🕷️ Crawler Inspector

URL Lookup

Direct Parameter Lookup

Raw Queries and Responses

1. Shard Calculation

Query:

Response:

Calculated Shard: 118 (from laksa112)

2. Crawled Status Check

Query:

curl -X POST \
  'http://laksa118.int.ahrefs:8124/' \
  -H 'Content-Type: text/plain' \
  -H 'X-ClickHouse-Database: crawler3' \
  -H 'Authorization: Basic YXBpOg==' \
  -d 'SELECT getAhrefsURLFromUnparsed(src_unparsed) AS found_url, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(download_stamp), 0) AS crawl_time, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(props_url_first_seen), 0) AS first_indexed_time, download_http_code AS http_code, src_unparsed AS src_unparsed, src_root_hash AS src_root_hash, history_drop_reason AS history_drop_reason, meta_title AS meta_title, meta_descriptions AS meta_descriptions, attrs_boilerpipe_text AS attrs_boilerpipe_text, attrs_markdown AS attrs_markdown, attrs_readable_markdown AS attrs_readable_markdown, meta_canonical AS meta_canonical FROM crawler3.page_info_local FINAL PREWHERE (src_root_hash, src_unparsed) IN ((getAhrefsRootHashFromUnparsed(getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://augustlaw.com.sg/repealing-section-377a/\')), getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://augustlaw.com.sg/repealing-section-377a/\'))) FORMAT JSONEachRow'

Response:

