her hearing. lol The police changed the charge to Section 294 away from 377A, their act was like a pussy girl. Not a man action. Perhaps their guns are not strong and hard enough to fuck ass. It showed to public they have are not man and not dare to bring 377A to court, perhaps they predicted the court would declare 377A unconstitution. Come on, dare to face the court as man, why so scared if you have cock to fuck pussy? lol
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 was masterbating in public toilet? does it fall under section 294??
To the numerous others who keep mumbling "ah what the hell, why bother if we can do things in our private little corner without raising hell?" or "yeah... but you have to understand all these older people who fear us because they don't understand us" and all that boneless blah blah... are you breathing well in those closets ? are you happy with being a half citizen ? are you ok with being "tolerated" and is that the life you want and wish for the next generations ?
And I like the way Reijiron is thinking. That is an incredibly compelling way to show the hipocracy of the law in the way they prosecute gays.
377A will only be removed when Singaporeans have classy gay men like the kind you find on TV living happily with their kids like in Modern Family or living on Wistoria Lane
its just a chance to give the gay sauna lobby something to do, I mean those guys don't do anything that you can't get a condom vending machine to do
its not a very popular case in the mainstream gay capable man community to support anyway
this younger facebook generation thinks we need more cops in the form of gay men and drag queens to keep things in check in the Singapore police force, I mean a gay Hawaii Five O vice squad would be nice
This challenge was about ANY use of S 377a. Tan was charged under that section and it presented us with an opportunity to challenge its constitutionality. If the AGC had proceeded with the charge, there was a fair chance that the charge would have to be dropped if S 377a were found to be unconstitutional and therefore null and void in law. But we all know what the cowards did: they thwarted the challenge by 'calibrating', to use their words, the charge to S 294.
(Interestingly, at the forum that Ravi recently held, he revealed that just a little while back, two men were charged in a seperate case under S 377a; both are either still serving or have finished serving their jail sentences. No calibration required there - calibration is only necessary tack when the Singapore courts are challenged.)
Now, does everyone remember this from last year?
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/2533-singapore-not-swayed-by-india-gay-sex-ruling-minister
[Quote]
[Singapore Law Minister K. Shanmugam] said however that Singapore's courts were free to interpret the law as the Indian court had done.
"We won't change the law, but how that is interpreted is up to the courts," the Straits Times quoted the minister as saying.
"It is not our position to tell the courts what to do."
[Endquote]
Ravi is cool and fun. He's also hot! Handsome, charismatic, nice arms (in that video of the forum), and he has the biggest wristwatch I have ever seen. He's also some one who takes action, like those 2 famous lawyers did in California, not waiting for those hand-wringers who write cool reports but never get the main job done, forever waiting for the right time that never arrives. Better they follow his lead and back him up with the facts he needs to win.
If this was a defence of toilet sex, you would see activists speaking out against S 294 instead.
This is about the use of S 377a which we have insisted is an illegal law, and which the Delhi High Court ruled India's equivalent of it to be so.
Those who don't understand why this is both legally and politically significant should take the pains to educate themselves about it instead of peddling falsehoods.
The govt refuses to put down the gun. It'd rather hold the gun but tell the gunman not to pull the trigger. It assures, "Don't worry, as long as the trigger isn't pulled, there's no danger luh!" Now, a clumsy gunman shouted loudly, "I am going to shoot hor! Ready! 1, 2..." This gave the target the opportunity to contest the the assurance.
So you guys should know whom to look for if you/your friends are charged under 377a. If you hear another clumsy gunman's shouting, give M Ravi a call.
請先登入再使用此功能。