Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

5-2016

Abstract

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.

Keywords

criminalization of same-sex conduct, constitutional law, right to liberty, right to life, section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore), Singapore

Discipline

Asian Studies | Law and Society | Sexuality and the Law

Publication

Hong Kong Law Journal

Volume

46

Issue

1

First Page

49

Last Page

70

ISSN

0378-0600

Publisher

Hong Kong Law Journal Ltd.

Copyright Owner and License

Jack Tsen-Ta Lee

Additional URL

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2784274

Download

Share

COinS