Former Chief Justice Says Section 377A Is Outdated And Discriminates Against Males

In case you don’t know what 377A is, here it is:

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.

Which is widely interpreted as “male gay sex = jail”. Note that I say male gay, cause 377A only applies to males.

But let me tell you a little story about a kid.

This kid went around telling people he was homosexual. You see, he was the self-proclaimed smart kid that went around reading random shit. “Homo” is Latin for “man”. “Hetero” was Greek for “different”.

Naturally, as the manliest of men, he went around telling people he was homosexual. In fact, because kids were stupid, going around with the idea “homo = man, therefore calling yourself homo = manly” seemed to work well in rallying groups of boys to start calling themselves homo.

That didn’t seem to sit well with adults, and the funny thing is when they tried to explain what homo means, the kids not only didn’t understand anything, they also couldn’t logically explain why gay sex was bad.

Anyway, enough of the kids. Let’s go into what former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong says about 377A.

Unequal Treatment Violates Equality

Remember the thing I said about 377A applying only to males?

In his 72 page paper, he said that it violates the fundamental rights of all to equality, citing Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

Chan says that law based on sex or gender must be rational. For example, if Parliament bans women from smoking, then there must be some kind of reason, like medical research showing women more susceptible to cancer from smoking.

Me: But what about National Ser-

Wrong Interpretation 377A’s Purpose

In 2013, there was the case of Lim Meng Suang who launched a legal bid against 377A, but the judge upheld the law on the reason that the purpose of the law was to criminalise male homosexual conduct, as such behaviour was not acceptable or desirable here.

But according to Chan, 377A was in fact enacted in 1938 to be a law against male prostitution. According to crime reports, male prostitution was “rife” and posed a problem back then for law and order, public morality and wholesome government.

Which, if you look at 377A’s paragraph alone, seems to make some kind of sense.

I mean the part where they say “no prostitution” is “abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of“, which is basically half of the entire paragraph.

Gahmen Sees No “Legitimate State Purpose” In Enforcement

In 2007, “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals” was repealed while 377A was retained.

Chan says the decision not to repeal was based on a misunderstanding of what the section meant.

He also noted that MPs were not asked to vote on it as the gahmen already decided “well before the parliamentary sitting that it would not repeal Section 377A, but at the same time not enforce it”.

To Chan, not enforcing it implies that the gahmen sees no “legitimate state purpose” in criminalising or prosecuting male homosexual conduct, and in 2007 had effectively become invalid in their eyes.

And to me, this is basically like the expired can of sardines I keep in my cupboard for no reason. It’s not like I’ll use it cause it’s expired, but I guess I’ll just leave it there just for the giggles.

Three Court Challenges To Be Heard In November 2019

One is from Dr Tan, a retired general practitioner who helped organise the first Pink Dot event in 2009. The second is disc jockey Mr Johnson Ong Ming, and the third Mr Bryan Choong, former executive director of LGBT non-profit organisation Oogachaga.

But whether section 377A will ever be repealed remains to be seen.