Tan Eng Hong was fined S$3,000 by a district court on Tuesday for performing fellatio on another man in a public toilet in Citylink Mall, reported Singapore-based Channel NewsAsia on Wednesday.
Both their charges were 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.
Tan's lawyer M Ravi, who filed an application on behalf of his client to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code was rejected by the High Court last week. M Ravi told Fridae last week that he plans to appeal the High Court's decision.
讀者回應
If it was inside a cubicle I would have thought that to be a private place. Otherwise why are people not charged with exposing themselves in public and shitting in public?
If it was in full view of anyone who came into the toilet then they deserve to be charged however I am fairly confident that they would have been hidden from view. In which case why wasn't the complainant charged with breaching their privacy and looking into the toilet?
O Pls! have we all done some naughty sex in someway in some times? Don’t be prude.
For G’s suck, 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.
Like most people (and I will use the word 'normal' here), I use public toilets for their designed purpose. I am rather offended that two (or more) horny lads (it could be ladies were I tran, I guess) are having a go while I try to take a shite in the next cubical. Leave it where it belongs or you might pay in both monetary terms and in reputation...depending on enforcement, of course!
Ah huh and where did the word 'cottaging' originate in?
Dutch to legalise gay sex in public park
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ worldnews/1581598/ Dutch-to-legalise-gay-sex-in-public-park.html
請先登入再使用此功能。