By Shah
Salimat | Yahoo!
Newsroom – 19 hours ago
An application to repeal the part of Singapore law criminalising
male gay sex was heard in the High Court Thursday
morning.
The case to repeal section 377A of the Penal
Code on
the basis of a constitutional breach was filed by graphic designers
Gary Lim, 44, and Kenneth Chee, 38, who are in a 15-year
relationship. The section criminalises acts of “gross indecency”
between two consenting men, with a jail term of up to two
years.
In a closed-door hearing, the couple’s lawyers – Peter Low, Choo
Zheng Xi and Indulekshmi Rajeswari – argued before Justice
Quentin Loh that the law was “absurd, arbitrary and
unreasonable” as it violated Article 12 of the Singapore
constitution which states that all persons are entitled to equal
protection by law.
They also noted that the section’s unlawfulness was due to
differences that were not easily understood such as vague, broad
specifications of “acts of gross indecency”, and that the law only
criminalises acts by men.
The lawyers also argued the section was absurd as it criminalises
an “innate and immutable” identity.
Debate over the repeal intensified in January after a pastor
campaigned for the law to be kept,prompting the Attorney-General Chambers (AGC) to
release a note urging
the public not to comment on the case.
Section 377A also applies to heterosexuals: AGC
In their rebuttal to the arguments of the gay couple’s lawyers, the
AGC said that the law does not state that the section only targets
gay men, but men as a whole. This means that heterosexuals and
bisexuals will also be charged under the law, they
said.
The AGC also said that section 377A “has the clearly-stated purpose
of reflecting public morality”, despite the gay couple’s lawyers
arguing that the male-only law means that sex between females was
under public morality by the government.
“Although Parliament has chosen to retain the wording of Section
377A which does not encompass homosexual acts between females, this
decision strikes a legitimate balance between the moral norms of
the majority and the interests of homosexuals,” argued the AGC,
represented by lawyers Aedit Abdullah, Sherlyn Neo and Jeremy
Yeo.
The hearing was the second time the ruling was constitutionally
challenged in court in recent years but the first without a
criminal charge underlying it. In September 2010, lawyer M. Ravi
filed a challenge towards section 377A on behalf of his client, Tan
Eng Hong who was charged for allegedly having oral sex with another
consenting adult male in a public toilet’s locked
cubicle.
The couple’s lawyers noted that section 377A causes “tangible harm”
to affected members of the population by limiting HIV outreach and
causing psychological damage. However, supporting affidavits by HIV
outreach expert Professor Roy Chan and counselor for homosexual men
Bryan Choong were rejected by the judge.
An open court hearing is not normally held for constitutional
challenges as no witnesses are to be questioned and arguments are
legal in nature. The high court has reserved judgment over the case
and is expected to deliver its verdict at a later date.
