Singapore’s highest court yesterday upheld the country’s ban on gay sex. It reasoned that as authorities no longer enforce the ban, it cannot be ruled to violate anyone’s rights.
Local activists have filed numerous legal applications in recent years to try and get the ban dumped.
The legislation, known as Section 377A, dates back to colonial-era times. It threatens any man charged and found guilty with two years in jail. It doesn’t apply to women.
The Singapore High Court upheld the ban in 2020, with the judge saying even though it hasn’t been used in several years, it “serves the purpose of safeguarding public morality by showing societal moral disapproval of male homosexual acts.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Three local activists challenged this ruling in an appeals court. They say the ban is unconstitutional.
In a written judgment issued yesterday, Singapore’s Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon acknowledged the law had “long been a lightning rod for polarization” but said it did not breach the constitution.
Menon said it was “unenforceable” as Singapore authorities do not plan to prosecute anyone for having gay sex. The Attorney-General´s Chambers has previously said such prosecutions would not be in the public interest.
Because of this, Menon said Section 377A does not deprive a person of the right to life or personal liberty under Article 9 of Singapore’s constitution.
Although local activists are disappointed, they see a silver lining in the fact the judge, on record, said that Section 377A is “unenforceable.”
The lead applicant, Dr. Roy Tan, issued a statement in response to the ruling.
“I regard today’s Court of Appeal judgment on Tan Seng Kee vs. AG as a partial but significant victory for the LGBT community. Although, on the surface, it may be disheartening that the Apex Court has not ruled Section 377A unconstitutional, it has however declared the statute ‘unenforceable.’
“This will have numerous legal and social ramifications that will play out in the months and years to come … The judgment also exerts pressure on Parliament to debate the issue and decide whether or not to repeal 377A entirely – a law that is unenforceable cannot be on the statute books.”
Related: Gay sex ban in Singapore challenged by this man’s new legal action
Another of the applicants is Johnson Ong, a well-known local DJ, Big Kid.
In a statement, he said, “I am disappointed with the outcome but the ruling does not mean the end of the community’s pursuit for equality. I want to thank my fellow litigants, our respective legal counsels and everyone who has shown us overwhelming support over the years.
“I want to reiterate the devastating impact of S377A on the mental and physical well-being of the LGBTQ+ community. It encourages discriminatory treatment towards queer people and denies the equal rights and protection that LGBTQ+ Singaporeans deserve.”
Cam
That was the same excuse states like Alabama had for keeping laws against interracial marriage on the books into the 2000s
Jim
Singapore is all about the bucks. Maybe companies need to start rethinking there relationships with their city/state
MarcyMayer
My philosophy: Stay out of my bedroom and my wallet.
Polaro
Very disappointing, but Singapore is a authoritarian country.
Fahd
Let’s hope Singapore’s gay legal minds keep working on this one. Something that is “unenforceable” shouldn’t be a statute or law, so new cases pursuing new legal arguments building on the opportunities afforded by this ruling can make further inroads. Battles for civil rights often are protracted, especially in essentially fascist states that only grudgingly make concessions to the rule of law.
radiooutmike
The ban is “unenforceable” because they are choosing not to enforce it now. That does not mean it will continue to be not used in the future.
If they’re not using the ban get it off the books. Otherwise whenever they need societal scapegoats they’ll start arresting homosexuals.
Kangol2
So long as it’s on the books it can be enforced. it should be struck down. As Polaro says, though, Singapore is an authoritarian state and a different leader than the current one most surely could decided to enforce this draconian, anti-gay law.
And then there’s this statement, which shouldn’t be overlooked: “The legislation, known as Section 377A, dates back to colonial-era times. It threatens any man charged and found guilty with two years in jail. It doesn’t apply to women.” A Victorian-era anti-gay law, described perfectly!
Yet again, Britain’s colonial clutches threaten the lives of people thousands of miles away.
MarcyMayer
“It doesn’t apply to women.”
In some circumstances, women have it better than men.
john.k
It’s said that the reason lesbian sex was not included in the original British prohibition of gay sex was that Queen Victoria refused to believe that women engaged in such activities. I don’t know whether or not that story is true.
Thad
Pennsylvania can’t even get unenforced antiquated anti-gay laws off the books! My state representative, Mike Zabel, tried. The Republican majority rejected the move. If we can’t do it in the USA, Singapore has no chance.
Gordon of the Bassets
They want to keep it on the books for some future possible use. Probably unenforced at the moment because a grandson of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, LEE Kuan Yew, is gay and married* to another man.
Said grandson has kindly changed the spelling of his family name to LY.
The Lee family still pretty-well runs Singapore.
*A marriage not recognised in Singapore.