| Singapore not swayed by India gay sex ruling: minister |
 |
 |
| Monday, 06 July 2009 |
|
AFP
Legislation banning "carnal intercourse against the law of nature" is a remnant of British colonial rule in both countries. Last week, the Delhi High Court ruled that the 1860 statute banning consensual gay sex violated basic individual rights guaranteed by the constitution. But Singapore Law Minister K. Shanmugam said his country was unlikely to move towards decriminalisation of gay sex, as most of the public did not support such a move. "If the majority of our population is against homosexuality, then it's not for the government to say we are going to force something against the wishes of the people," the Today newspaper quoted Shanmugam as saying. He 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." Singapore's ban on gay sex punishes offenders with up to two years in jail, although it has rarely been enforced. In October 2007, Singapore legalised oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples, but lawmakers retained the ban on gay sex, rejecting a petition by gay rights activists to abolish the law. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said at the time that Singapore remains a conservative society and that abolishing the law could "send the wrong signal", prompting gay activists to push for legalisation of same-sex marriage. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gB6GGi_HnwqH7a-GUthZriIh_pvg Share this article:
Comments (6)
Joomla components by Compojoom
|
An Indian court's decision to repeal a ban on gay sex will not lead Singapore to overturn a similar colonial-era law, the city-state's law minister has been quoted as saying.Act Now
|
| ||||
SDP Publictaions
Support SDP , buy our 30th Anniversary Magazine here
| |||
Danny the Democracy Bear
| |||
Awesome Words
“Justice and power must be brought together, so that whatever is just may be powerful, and whatever is powerful may be just.”
Login
News feeds
My first reaction to the above statement was to laugh out [b]VERY LOUD[/b] indeed.
This is more of the same public disinformation that we can expect the liars in the PAP to come up with. There are only [b]two ways[/b] that Singapore's kangaroo courts could find themselves in any position to 'interpret [S 377a of the Penal Code in light of Article 12 of the Constitution]':
1. If [b]an individual Singaporean or a group of Singaporeans institute/s a constitutional challenge[/b] against S 377a. ([i]Note: This is the same [b]Captain Kangaroo[/b] who, with the SDP's pending court cases in mind, [b]disinformed Singaporeans[/b] in his New Year Assault at the Law Society by making the extravagant claim that [b]Parliament was the only way for laws to be changed[/b][/i].)
There are serious problems with the above procedure if followed in Singapore, namely, that a) public confidence in our kangaroo courts' integrity and independence from the Executive has been greatly eroded especially in politically motivated cases like the gay rights one is, and b) legal costs have been deliberately made prohibitive so that no one in Singapore who is not earning a cabinet minister's annual loot has access to justice in our kangaroo courts. Either way, gay Singaporeans are unlikely to (or unlikely to be able to) institute a constitutional challenge unlike our freer colleagues in India.
2. If [b]an individual or individuals within Singapore jurisdiction is/are prosecuted[/b] under S 377a.
Again, how is that going to happen when the PAP government has assured gay Singaporeans that S 377a will not be invoked - not that this is good enough for us - and thus creating no opportunity for the kangaroo courts to 'interpret the law'? (Can our kangaroo judges, particularly with an eye to their very generous monthly bribes from the PAP government, even match the same professional competence as their Indian counterparts to interpret the Constitution and produce a 150-page ruling? Our kangaroo judges' Indian counterparts are also sticklers for the rule of law unlike in Singapore where there is only contempt for the law.)
Captain Kangaroo's citing of the Indian precedent to give Singaporeans false hope in our justice system is dishonest on yet another count. The Naz Foundation, the Indian LGBT group that instituted the constitutional challenge, specifically recommended to the Delhi High Court (DHC) to 'read down' S 377a so as not to leave a legislative gap in cases of rape of minor boys or of non-consensual sex involving men of majority age; the DHC accepted this recommendation by the Naz Foundation as perfectly legitimate because gay rights is also about the rights against sexual violence against ANYONE in society.
The DHC also accepted the reccomendation because as it stands now, India's anti-rape laws only covers the rape of girls and women, but there is a recommendation to the Government of India to eventually enact gender-neutral anti-rape laws and eventually strike down S 377a.
The above is not the case in Singapore. Our anti-rape (including statutory rape) laws and are already gender-neutral. Thus, unlike in India, the Singapore Parliament will not encounter a situation where they will have to abide by a court ruling, which as I have already pointed out, is unlikely to happen under the PAP's spite for the rule of law.
Does Captain Kangaroo really expect Singaporeans to buy this latest round of crap coming from our thoroughly unprofessional and incompetent legal fraternity that is headed by himself and two other members of Singapore's Kangaroo Trio: Walter Woon and Chan Sek Keong?