Section 377A (Singapore)
[1] That same year, an Ipsos survey found that 44% of Singapore residents supported retaining the law, with 20% opposing it and the remaining 36% being ambivalent.
In the new Indian Penal Code, however, Section 377 criminalised "carnal intercourse against the order of nature", derived from words attributed to Sir Edward Coke in the seventeenth century.
[I]t is a fact of life, in humans as well as in animals, that before the act of copulation takes place there is foreplay to stimulate the sex urge.
In every other instance the act of fellatio between a man and a woman will be carnal intercourse against the order of nature and punishable under s 377.The Singaporean margin note of the original Section 377 further explained that mere penetration of the penis into the anus or mouth even without orgasm would constitute the offence.
[16]Its original mother statute, Section 377 (since repealed), criminalised any sexual act that went "against the order of nature":[17] Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) was quoted in The Straits Times of 18 September 2007 saying that public feedback on the issue had been "emotional, divided and strongly expressed", with a majority of people calling for Section 377A to be retained.
In response, a counter-petition on the website "Keep 377A"[20] was set up to give citizens a channel to voice support for the Government's retention of the law.
[22] Shortly after the Penal Code review report was released on 9 September 2018,[23] a movement known as Ready4Repeal launched a petition to campaign for Section 377A to be repealed, even though MHA and Ministry of Law said there were no plans to do so.
On 24 September 2010, criminal lawyer M. Ravi filed an application in the High Court to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A on behalf of his client Tan Eng Hong, who was charged for allegedly having oral sex with another consenting adult male in a locked cubicle of a public toilet.
[30] After Tan's successful appeal to be heard by the court, a separate constitutional challenge was filed on 30 November 2012 on behalf of Lim Meng Suan and Kenneth Chee Mun-leon, a gay couple of fifteen years, by attorney Peter Low.
[31][32] The case was heard in camera on 14 February 2013,[33] and decided against them by justice Quentin Loh on 9 April 2013, for much the same reasons as his decision against Tan (above).
[40] Compared to news of LGBT rights in other nations such as Russia and the United States, the case and final appeal received little attention outside Singapore.
[42] The Huffington Post featured Chee and Lim's story prominently under the headline "How One of the World's Richest Countries Is Limiting Basic Human Rights"[43] and Bloomberg also published an article on the ruling.
[44] After India's Supreme Court decriminalised sex between two people of the same sex, with Professor Tommy Koh encouraging a constitutional challenge of Section 377A and chief of Singapore government communications Mr Janadas Devan hoping that Section 377A would go,[45] several constitutional challenges have been brought to the Supreme Court.
The first challenge after India's ruling was filed on 10 September 2018 by Johnson Ong, known by stage name DJ Big Kid, and was based on Article 9 of the Constitution.
[46] The second challenge was filed by LGBT rights activist Choong Chee Hong in November 2018 and argues that Section 377A is inconsistent with Articles 9, 12 and 14 of the Constitution.
He also stated that there's no strong scientific evidence that a person's sexual orientation is unchangeable, and once again ruled that Parliament is the proper venue for repeal.
[1][52] On 21 August 2022, Prime Minister Lee announced during his 2022 National Day Rally speech that Section 377A would be repealed by the government.
This will bring the law into line with current social norms and, I hope, provide some relief to gay Singaporeans."
[5][6] On 29 November 2022, the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, which repealed Section 377A, passed in Parliament following a 10-hour debate that had begun the day prior.
[7] Hazel Poa and Leong Mun Wai, both Progress Singapore Party non-constituency Members of Parliament, declared that they would oppose the proposed amendment because they think a national referendum should be held to decide what constitutes marriage.
[55][56] The Law and Home Affairs Minister, K Shanmugam, told Parliament in November 2022 that only a "small" number of people were convicted under the section for private consensual acts between adults from 1988 until 2007, when enforcement effectively ceased outright.
