littleworkpage

Tan Eng Hong v AG (2012) SGCA 45 is a case of immense significance and students of Constitutional Law will no doubt be referred to this case on the interpretation of Article 4 of our Constitution.  As much as there has been much talk about the 'victory' for the gay community in getting past the first hurdle in this attempt to have s.377A of the Penal Code declared void,  the fact is that this Court of Appeal decision has already become a landmark in relation to Article 4.  Whether the proceedings eventually lead to a declaration that s.377A is void or not, is something that we will have to wait and see.  The Article 4 issue Interestingly, the specific issue of whether Art 4 can be relied on was not raised at the High Court and the AG raised this argument only on appeal at the Court of Appeal.  So, thanks to the AG's Chambers we now have an authoritative pronouncement on the application of Article 4.  What does Article 4 say? Article 4 This Consti...

Whenever the Pink Dot event comes up or whenever the discussion of s.377A of our Penal Code arises (consensual sexual acts between men), I can't help but cast my eye on the other sexual offences in our Penal Code.  I can't help but feel that there is a certain 'moral' (using the word 'moral' in a loose 'state-citizen relationship' sense rather than in a traditional or 'religious' sense) inconsistency in the state's position.  The primary objective of giving power to the state to criminalise human conduct is to maintain order in society.  There is an assumption that where an individual might cause harm to another, there is an inherent possibility of society disorder if there is no mechanism for the control of such behaviour through the machinery of the state.  Criminal laws serve the function of controling such harmful behaviour.  S.377A of the Penal Code criminalises consensual sexual relations between 2 men even though no harm may be caused ...

The issue of whether punishment fits the crime has been the flavour of the week for me with two previous posts dealing with the question of corporal punishment for vandalism. Hot on the heels of that we have Dr Woffles Wu being fined $1000 for abetting in providing misleading information to the police in relation to a traffic offence. The facts as reported in the newspapers seem to suggest that after Woffles Wu had commited speeding offences, his elderly employee had admitted to the commission of the offences. When I first read that I assumed that Dr Wu would have been charged under the Penal Code. The obvious provision that I had in mind was s.182 of the Penal Code. False information, with intent to cause a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person 182. Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant to use...