{"found_url":"https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/repealing-section-377a\/","crawl_time":1776150057,"first_indexed_time":1677830898,"http_code":200,"src_unparsed":"sg,com,augustlaw!\/repealing-section-377a\/ s443","src_root_hash":"2495242571285621918","history_drop_reason":null,"meta_title":"Repealing Section 377A - August Law Corporation, Advocates & Solicitors of Singapore","meta_descriptions":["What constitutional challenge does Section 377A of the Penal Code face? In Singapore the recent proposal to reform the Penal Code has once again left s 377A untouched. However, elsewhere the equivalent section has been invalidated. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India struck down a provision similar to s 377A, generating widespread"],"attrs_boilerpipe_text":"What constitutional challenge does Section 377A of the Penal Code face?\nIn Singapore the recent proposal to reform the Penal Code has once again left s 377A untouched. However, elsewhere the equivalent section has been invalidated. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India struck down a provision similar to s 377A, generating widespread public discussion in Singapore.\nInspired by the Indian decision, a fresh constitutional challenge has been brought against the provision in the High Court of Singapore. Such a challenge was also urged by Singapore’s Ambassador-at-Large Professor Tommy Koh.\nWhat is the problem with s 377A?\nS377A’s sister provision, s 377, was repealed in 2007 as the government deemed it to be archaic. Its repeal decriminalised oral and anal sex between two consenting male and female persons in private. In contrast, s 377A punishes such acts between two consenting males regardless of whether it is committed in public or private.\nSome commentators have described s 377A as a “calculated move to criminalise private sexual conduct between males”.  Others described criminalising consensual sex between males as “absurd” and “arbitrary” and against “human dignity”.\nPast constitutional challenges\nThere have been two constitutional challenges against s 377A in the last decade – \nLim Meng Suang v Attorney-General \n[2013] 3 SLR 118 (“Lim Meng Suang”) and \nTan Eng Hong v Attorney-General \n[2012] 4 SLR 476 (“Tan Eng Hong”). Both challenges argued that s 377A should be struck down as they conflict with Articles 9 and 12 of our Constitution.\nArticle 9\nArticle 9 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.” In \nTan Eng Hong\n, the applicant argued that “life and personal liberty” encompassed “privacy, human dignity, individual autonomy and the human need for an intimate personal sphere”. However, the court rejected this argument citing that “life and personal liberty” had been narrowly defined by past cases.\nArticle 12\nArticle 12 enshrines equality before the law and that all persons are entitled to the equal protection of the law. In \nLim Meng Suang\n, the applicant argued that Article 12 prevented discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, the High Court rejected the argument as the wording only pertains to discrimination based on “religion, race, descent or place of birth” and not sexual orientation. In its concluding remarks, the court highlighted that this is a matter that involved societal values which had been heavily debated in parliament and should therefore not be decided by the courts.\nSo what’s new?\nNews reports\n suggest that this challenge will be based on the argument that criminalising consensual sex between males is “absurd”, “arbitrary” and against “human dignity”, and will be supported by expert scientific evidence showing that sexual orientation is “unchangeable or suppressible at unacceptable personal cost”.\nIn \nTan Eng Hong\n, the court leaned toward the proposition that “law” in Article 9 should include fundamental rules of natural justice. Although what is a fundamental rule of natural justice has not been defined, the court held that laws must not be arbitrary or absurd. In that case, Quentin Loh J concluded that the literature on the issue remains “divided and inconclusive at best”, such that it could not be proven that homosexuality was “tied to a natural and immutable human attribute”.\nThe new constitutional challenge will apparently seek to advance expert testimony to prove that homosexuality is “unchangeable or suppressible at unacceptable personal cost”. While five years ago, medical and scientific literature was insufficient to convince the court, things may be different today. With expert witnesses taking the stand this time round, perhaps the court may be persuaded to depart from its decision in \nTan Eng Hong \nfive years ago.\nFurthermore, the court in \nTan Eng Hong \nand \nLim Meng Suang \nrelied on Indian case law which is no longer good law so the court will need to take into account the reasoning of the Indian Supreme Court in its recent decision striking down the equivalent of s 377A.\nWhile the threshold to invalidate a law on constitutional grounds is very high in Singapore, these developments certainly increase the likelihood that this could happen in the case of s 377A.\nTHIS IS A REPRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY \nNADIA MOYNIHAN\n WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF PETRISSIA TEO AND FIRST PUBLISHED BY ASIA LAW NETWORK. THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND\n \nHERE\n.","attrs_markdown":"- [Home](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/)\n- [OUR FIRM](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/about-us\/)\n- [PRACTICE AREAS](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/#legal-practices-area)\n- [OUR PEOPLE](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/#our-people)\n- [NEWS & KNOWLEDGE CENTRE](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/news-knowledge-centre\/)\n- [CONTACT US](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/contact-us\/)\n\n- - [Home](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/)\n  - [OUR FIRM](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/about-us\/)\n  - [PRACTICE AREAS](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/#legal-practices-area)\n  - [OUR PEOPLE](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/#our-people)\n  - [NEWS & KNOWLEDGE CENTRE](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/news-knowledge-centre\/)\n  - [CONTACT US](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/contact-us\/)\n\n- [contact@augustlaw.com.sg](mailto:contact@augustlaw.com.sg)\n- [\\+65 6225 7377](tel:+6562257377)\n\n[![August Law Corporation, Advocates & Solicitors of Singapore](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/cropped-august-logo-2.png)](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/)\n\n[![August Law Corporation, Advocates & Solicitors of Singapore](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/cropped-august-logo-2.png)](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/)\n\n- [Home](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/)\n- [OUR FIRM](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/about-us\/)\n- [PRACTICE AREAS](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/#legal-practices-area)\n- [OUR PEOPLE](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/#our-people)\n- [NEWS & KNOWLEDGE CENTRE](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/news-knowledge-centre\/)\n- [CONTACT US](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/contact-us\/)\n\n# Repealing Section 377A\n[August Law Corporation, Advocates & Solicitors of Singapore](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/ \"Go to August Law Corporation, Advocates & Solicitors of Singapore.