In Lim Meng Suang v Attorney-General (2014), the Singapore Court of Appeal held that s 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises acts of “gross indecency” between men whether occurring in public or private, does not infringe either the rights to equality and equal protection guaranteed by Art 12(1), or the rights to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Art 9(1) of the Constitution. This article examines the analyses of the latter provision by the Court of Appeal in Lim Meng Suang, and by the High Court in Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General (2013) which was one of the two cases brought before the Court of Appeal. It is submitted the courts interpreted Art 9(1) narrowly due to the belief that it is not their role to subject government policies to rigorous constitutional scrutiny for compliance with fundamental liberties, particularly where such policies are seen as dealing with socially controversial issues. However, the time is ripe for the Court to discover afresh its role as a coequal branch of the government.
criminalization of same-sex conduct, constitutional law, right to liberty, right to life, section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore), Singapore
Asian Studies | Law and Society | Sexuality and the Law
Law, Society and Governance
Hong Kong Law Journal
Hong Kong Law Journal Ltd.
LEE, Jack Tsen-Ta.
The limits of liberty: The crime of male same-sex conduct and the rights to life and personal liberty in Singapore: Lim Meng Suang v Attorney-General  1 SLR 26. (2016). Hong Kong Law Journal. 46, (1), 49-70. Research Collection School Of Law.
Available at: http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1923
Copyright Owner and License
Jack Tsen-Ta Lee
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.