Singapore society has to decide which direction it wants to take on laws against gay sex: Shanmugam
Decision on Section 377A ‘a matter for Parliament’: Shanmugam
Court challenge filed on 377A arguing that gay sex law ‘violates human dignity’
The current debate in Singapore is about repealing (or keeping) Section 377A of the Penal Code, which basically makes gay sex a crime.
The key debate, and most alarming point that should be noted, is that the government has made it a stance that while Section 377A is part of the Penal Code, they will not actively enforce it.
Decision to retain Section 377A ‘carefully considered, balanced’
For a country governed by the rule of law, this is an alarming statement. It is saying that while the laws, as set by the legislative (Parliament), reflect the decision of the people, since they choose the Parliament via voting, the government can ultimately choose which laws it will enforce. Which goes totally against the idea of democracy, in which the elected government is supposed to be carrying out the will of the people (as reflected by laws).
Are we a democracy, or not?
Are we going to allow the government to choose which laws to enforce, and which to ignore?
Are we going to allow the government to selectively apply the law?
Are we governed by the rule of law? Or are our laws merely decorations on the wall?
The case is not about the constitutionality of Section 377A. It is about the constitutionality of the government in its decision to not proactively enforce Section 377A. All of them have sworn to discharge their duties according to law. No where in the constitution does it say that the executive branch has the right of selective application of the laws.
Once it has been shown that the government must enforce all laws, then the question of discrimination comes in. Because the constitution states that:
Decision on Section 377A ‘a matter for Parliament’: Shanmugam
Court challenge filed on 377A arguing that gay sex law ‘violates human dignity’
The current debate in Singapore is about repealing (or keeping) Section 377A of the Penal Code, which basically makes gay sex a crime.
377A. 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.To me, the debate about discrimination, equal rights, etc. is valid, but weak.
The key debate, and most alarming point that should be noted, is that the government has made it a stance that while Section 377A is part of the Penal Code, they will not actively enforce it.
Decision to retain Section 377A ‘carefully considered, balanced’
For a country governed by the rule of law, this is an alarming statement. It is saying that while the laws, as set by the legislative (Parliament), reflect the decision of the people, since they choose the Parliament via voting, the government can ultimately choose which laws it will enforce. Which goes totally against the idea of democracy, in which the elected government is supposed to be carrying out the will of the people (as reflected by laws).
Are we a democracy, or not?
Are we going to allow the government to choose which laws to enforce, and which to ignore?
Are we going to allow the government to selectively apply the law?
Are we governed by the rule of law? Or are our laws merely decorations on the wall?
The case is not about the constitutionality of Section 377A. It is about the constitutionality of the government in its decision to not proactively enforce Section 377A. All of them have sworn to discharge their duties according to law. No where in the constitution does it say that the executive branch has the right of selective application of the laws.
Once it has been shown that the government must enforce all laws, then the question of discrimination comes in. Because the constitution states that:
12.—(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation targeting only men contravenes this.
So if it was up to me, I would focus on this two-step approach. Long-winded, maybe, but it forces us to address two issues: the executive branch's right to selectively enforce laws, and the discrimination against people based on sex and sexual orientation.
No comments:
Post a Comment