\")\n\n\\>\n\n[blog](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/blog-3\/ \"Go to blog.\")\n\n\\>\n\n[Criminal Law](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/category\/criminal-law\/ \"Go to the Criminal Law Category archives.\")\n\n\\>\n\nRepealing Section 377A\n\n![](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/lgbt_11zon.jpg)\n\n### **What constitutional challenge does Section 377A of the Penal Code face?**\nIn Singapore the recent proposal to reform the Penal Code has once again left s 377A untouched. However, elsewhere the equivalent section has been invalidated. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India struck down a provision similar to s 377A, generating widespread public discussion in Singapore.\n\nInspired by the Indian decision, a fresh constitutional challenge has been brought against the provision in the High Court of Singapore. Such a challenge was also urged by Singapore’s Ambassador-at-Large Professor Tommy Koh.\n\n### **What is the problem with s 377A?**\nS377A’s sister provision, s 377, was repealed in 2007 as the government deemed it to be archaic. Its repeal decriminalised oral and anal sex between two consenting male and female persons in private. In contrast, s 377A punishes such acts between two consenting males regardless of whether it is committed in public or private.\n\nSome commentators have described s 377A as a “calculated move to criminalise private sexual conduct between males”. Others described criminalising consensual sex between males as “absurd” and “arbitrary” and against “human dignity”.\n\n### **Past constitutional challenges**\nThere have been two constitutional challenges against s 377A in the last decade – *Lim Meng Suang v Attorney-General* \\[2013\\] 3 SLR 118 (“Lim Meng Suang”) and *Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General* \\[2012\\] 4 SLR 476 (“Tan Eng Hong”). Both challenges argued that s 377A should be struck down as they conflict with Articles 9 and 12 of our Constitution.\n\n***Article 9***\n\nArticle 9 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.” In *Tan Eng Hong*, the applicant argued that “life and personal liberty” encompassed “privacy, human dignity, individual autonomy and the human need for an intimate personal sphere”. However, the court rejected this argument citing that “life and personal liberty” had been narrowly defined by past cases.\n\n***Article 12***\n\nArticle 12 enshrines equality before the law and that all persons are entitled to the equal protection of the law. In *Lim Meng Suang*, the applicant argued that Article 12 prevented discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, the High Court rejected the argument as the wording only pertains to discrimination based on “religion, race, descent or place of birth” and not sexual orientation. In its concluding remarks, the court highlighted that this is a matter that involved societal values which had been heavily debated in parliament and should therefore not be decided by the courts.\n\n### **So what’s new?**\n[News reports](https:\/\/www.channelnewsasia.com\/news\/singapore\/377a-gay-sex-law-dj-files-court-challenge-singapore-10708288) suggest that this challenge will be based on the argument that criminalising consensual sex between males is “absurd”, “arbitrary” and against “human dignity”, and will be supported by expert scientific evidence showing that sexual orientation is “unchangeable or suppressible at unacceptable personal cost”.\n\nIn *Tan Eng Hong*, the court leaned toward the proposition that “law” in Article 9 should include fundamental rules of natural justice. Although what is a fundamental rule of natural justice has not been defined, the court held that laws must not be arbitrary or absurd. In that case, Quentin Loh J concluded that the literature on the issue remains “divided and inconclusive at best”, such that it could not be proven that homosexuality was “tied to a natural and immutable human attribute”.\n\nThe new constitutional challenge will apparently seek to advance expert testimony to prove that homosexuality is “unchangeable or suppressible at unacceptable personal cost”. While five years ago, medical and scientific literature was insufficient to convince the court, things may be different today. With expert witnesses taking the stand this time round, perhaps the court may be persuaded to depart from its decision in *Tan Eng Hong* five years ago.\n\nFurthermore, the court in *Tan Eng Hong* and *Lim Meng Suang* relied on Indian case law which is no longer good law so the court will need to take into account the reasoning of the Indian Supreme Court in its recent decision striking down the equivalent of s 377A.\n\nWhile the threshold to invalidate a law on constitutional grounds is very high in Singapore, these developments certainly increase the likelihood that this could happen in the case of s 377A.\n\nTHIS IS A REPRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY [NADIA MOYNIHAN](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/teams\/nadia-moynihan\/) WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF PETRISSIA TEO AND FIRST PUBLISHED BY ASIA LAW NETWORK. THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND[HERE](https:\/\/learn.asialawnetwork.com\/2018\/10\/05\/repealing-section-377a\/).\n\n[Facebook](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/#facebook \"Facebook\")\n\n[Twitter](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/#twitter \"Twitter\")\n\n[LinkedIn](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/#linkedin \"LinkedIn\")\n\n- [Previous What happens if my ex-spouse does not give me access to my child?](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/what-happens-if-my-ex-spouse-does-not-give-me-access-to-my-child\/)\n- [Next What will happen to my HDB flat after I get a divorce?](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/what-will-happen-to-my-hdb-flat-after-i-get-a-divorce\/)\n### Leave a Reply [Cancel reply](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/repealing-section-377a\/#respond)\n\n### Speak With Our Experts Today\n\/home\/customer\/www\/augustlaw.com.sg\/public\\_html\/wp-content\/plugins\/rselements\/widgets\/heading\/heading.php on line **517**  \n \"\\>\n\n### Speak With Our Experts Today\n\n[Contact Us](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/contact-us\/)\n\n[![August Law Corporation, Advocates & Solicitors of Singapore](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/transparent-white-logo.png)](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/)\n\n[![](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/transparent-white-logo.png)](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/) Our office is strategically and conveniently located on the banks of the Singapore River in Central, Clarke Quay, right between Singapore’s Supreme Court and State Courts, and at the confluence of Singapore’s Central Business District, Civic District and Entertainment District. We are never far away.