Tan 120 Derajat

Tan 120 Derajat.

Singaporean law prohibiting sex activity between males

Section 377A
is a Singaporean police force introduced nether British colonial rule that criminalises sex betwixt consenting male adults. It was added to the Penal Lawmaking in 1938 by the colonial government. Information technology remained part of the Singapore body of law after the Penal Code review of October 2007 that removed near of the other provisions in Section 377.

The law, while retained
de jure
in the Penal Lawmaking, is
de facto
not enforced – there has been no convictions for sex between consenting male adults in decades.[i]
On 28 Feb 2022, the Court of Entreatment of the Supreme Court of Singapore reaffirmed that 377A cannot be used to prosecute men for having gay sex.[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% beingness ambivalent.[2]

On 21 August 2022, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced during the annual National Day Rally that the government intends to repeal Section 377A, finer ending criminalisation both
de facto
and
de jure.[3]
[4]

Background

[edit]

The Indian Penal Code

[edit]

The British Parliament formed the Indian Law Commission in 1833.[5]

: 10–11

Lord Thomas Macaulay was appointed to chair the committee. The 1837 draft of the Indian Penal Code was largely his piece of work. It took 23 years for his work to exist reviewed past the committee and the Supreme Courtroom judges in Mumbai, Calcutta, and Madras. The code was adopted in 1860 and took effect 1 January 1862.[5]

: eleven

Macaulay’s typhoon did non reflect existing Indian laws or customs. Information technology was largely a rewrite of the British Regal Commission’s 1843 draft code.[5]

: 11

The adopted draft included a Section 377 (quoted above), but at that place were many ambiguities in the section, including the question of what had to penetrate what. These in plough let future jurists redefine what these provisions actually punished.[six]

: eighteen

Under Buddhist and Hindu law in most of Asia, consensual intercourse between members of the aforementioned sex was never an offence. In the new Indian Penal Lawmaking, still, Section 377 criminalised “lecherous intercourse confronting the guild of nature”, derived from words attributed to Sir Edward Coke in the seventeenth century.[6]

: 14–fifteen

Section 377A “(Outrages on decency” was added to the sub-title “Unnatural offences” in the Straits Settlements in 1938.[vi]

: 20

Both sections were absorbed unchanged into the Singapore Penal Lawmaking when the latter was passed by Singapore’s Legislative Council on 28 January 1955.

Original Section 377

[edit]

Unnatural sex activity or sodomy was non defined in the Indian Penal Code drafted by the British. Legal records show that Indian legislators in the 19th and early 20th centuries interpreted “lecherous intercourse confronting the guild of nature” betwixt individuals (of all sexes – the law being non-gender specific with its utilise of the word “whoever”) to include anal sex, animality and, often after much courtroom deliberation, oral sex as well, namely, any form of sexual intercourse which did not take the potential for procreation.

Therefore, both heterosexual and homosexual oral and anal sexual activity were criminal offences. In this particular narrow sense, Department 377 did not discriminate against homosexuals. Nonetheless, early on cases tried in Bharat mainly involved forced fellatio with unwilling male person children and one unusual case of sexual intercourse with the nostril of a buffalo.

In the Singaporean context, the Court of Appeal had held that heterosexual fellatio was exempted if indulged in as foreplay which eventually leads to coitus:[7]

[I]t is a fact of life, in humans equally well every bit in animals, that before the human activity of copulation takes place there is foreplay to stimulate the sexual activity urge. Kissing is the virtually common although at that place are several others…

Of grade, this grade of contrectation [fellatio or cunnilingus] may non recommend itself to everyone for stimulating the sex urge. Even a man and a woman engaged in consensual sexual intercourse may depict the line at fellatio or cunnilingus. But the fact remains that it is practised by some. Nosotros notation…that [there is] some statistical evidence…of these forms of oral sex being practised in Singapore. We cannot shut our minds to it.

[W]hen couples engaged in consensual sexual intercourse willingly indulge in fellatio and cunnilingus equally a stimulant to their respective sexual urges, neither deed tin be considered to be against the order of nature and punishable under s 377 of the Penal Code. In every other instance the human action 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 annotation of the original Section 377 further explained that mere penetration of the penis into the anus or oral cavity even without orgasm would constitute the offence. The constabulary practical regardless of the act being consensual between both parties and washed in private.

