Singapore's top court on Wednesday heard the first legal challenges to its colonial-era gay sex law since similar legislation was scrapped in India last year, an issue that divides the socially-conservative city-state.

Three activists are arguing that Section 377A, a rarely-used law under which a man found to have committed an act of "gross indecency" with another man could be jailed for up to two years, was unconstitutional. The law does not apply to lesbians.

Previous efforts to repeal the law in 2014 failed, but activists have been emboldened by the landmark Indian ruling, polls suggesting attitudes towards homosexuals are changing, and a perceived softening in tone from establishment figures.

"Homosexual males are not lesser Singaporeans. They...deserve the same respect and legal protection under the Constitution. Section 377A...violates those fundamental constitutional protections," Brian Choong, one of the three, said in a written submission seen by Reuters.

Wednesday's hearings, the first of a number to be heard over the coming weeks, were not open to the public. The Attorney-General's Chambers, acting as defendant, did not respond to a request for comment.

India scrapped its gay sex ban in September 2018, a landmark judgement that prompted celebrations across India and elsewhere in South Asia, where activists hoped to push for similar reform.

Gay sex is criminalised in about 70 countries globally, according to International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association.

Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has previously said that Singapore society "is not that liberal on these matters".

However, following the Indian decision, a prominent Singaporean diplomat called for challenges to the legislation while law minister K. Shanmugam said a "growing minority" wanted it repealed and that Singapore's laws should keep pace with societal change.

Recent surveys show there is growing acceptance of homosexuality. In a poll released in May by Singapore think-tank Institute of Policy Studies, opposition to gay marriage fell to 60%, down from 74 per cent&nbsp;in 2013.

In his submission filed by his lawyers, Choong also argues that recently declassified documents from the UK National Archives show that that original purpose of the law was to stamp out male prostitution and it should therefore not apply more broadly to all male homosexuals.

The ruling will be watched closely in neighbouring Malaysia where gay sex is also a crime and led to the conviction of prominent politician Anwar Ibrahim, who is now broadly seen as the country's prime minister-in-waiting.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Singapore's top court on Wednesday heard the first legal challenges to its colonial-era gay sex law since similar legislation was scrapped in India last year, an issue that divides the socially-conservative city-state.

Singapore's top court on Wednesday heard the first legal challenges to its colonial-era gay sex law since similar legislation was scrapped in India last year, an issue that divides the socially-conservative city-state. Three activists are arguing that Section 377A, a rarely-used law under which a man found to have committed an act of "gross indecency" with another man could be jailed for up to two years, was unconstitutional. The law does not apply to lesbians. Previous efforts to repeal the law in 2014 failed, but activists have been emboldened by the landmark Indian ruling, polls suggesting attitudes towards homosexuals are changing, and a perceived softening in tone from establishment figures. "Homosexual males are not lesser Singaporeans. They...deserve the same respect and legal protection under the Constitution. Section 377A...violates those fundamental constitutional protections," Brian Choong, one of the three, said in a written submission seen by Reuters. Wednesday's hearings, the first of a number to be heard over the coming weeks, were not open to the public. The Attorney-General's Chambers, acting as defendant, did not respond to a request for comment. India scrapped its gay sex ban in September 2018, a landmark judgement that prompted celebrations across India and elsewhere in South Asia, where activists hoped to push for similar reform. Gay sex is criminalised in about 70 countries globally, according to International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has previously said that Singapore society "is not that liberal on these matters". However, following the Indian decision, a prominent Singaporean diplomat called for challenges to the legislation while law minister K. Shanmugam said a "growing minority" wanted it repealed and that Singapore's laws should keep pace with societal change. Recent surveys show there is growing acceptance of homosexuality. In a poll released in May by Singapore think-tank Institute of Policy Studies, opposition to gay marriage fell to 60%, down from 74 per cent in 2013. In his submission filed by his lawyers, Choong also argues that recently declassified documents from the UK National Archives show that that original purpose of the law was to stamp out male prostitution and it should therefore not apply more broadly to all male homosexuals. The ruling will be watched closely in neighbouring Malaysia where gay sex is also a crime and led to the conviction of prominent politician Anwar Ibrahim, who is now broadly seen as the country's prime minister-in-waiting.

Singapore activists challenge gay sex ban in court after India ruling

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley Saturday said he did not agree with the portion of the historic Supreme Court judgment decriminalising consensual gay sex that called sexuality a part of free speech, as he felt it raises questions on restraining any form of homosexual or bisexual activity in a school hostel, prison or army frontier.

He also differed on a portion of the apex court ruling on adultery, saying it may end up converting the Indian family system into a Western family system.

On the Supreme Court allowing women's entry into the Sabarimala shrine, he said such a ruling cannot happen on select practices as it may have many social consequences.

Speaking at the HT Leadership Summit, Jaitley said the judgment decriminalising gay sex was fine but "the problem comes when writing these historical judgements, you get carried away and want to be part of history and therefore you go a step further".

He said he fairly agreed with the reasoning given by the court in the judgement that sexual activity is part of Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees right of life and that no discrimination on the basis of sex should be there, but added that he completely disagrees with the reasoning that sexual activity is part of free speech.