\n\n### Contact Info\n- 12 EU TONG SEN STREET \\#04-166 THE CENTRAL SINGAPORE 059819\n- [\\+65 6225 7377, +65 6225 6142](tel:+6562257377,+6562256142)\n- [contact@augustlaw.com.sg](<mailto: contact@augustlaw.com.sg>)\n- \\+65 6225 8415\n\n### Latest Posts\n[![](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/New-Laws-to-Remove-Block-Online-Harmful-or-Criminal-Content-750x340-1-80x68.png)](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/new-laws-to-remove-block-online-harmful-or-criminal-content\/)\n\n[New Laws to Remove & Block Online Harmful or Criminal Content](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/new-laws-to-remove-block-online-harmful-or-criminal-content\/)    December 27, 2023\n\n[![](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/partnership-agreement-shake-hands-in-the-office-2022-09-22-22-43-31-utc-2-80x68.jpg)](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/exciting-collaboration\/)\n\n[Exciting Collaboration](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/exciting-collaboration\/)    March 7, 2023\n\n[![](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/2022-12-01-17.11.13-80x68.jpg)](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/the-legal-impact-of-cross-border-remote-working\/)\n\n[The Legal Impact of Cross-border Remote Working](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/the-legal-impact-of-cross-border-remote-working\/)    December 6, 2022\n\n© Copyright 2026 August Law Corporation. All Rights Reserved.\n\n✓\n\nThanks for sharing\\!\n\n[AddToAny](https:\/\/www.addtoany.com\/ \"Share Buttons\")\n\n[More…](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/repealing-section-377a\/#addtoany \"Show all\")","attrs_readable_markdown":"### **What constitutional challenge does Section 377A of the Penal Code face?**\nIn Singapore the recent proposal to reform the Penal Code has once again left s 377A untouched. However, elsewhere the equivalent section has been invalidated. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India struck down a provision similar to s 377A, generating widespread public discussion in Singapore.\n\nInspired by the Indian decision, a fresh constitutional challenge has been brought against the provision in the High Court of Singapore. Such a challenge was also urged by Singapore’s Ambassador-at-Large Professor Tommy Koh.\n\n### **What is the problem with s 377A?**\nS377A’s sister provision, s 377, was repealed in 2007 as the government deemed it to be archaic. Its repeal decriminalised oral and anal sex between two consenting male and female persons in private. In contrast, s 377A punishes such acts between two consenting males regardless of whether it is committed in public or private.\n\nSome commentators have described s 377A as a “calculated move to criminalise private sexual conduct between males”. Others described criminalising consensual sex between males as “absurd” and “arbitrary” and against “human dignity”.\n\n### **Past constitutional challenges**\nThere have been two constitutional challenges against s 377A in the last decade – *Lim Meng Suang v Attorney-General* \\[2013\\] 3 SLR 118 (“Lim Meng Suang”) and *Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General* \\[2012\\] 4 SLR 476 (“Tan Eng Hong”). Both challenges argued that s 377A should be struck down as they conflict with Articles 9 and 12 of our Constitution.\n\n***Article 9***\n\nArticle 9 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.” In *Tan Eng Hong*, the applicant argued that “life and personal liberty” encompassed “privacy, human dignity, individual autonomy and the human need for an intimate personal sphere”. However, the court rejected this argument citing that “life and personal liberty” had been narrowly defined by past cases.\n\n***Article 12***\n\nArticle 12 enshrines equality before the law and that all persons are entitled to the equal protection of the law. In *Lim Meng Suang*, the applicant argued that Article 12 prevented discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, the High Court rejected the argument as the wording only pertains to discrimination based on “religion, race, descent or place of birth” and not sexual orientation. In its concluding remarks, the court highlighted that this is a matter that involved societal values which had been heavily debated in parliament and should therefore not be decided by the courts.\n\n### **So what’s new?**\n[News reports](https:\/\/www.channelnewsasia.com\/news\/singapore\/377a-gay-sex-law-dj-files-court-challenge-singapore-10708288) suggest that this challenge will be based on the argument that criminalising consensual sex between males is “absurd”, “arbitrary” and against “human dignity”, and will be supported by expert scientific evidence showing that sexual orientation is “unchangeable or suppressible at unacceptable personal cost”.\n\nIn *Tan Eng Hong*, the court leaned toward the proposition that “law” in Article 9 should include fundamental rules of natural justice. Although what is a fundamental rule of natural justice has not been defined, the court held that laws must not be arbitrary or absurd. In that case, Quentin Loh J concluded that the literature on the issue remains “divided and inconclusive at best”, such that it could not be proven that homosexuality was “tied to a natural and immutable human attribute”.\n\nThe new constitutional challenge will apparently seek to advance expert testimony to prove that homosexuality is “unchangeable or suppressible at unacceptable personal cost”. While five years ago, medical and scientific literature was insufficient to convince the court, things may be different today. With expert witnesses taking the stand this time round, perhaps the court may be persuaded to depart from its decision in *Tan Eng Hong* five years ago.\n\nFurthermore, the court in *Tan Eng Hong* and *Lim Meng Suang* relied on Indian case law which is no longer good law so the court will need to take into account the reasoning of the Indian Supreme Court in its recent decision striking down the equivalent of s 377A.\n\nWhile the threshold to invalidate a law on constitutional grounds is very high in Singapore, these developments certainly increase the likelihood that this could happen in the case of s 377A.\n\nTHIS IS A REPRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY [NADIA MOYNIHAN](https:\/\/augustlaw.com.sg\/teams\/nadia-moynihan\/) WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF PETRISSIA TEO AND FIRST PUBLISHED BY ASIA LAW NETWORK. THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND[HERE](https:\/\/learn.asialawnetwork.com\/2018\/10\/05\/repealing-section-377a\/).","meta_canonical":null}

