Penal Laws

Question: What is Penal Laws? Answer: Definition: According to sec 377A of the Penal code of Singapore, if any male person, in public place or in private does any act of gross indecency with another male person, then those persons shall be punished with imprisonment which may be extended to two years. This particular section of the concern statute deals with sex between men, that is gay sex. This section does not apply to women. Homosexuality is an offence under the penal statute of Singapore. Oral sex also falls within the purview of this section. Females are exempted from this section. Issues: Sec. 377A starts with a moral question, that is do homosexuals in our society should have the right to have sex in private. Few more question arises like what is the actual role and value of sex in the society, the right of the human beings should be interfered or not, should people go against the nature. These questions cannot be answered by staying within the scope of law. On ethical views it can be gathered that going against the nature cannot be the ethic of any human being, but the other part of the coin says that maintaining self dignity by not let others to interfere in any ones personal issues can be a good ethic. In social phenomena it can be considered that a person can do anything unless he or she does not violate the right of any other person. In a country like United States America homosexuality is legal but in the present society of Singapore still it is not adaptable. This provision conducts the sexual willingness of a good number of homosexual persons. But non applicability of this provision may change the present situation of the society (dna, 2014). Arguments for upholding Sec. 377A: The highest court in Singapore has rejected the submission against section 377A, which contained section 377A contravenes the law of the land that is the Constitution. In a 101 pages judgment the Honble court has clearly mentioned that section 377A is not unconstitutional and does not violate Art. 9 and Art. 12 of the constitution. The Honble court stressed on the legal guidelines and legitimacy of the provision and avoided those part of the submission indicating social and moral ethics (Straitstimes.com, 2014). The Honble court held that the concern provision does not violates Art. 9, as right to life and liberty means liberty of a person from any unlawfull incarceration, it does not signify the right of an individual of personal autonomy. The court also held that the provision does not falling within the scope of Art. 12 of the constitution as Art. 12 deals with the discrimination based on religion, race, and place of birth, which is specifically mentioned in that provision but the re is nothing mentioned regarding gender or sexual orientation (Lee, 2014). The three judge court has has observed and judged that section 377A is constitutional and does not violate any of the provisions of human rights vested by the concern law of Singapore (Tan Tan, 2014). Homosexuality is now an increasing menace for the traditional Singapore society and it should not be tolerated and the law should be supportive to the moral values of more individuals not the lesser ones, and the laws are framed by keeping in mind the welfare of the individuals (Uk.reuters.com, 2014). On 29th October, 2014, the Court of Appeal, Singapore has declared section 377A as constitutional and completely valid, and shall be in force (SAYS.com, 2014). Arguments against upholding sec. 377A: The constitution of the country says that there shall be no discrimination among the citizens and each of them shall be treated as equal. But Sec. 377A discriminate among males and females as this section is applicable only for men (Anheier, Juergensmeyer Faessel, 2012). Tan Eng hong was the first person who has challenged sec. 377A before the Ld. Court at Singapore, as he was cought in doing oral sex in a public toilet, two years later Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee, a gay couple challenged the above mentioned provision. They argued that Article 9 of the constitution guarantees that every person shall have the right to life and personal liberty, and article 12 of the constitution says that all persons are equal before the law and every one shall have the right to equal protection of law. Section 377A of the statute not only violates the right to equality by making discrimination among males and females but it also infringes the right to personal liberty as enjoying sex life is a very pe rsonal and delicate issue (The Economist, 2014). UN human rights office says that criminalizing an individual on the basis of his or her sexual preferences violates the human rights guaranted by the UN (Gaystarnews.com, 2014). Sec. 377 of the same statute which states that if any person does any sexual intercourse against the order of the nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term which may be extended to 10 years or with fine or with both, this section has been already repealed by the Penal code (amendmend ) Act, 2007 and a newly framed section 377 has been introduced (National Library Board, 2007). A petition to repeal sec. 377A has been presented by the Nominated Member Of the Parliament, in that petition the petitioner argued that the concern provision makes discrimination against homosexuals and bisexuals and it is unconstitutional, it contravenes art 9 and art. 12 of the constitution, they also argued that a person al act of any person should not be criminalized as it does not infringes the rights of any other individual (Essays in Singapore Legal History., 2005). In a country like Singapore homosexuality is not so popular and most the persons are not comfortable to being gays, but it does not signifies that they wants homosexuals to be penalized though it does not even affects the right of any other individual (Quora.com, 2014). References dna, 'Singapore's highest court upholds law criminalising gay sex | Latest News Updates at Daily News Analysis'. in , , 2014, https://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-singapore-s-highest-court-upholds-law-criminalising-gay-sex-2030294 [accessed 10 February 2015]. Essays in Singapore Legal History.. in , , 2005. Gaystarnews.com, 'Content about Section 377A of the Penal Code | Gay Star News'. in , , 2014, https://www.gaystarnews.com/topics/Section%20377A%20of%20the%20Penal%20Code [accessed 10 February 2015]. Lee, H, 'Section 377A of Penal Code upheld in Constitutional challenge'. inThe Online Citizen, , 2014, https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/10/section-377a-of-penal-code-upheld-in-constitutional-challenge/ [accessed 10 February 2015]. National Library Board, S, 'Penal Code section 377A | Infopedia'. inEresources.nlb.gov.sg, , 2007, https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1639_2010-01-31.html [accessed 10 February 2015]. Quora.com, 'Why does the Singapore government choose to retain section 377A when the law is said to be not enforced? - Quora'. in , , 2014, https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-Singapore-government-choose-to-retain-section-377A-when-the-law-is-said-to-be-not-enforced [accessed 10 February 2015]. SAYS.com, 'Singapore's Highest Court Upholds Ban On Sodomy, Says Section 377A Is Constitutional'. in , , 2014, https://says.com/my/news/singapore-s-highest-court-upholds-ban-on-sodomy-says-section-377a-is-constitutional [accessed 10 February 2015]. Straitstimes.com, 'Court of Appeal rules that Section 377A that criminalises sex between men is constitutional'. in , , 2014, https://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-crime/story/court-appeal-rules-section-377a-criminalises-sex-between-men-const [accessed 10 February 2015]. Tan, J, J Tan, 'LGBT community shocked and disappointed by Section 377A verdict'. inYahoo News Singapore, , 2014, https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-supreme-court-upholds-constitutionality-of-section-377a-criminalising-gay-sex-080706731.html [accessed 10 February 2015]. Uk.reuters.com, 'Singapore upholds law that criminalises gay sex'. in , , 2014, https://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/29/uk-singapore-lawmaking-idUKKBN0II10J20141029 [accessed 10 February 2015].