"Because I think that's little excessive and consequences of that may not be on decriminalisation. Free speech is entirely a different gambit, it can be restrained on the reasons of sovereignty, security, public order and so on and mind you there is tendency of creating new fundamental rights everyday.

"So when you convert this into a fundamental right and say its free speech then how do you restrain any form of sexual activity, homosexual or bisexual in a school hostel, prison, army frontier," he said.

Stating that this requires further debate, he said this reasoning was not necessary for deciding the case of Section 377 which decriminalised gay sex. 
On the Supreme Court ruling on adultery, he said some of the judges said these are matrimonial offences and personal wrongs and not public wrongs.

"So therefore it is outside the purview of criminal law. Would that cover bigamy or polygamy also which are personal wrong? Would that cover cruelty? Would that cover dowry offences? Now this logic covering them, then it would be a wholly anti-women judgement," he said.

He said he was not in dispute that the "very badly worded section" on adultery needed to be quashed but "the later view may find a reference in some western journals very favourably but it may end up converting Indian family system into Western family system where the fragility of marriage as an institution itself will increase.

"Therefore you probably require to debate the second part of the observation which again was not necessary for deciding this case."

On the Sabarimala ruling, Jaitley said if you want to take a progressive step, then Articles 14 and 21 will apply against all religions.

"It can't happen that you select a practice and apply it because that will have many many social consequences in pluralist society like India. If you start stepping into the religious practices and customs and say (Article) 14 must be tested on... Personal law and (Article) 14 must be tested in Article 21, then will it apply to polygamy? Will it apply to oral divorces? Will it apply to other religions where ladies are not allowed to enter religious places?

"If you have a selective practice and then you use an argument to say well we will decide this issue in some other case every time it arises. If you are being progressive and bold then it must be uniformly so and that does not seem to be happening....If you are willing to proclaim you must be willing to strike," he said.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley Saturday said he did not agree with the portion of the historic Supreme Court judgment decriminalising consensual gay sex that called sexuality a part of free speech, as he felt it raises questions on restraining any form of homosexual or bisexual activity in a school hostel, prison or army frontier.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley Saturday said he did not agree with the portion of the historic Supreme Court judgment decriminalising consensual gay sex that called sexuality a part of free speech, as he felt it raises questions on restraining any form of homosexual or bisexual activity in a school hostel, prison or army frontier. He also differed on a portion of the apex court ruling on adultery, saying it may end up converting the Indian family system into a Western family system. On the Supreme Court allowing women's entry into the Sabarimala shrine, he said such a ruling cannot happen on select practices as it may have many social consequences. Speaking at the HT Leadership Summit, Jaitley said the judgment decriminalising gay sex was fine but "the problem comes when writing these historical judgements, you get carried away and want to be part of history and therefore you go a step further". He said he fairly agreed with the reasoning given by the court in the judgement that sexual activity is part of Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees right of life and that no discrimination on the basis of sex should be there, but added that he completely disagrees with the reasoning that sexual activity is part of free speech. "Because I think that's little excessive and consequences of that may not be on decriminalisation. Free speech is entirely a different gambit, it can be restrained on the reasons of sovereignty, security, public order and so on and mind you there is tendency of creating new fundamental rights everyday. "So when you convert this into a fundamental right and say its free speech then how do you restrain any form of sexual activity, homosexual or bisexual in a school hostel, prison, army frontier," he said. Stating that this requires further debate, he said this reasoning was not necessary for deciding the case of Section 377 which decriminalised gay sex. On the Supreme Court ruling on adultery, he said some of the judges said these are matrimonial offences and personal wrongs and not public wrongs. "So therefore it is outside the purview of criminal law. Would that cover bigamy or polygamy also which are personal wrong? Would that cover cruelty? Would that cover dowry offences? Now this logic covering them, then it would be a wholly anti-women judgement," he said. He said he was not in dispute that the "very badly worded section" on adultery needed to be quashed but "the later view may find a reference in some western journals very favourably but it may end up converting Indian family system into Western family system where the fragility of marriage as an institution itself will increase. "Therefore you probably require to debate the second part of the observation which again was not necessary for deciding this case." On the Sabarimala ruling, Jaitley said if you want to take a progressive step, then Articles 14 and 21 will apply against all religions. "It can't happen that you select a practice and apply it because that will have many many social consequences in pluralist society like India. If you start stepping into the religious practices and customs and say (Article) 14 must be tested on... Personal law and (Article) 14 must be tested in Article 21, then will it apply to polygamy? Will it apply to oral divorces? Will it apply to other religions where ladies are not allowed to enter religious places? "If you have a selective practice and then you use an argument to say well we will decide this issue in some other case every time it arises. If you are being progressive and bold then it must be uniformly so and that does not seem to be happening....If you are willing to proclaim you must be willing to strike," he said.

SC ruling on 377: Disagree with reasoning that sexuality is part of free speech, says Arun Jaitley

article-377

Article 377, News on Article 377, stories on Article 377, articles on Article 377, Article 377 stories at Wion, Article 377 news, Article 377 latest news

article 377

Singapore activists challenge gay sex ban in court after India ruling

SC ruling on 377: Disagree with reasoning that sexuality is part of free speech, says Arun Jaitley