3. Robots.txt Check

Query:

Response:

4. Spam/Ban Check

Query:

Response:

5. Seen Status Check

ℹ️ Skipped - page is already crawled

📄

INDEXABLE

✅

CRAWLED

2 days ago

🤖

ROBOTS ALLOWED

Page Info Filters

Filter	Status	Condition	Details
HTTP status	PASS	`download_http_code = 200`	HTTP 200
Age cutoff	PASS	`download_stamp > now() - 6 MONTH`	0.1 months ago
History drop	PASS	`isNull(history_drop_reason)`	No drop reason
Spam/ban	PASS	`fh_dont_index != 1 AND ml_spam_score = 0`	ml_spam_score=0
Canonical	PASS	`meta_canonical IS NULL OR = '' OR = src_unparsed`	Not set

Page Details

Property	Value
URL	https://augustlaw.com.sg/repealing-section-377a/
Last Crawled	2026-04-14 07:00:57 (2 days ago)
First Indexed	2023-03-03 08:08:18 (3 years ago)
HTTP Status Code	200
Meta Title	Repealing Section 377A - August Law Corporation, Advocates & Solicitors of Singapore
Meta Description	What constitutional challenge does Section 377A of the Penal Code face? In Singapore the recent proposal to reform the Penal Code has once again left s 377A untouched. However, elsewhere the equivalent section has been invalidated. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India struck down a provision similar to s 377A, generating widespread
Meta Canonical	null
Boilerpipe Text	What constitutional challenge does Section 377A of the Penal Code face? In Singapore the recent proposal to reform the Penal Code has once again left s 377A untouched. However, elsewhere the equivalent section has been invalidated. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India struck down a provision similar to s 377A, generating widespread public discussion in Singapore. Inspired by the Indian decision, a fresh constitutional challenge has been brought against the provision in the High Court of Singapore. Such a challenge was also urged by Singapore’s Ambassador-at-Large Professor Tommy Koh. What is the problem with s 377A? S377A’s sister provision, s 377, was repealed in 2007 as the government deemed it to be archaic. Its repeal decriminalised oral and anal sex between two consenting male and female persons in private. In contrast, s 377A punishes such acts between two consenting males regardless of whether it is committed in public or private. Some commentators have described s 377A as a “calculated move to criminalise private sexual conduct between males”. Others described criminalising consensual sex between males as “absurd” and “arbitrary” and against “human dignity”. Past constitutional challenges There have been two constitutional challenges against s 377A in the last decade – Lim Meng Suang v Attorney-General [2013] 3 SLR 118 (“Lim Meng Suang”) and Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General [2012] 4 SLR 476 (“Tan Eng Hong”). Both challenges argued that s 377A should be struck down as they conflict with Articles 9 and 12 of our Constitution. Article 9 Article 9 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.” In Tan Eng Hong , the applicant argued that “life and personal liberty” encompassed “privacy, human dignity, individual autonomy and the human need for an intimate personal sphere”. However, the court rejected this argument citing that “life and personal liberty” had been narrowly defined by past cases. Article 12 Article 12 enshrines equality before the law and that all persons are entitled to the equal protection of the law. In Lim Meng Suang , the applicant argued that Article 12 prevented discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, the High Court rejected the argument as the wording only pertains to discrimination based on “religion, race, descent or place of birth” and not sexual orientation. In its concluding remarks, the court highlighted that this is a matter that involved societal values which had been heavily debated in parliament and should therefore not be decided by the courts. So what’s new? News reports suggest that this challenge will be based on the argument that criminalising consensual sex between males is “absurd”, “arbitrary” and against “human dignity”, and will be supported by expert scientific evidence showing that sexual orientation is “unchangeable or suppressible at unacceptable personal cost”. In Tan Eng Hong , the court leaned toward the proposition that “law” in Article 9 should include fundamental rules of natural justice. Although what is a fundamental rule of natural justice has not been defined, the court held that laws must not be arbitrary or absurd. In that case, Quentin Loh J concluded that the literature on the issue remains “divided and inconclusive at best”, such that it could not be proven that homosexuality was “tied to a natural and immutable human attribute”. The new constitutional challenge will apparently seek to advance expert testimony to prove that homosexuality is “unchangeable or suppressible at unacceptable personal cost”. While five years ago, medical and scientific literature was insufficient to convince the court, things may be different today. With expert witnesses taking the stand this time round, perhaps the court may be persuaded to depart from its decision in Tan Eng Hong five years ago. Furthermore, the court in Tan Eng Hong and Lim Meng Suang relied on Indian case law which is no longer good law so the court will need to take into account the reasoning of the Indian Supreme Court in its recent decision striking down the equivalent of s 377A. While the threshold to invalidate a law on constitutional grounds is very high in Singapore, these developments certainly increase the likelihood that this could happen in the case of s 377A. THIS IS A REPRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY NADIA MOYNIHAN WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF PETRISSIA TEO AND FIRST PUBLISHED BY ASIA LAW NETWORK. THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND HERE .
