Legal Background & References
Following are some references to the relevant provisions in Singaporean law pertaining to this debate and also some examples of landmark rulings made by foreign judges when the call to repeal similar laws was made.
• Excerpt from the Constitution Of The Republic Of Singapore:
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
PART II, THE REPUBLIC AND THE CONSTITUTION
Supremacy of Constitution
4. This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
PART IV, FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES
Equal protection
12. —(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
• Excerpt from the Penal Code Of The Republic Of Singapore:
PENAL CODE
Unnatural offences.
Unnatural offences.
377. Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.
Outrages on decency.
377A. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.
OTHER REFERENCES
“Only in the most technical sense is this a case about who may penetrate whom where. At a practical and symbolical level it is about the status, moral citizenship and sense of self?worth of a significant section of the community. At a more general and conceptual level, it concerns the nature of the open, democratic and pluralistic society contemplated by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (the constitution).”
Sachs J in National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and another v Minister of Justice and Others (1998) 6 BHRC 127 at 163 (paragraph 107) (Constitutional Court, South Africa), cited in Leung TC William Roy v Secretary for Justice by Hartman J, 1st instance, HCAL 160/2004 at page 26 and Ma CJ in Court of Appeal of High Court, CACV317/2005 at page 22.
The case of Leung TC William Roy v Secretary for Justice in the territory of Hong Kong SAR resulted in the laws being struck down:
Aug 25, 2005: Hong Kong Standard: Sodomy is no longer criminal, court rules
In a landmark decision, the High Court ruled Wednesday that current laws on the age of consent discriminate against homosexuals.
Justice Michael Hartmann acted in favor of William Leung, 20, who launched a Judicial Review against the government for what he considered unfair laws against gays
[Read full article]
NB - this ruling was tested and upheld in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal in July 2007.
[Read full artcile]