Markdown	- [Home](https://augustlaw.com.sg/) - [OUR FIRM](https://augustlaw.com.sg/about-us/) - [PRACTICE AREAS](https://augustlaw.com.sg/#legal-practices-area) - [OUR PEOPLE](https://augustlaw.com.sg/#our-people) - [NEWS & KNOWLEDGE CENTRE](https://augustlaw.com.sg/news-knowledge-centre/) - [CONTACT US](https://augustlaw.com.sg/contact-us/) - - [Home](https://augustlaw.com.sg/) - [OUR FIRM](https://augustlaw.com.sg/about-us/) - [PRACTICE AREAS](https://augustlaw.com.sg/#legal-practices-area) - [OUR PEOPLE](https://augustlaw.com.sg/#our-people) - [NEWS & KNOWLEDGE CENTRE](https://augustlaw.com.sg/news-knowledge-centre/) - [CONTACT US](https://augustlaw.com.sg/contact-us/) - [contact@augustlaw.com.sg](mailto:contact@augustlaw.com.sg) - [\+65 6225 7377](tel:+6562257377) [![August Law Corporation, Advocates & Solicitors of Singapore](https://augustlaw.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/cropped-august-logo-2.png)](https://augustlaw.com.sg/) [![August Law Corporation, Advocates & Solicitors of Singapore](https://augustlaw.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/cropped-august-logo-2.png)](https://augustlaw.com.sg/) - [Home](https://augustlaw.com.sg/) - [OUR FIRM](https://augustlaw.com.sg/about-us/) - [PRACTICE AREAS](https://augustlaw.com.sg/#legal-practices-area) - [OUR PEOPLE](https://augustlaw.com.sg/#our-people) - [NEWS & KNOWLEDGE CENTRE](https://augustlaw.com.sg/news-knowledge-centre/) - [CONTACT US](https://augustlaw.com.sg/contact-us/) # Repealing Section 377A [August Law Corporation, Advocates & Solicitors of Singapore](https://augustlaw.com.sg/ "Go to August Law Corporation, Advocates & Solicitors of Singapore.") \> [blog](https://augustlaw.com.sg/blog-3/ "Go to blog.") \> [Criminal Law](https://augustlaw.com.sg/category/criminal-law/ "Go to the Criminal Law Category archives.") \> Repealing Section 377A ![](https://augustlaw.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/lgbt_11zon.jpg) ### What constitutional challenge does Section 377A of the Penal Code face? In Singapore the recent proposal to reform the Penal Code has once again left s 377A untouched. However, elsewhere the equivalent section has been invalidated. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India struck down a provision similar to s 377A, generating widespread public discussion in Singapore. Inspired by the Indian decision, a fresh constitutional challenge has been brought against the provision in the High Court of Singapore. Such a challenge was also urged by Singapore’s Ambassador-at-Large Professor Tommy Koh. ### What is the problem with s 377A? S377A’s sister provision, s 377, was repealed in 2007 as the government deemed it to be archaic. Its repeal decriminalised oral and anal sex between two consenting male and female persons in private. In contrast, s 377A punishes such acts between two consenting males regardless of whether it is committed in public or private. Some commentators have described s 377A as a “calculated move to criminalise private sexual conduct between males”. Others described criminalising consensual sex between males as “absurd” and “arbitrary” and against “human dignity”. ### Past constitutional challenges There have been two constitutional challenges against s 377A in the last decade – Lim Meng Suang v Attorney-General \[2013\] 3 SLR 118 (“Lim Meng Suang”) and Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General \[2012\] 4 SLR 476 (“Tan Eng Hong”). Both challenges argued that s 377A should be struck down as they conflict with Articles 9 and 12 of our Constitution. *Article 9* Article 9 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.” In Tan Eng Hong, the applicant argued that “life and personal liberty” encompassed “privacy, human dignity, individual autonomy and the human need for an intimate personal sphere”. However, the court rejected this argument citing that “life and personal liberty” had been narrowly defined by past cases. *Article 12* Article 12 enshrines equality before the law and that all persons are entitled to the equal protection of the law. In Lim Meng Suang, the applicant argued that Article 12 prevented discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, the High Court rejected the argument as the wording only pertains to discrimination based on “religion, race, descent or place of birth” and not sexual orientation. In its concluding remarks, the court highlighted that this is a matter that involved societal values which had been heavily debated in parliament and should therefore not be decided by the courts. ### So what’s new? [News reports](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/377a-gay-sex-law-dj-files-court-challenge-singapore-10708288) suggest that this challenge will be based on the argument that criminalising consensual sex between males is “absurd”, “arbitrary” and against “human dignity”, and will be supported by expert scientific evidence showing that sexual orientation is “unchangeable or suppressible at unacceptable personal cost”. In Tan Eng Hong, the court leaned toward the proposition that “law” in Article 9 should include fundamental rules of natural justice. Although what is a fundamental rule of natural justice has not been defined, the court held that laws must not be arbitrary or absurd. In that case, Quentin Loh J concluded that the literature on the issue remains “divided and inconclusive at best”, such that it could not be proven that homosexuality was “tied to a natural and immutable human attribute”. The new constitutional challenge will apparently seek to advance expert testimony to prove that homosexuality is “unchangeable or suppressible at unacceptable personal cost”. While five years ago, medical and scientific literature was insufficient to convince the court, things may be different today. With expert witnesses taking the stand this time round, perhaps the court may be persuaded to depart from its decision in Tan Eng Hong five years ago. Furthermore, the court in Tan Eng Hong and Lim Meng Suang relied on Indian case law which is no longer good law so the court will need to take into account the reasoning of the Indian Supreme Court in its recent decision striking down the equivalent of s 377A. While the threshold to invalidate a law on constitutional grounds is very high in Singapore, these developments certainly increase the likelihood that this could happen in the case of s 377A. THIS IS A REPRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY [NADIA MOYNIHAN](https://augustlaw.com.sg/teams/nadia-moynihan/) WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF PETRISSIA TEO AND FIRST PUBLISHED BY ASIA LAW NETWORK. THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND[HERE](https://learn.asialawnetwork.com/2018/10/05/repealing-section-377a/). [Facebook](https://augustlaw.com.sg/#facebook "Facebook") [Twitter](https://augustlaw.com.sg/#twitter "Twitter") [LinkedIn](https://augustlaw.com.sg/#linkedin "LinkedIn") - [Previous What happens if my ex-spouse does not give me access to my child?](https://augustlaw.com.sg/what-happens-if-my-ex-spouse-does-not-give-me-access-to-my-child/) - [Next What will happen to my HDB flat after I get a divorce?](https://augustlaw.com.sg/what-will-happen-to-my-hdb-flat-after-i-get-a-divorce/) ### Leave a Reply [Cancel reply](https://augustlaw.com.sg/repealing-section-377a/#respond) ### Speak With Our Experts Today /home/customer/www/augustlaw.com.sg/public\_html/wp-content/plugins/rselements/widgets/heading/heading.php on line 517 "\> ### Speak With Our Experts Today [Contact Us](https://augustlaw.com.sg/contact-us/) [![August Law Corporation, Advocates & Solicitors of Singapore](https://augustlaw.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/transparent-white-logo.png)](https://augustlaw.com.sg/) [![](https://augustlaw.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/transparent-white-logo.png)](https://augustlaw.com.sg/) Our office is strategically and conveniently located on the banks of the Singapore River in Central, Clarke Quay, right between Singapore’s Supreme Court and State Courts, and at the confluence of Singapore’s Central Business District, Civic District and Entertainment District. We are never far away. ### Contact Info - 12 EU TONG SEN STREET \#04-166 THE CENTRAL SINGAPORE 059819 - [\+65 6225 7377, +65 6225 6142](tel:+6562257377,+6562256142) - [contact@augustlaw.com.sg](<mailto: contact@augustlaw.com.sg>) - \+65 6225 8415 ### Latest Posts [![](https://augustlaw.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/New-Laws-to-Remove-Block-Online-Harmful-or-Criminal-Content-750x340-1-80x68.png)](https://augustlaw.com.sg/new-laws-to-remove-block-online-harmful-or-criminal-content/) [New Laws to Remove & Block Online Harmful or Criminal Content](https://augustlaw.com.sg/new-laws-to-remove-block-online-harmful-or-criminal-content/) December 27, 2023 [![](https://augustlaw.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/partnership-agreement-shake-hands-in-the-office-2022-09-22-22-43-31-utc-2-80x68.jpg)](https://augustlaw.com.sg/exciting-collaboration/) [Exciting Collaboration](https://augustlaw.com.sg/exciting-collaboration/) March 7, 2023 [![](https://augustlaw.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2022-12-01-17.11.13-80x68.jpg)](https://augustlaw.com.sg/the-legal-impact-of-cross-border-remote-working/) [The Legal Impact of Cross-border Remote Working](https://augustlaw.com.sg/the-legal-impact-of-cross-border-remote-working/) December 6, 2022 © Copyright 2026 August Law Corporation. All Rights Reserved. ✓ Thanks for sharing\! [AddToAny](https://www.addtoany.com/ "Share Buttons") [More…](https://augustlaw.com.sg/repealing-section-377a/#addtoany "Show all")
Readable Markdown	### What constitutional challenge does Section 377A of the Penal Code face? In Singapore the recent proposal to reform the Penal Code has once again left s 377A untouched. However, elsewhere the equivalent section has been invalidated. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India struck down a provision similar to s 377A, generating widespread public discussion in Singapore. Inspired by the Indian decision, a fresh constitutional challenge has been brought against the provision in the High Court of Singapore. Such a challenge was also urged by Singapore’s Ambassador-at-Large Professor Tommy Koh. ### What is the problem with s 377A? S377A’s sister provision, s 377, was repealed in 2007 as the government deemed it to be archaic. Its repeal decriminalised oral and anal sex between two consenting male and female persons in private. In contrast, s 377A punishes such acts between two consenting males regardless of whether it is committed in public or private. Some commentators have described s 377A as a “calculated move to criminalise private sexual conduct between males”. Others described criminalising consensual sex between males as “absurd” and “arbitrary” and against “human dignity”. ### Past constitutional challenges There have been two constitutional challenges against s 377A in the last decade – Lim Meng Suang v Attorney-General \[2013\] 3 SLR 118 (“Lim Meng Suang”) and Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General \[2012\] 4 SLR 476 (“Tan Eng Hong”). Both challenges argued that s 377A should be struck down as they conflict with Articles 9 and 12 of our Constitution. *Article 9* Article 9 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.” In Tan Eng Hong, the applicant argued that “life and personal liberty” encompassed “privacy, human dignity, individual autonomy and the human need for an intimate personal sphere”. However, the court rejected this argument citing that “life and personal liberty” had been narrowly defined by past cases. *Article 12* Article 12 enshrines equality before the law and that all persons are entitled to the equal protection of the law. In Lim Meng Suang, the applicant argued that Article 12 prevented discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, the High Court rejected the argument as the wording only pertains to discrimination based on “religion, race, descent or place of birth” and not sexual orientation. In its concluding remarks, the court highlighted that this is a matter that involved societal values which had been heavily debated in parliament and should therefore not be decided by the courts. ### So what’s new? [News reports](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/377a-gay-sex-law-dj-files-court-challenge-singapore-10708288) suggest that this challenge will be based on the argument that criminalising consensual sex between males is “absurd”, “arbitrary” and against “human dignity”, and will be supported by expert scientific evidence showing that sexual orientation is “unchangeable or suppressible at unacceptable personal cost”. In Tan Eng Hong, the court leaned toward the proposition that “law” in Article 9 should include fundamental rules of natural justice. Although what is a fundamental rule of natural justice has not been defined, the court held that laws must not be arbitrary or absurd. In that case, Quentin Loh J concluded that the literature on the issue remains “divided and inconclusive at best”, such that it could not be proven that homosexuality was “tied to a natural and immutable human attribute”. The new constitutional challenge will apparently seek to advance expert testimony to prove that homosexuality is “unchangeable or suppressible at unacceptable personal cost”. While five years ago, medical and scientific literature was insufficient to convince the court, things may be different today. With expert witnesses taking the stand this time round, perhaps the court may be persuaded to depart from its decision in Tan Eng Hong five years ago. Furthermore, the court in Tan Eng Hong and Lim Meng Suang relied on Indian case law which is no longer good law so the court will need to take into account the reasoning of the Indian Supreme Court in its recent decision striking down the equivalent of s 377A. While the threshold to invalidate a law on constitutional grounds is very high in Singapore, these developments certainly increase the likelihood that this could happen in the case of s 377A. THIS IS A REPRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY [NADIA MOYNIHAN](https://augustlaw.com.sg/teams/nadia-moynihan/) WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF PETRISSIA TEO AND FIRST PUBLISHED BY ASIA LAW NETWORK. THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND[HERE](https://learn.asialawnetwork.com/2018/10/05/repealing-section-377a/).
Shard	118 (laksa)
Root Hash	2495242571285621918
Unparsed URL	sg,com,augustlaw!/repealing-section-377a/ s443