Department 377 was repealed in the Penal Code (Subpoena) Act 2007[8]
and replaced with a new Department 377 criminalising sex with expressionless bodies (“Sexual penetration of a corpse”), which was substituted in its identify.[9]

Department 377A

[edit]

Department 377A was introduced into the Singapore Penal Code in 1938 to criminalise all other non-penetrative sexual acts. It is descended from the Labouchere Amendment.[10]
[
unreliable source?
]

In the local context, “gross indecency” is a wide term which, from a review of past cases locally, has been applied to mutual masturbation, genital contact, or even lewd behaviour without direct physical contact. Every bit with the former Section 377, performing such acts in individual does non plant a defence. The law does not criminalise sex between females, only betwixt males.[11]

Any male person person who, in public or individual, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall exist punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.[12]


Outrages on decency, Department 377A, Singapore Penal Code

Its original mother statute, Department 377 (since repealed), criminalised any sexual human activity that went “against the guild of nature”:[thirteen]

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse confronting 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 ten years, and shall besides exist liable to fine. Explanation. Penetration is sufficient to establish the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this department.

Singapore Penal Code, Section 377

Public opinion

[edit]

In 2018, an Ipsos survey establish that 55% of Singapore residents supported retaining Section 377A.[14]
In 2022, Ipsos made another survey, noting that this effigy had dropped to 44%, among changing attitudes towards same-sex activity relationships.[2]

Baca :   Sebuah Gelombang Transversal Memiliki Frekuensi Sebesar 0.25 Hz

The Ministry building of Domicile Diplomacy (MHA) was quoted in
The Straits Times
of eighteen September 2007 proverb that public feedback on the issue had been “emotional, divided and strongly expressed”, with a bulk of people calling for Section 377A to be retained.[15]
The MHA too said that information technology recognised that “we are generally a conservative social club and that nosotros should let the state of affairs evolve”.

On iii October 2007, an online appeal was launched via the “Repeal 377A” website[16]
to assemble signatories for an open letter to the Prime Minister calling for the repeal of Section 377A. In response, a counter-petition on the website “Keep 377A”[17]
was gear up to give citizens a aqueduct to voice back up for the Authorities’due south retention of the law. By i:30 p.g. on 20 Oct, Keep377A had overtaken Repeal377A past vii,068 to 7,058 signatories.[18]
(The content of the Keep377A.com website was removed in 2009, although its spider web address remains.)

As online petitions, both websites suffered the same doubts regarding the credibility of the numbers of their signatories. There was no mention of whether technical measures were taken to ensure that multiple-voting by the same person was prevented.

Shortly after the Penal Lawmaking review report was released on 9 September 2018,[nineteen]
a motion known as Ready4Repeal launched a petition to campaign for Department 377A to be repealed, fifty-fifty though MHA and Ministry of Law said there were no plans to do then. It also held a town hall coming together on 30 September 2018, attracting 44,650 people. In contrast, a petition that wants Section 377A kept attracted more than 109,000 signatures after it closed on 24 September 2018.[20]

In Nov 2018, Singapore based LGBT+ publication Beloved Direct People held a photoshoot called #Reasons4Repeal, calling for the repeal of Department 377A. The photoshoot featured over seventy participants, including public figures such as actor Julian Hee and Paralympic medalist Theresa Goh.

Condition of Department 377A in other countries

[edit]

England & Wales, the former British colony of Hong Kong, Australia take since repealed laws prohibiting sex between men in 1967, 1991, and 1997 (in the country of Tasmania; the last Australian state to do so) respectively. Republic of india’s Supreme Court has besides decriminalised consensual sex activity between two people of the same sex in 2018, which is pregnant as Section 377A of the Penal Code is similar to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.[21]
Elsewhere in E and Due south-Eastern asia, Myanmar, Malaysia and Brunei, all one-time British colonies, and recently Republic of indonesia’s Aceh province (applicative only to Muslims), continue to criminalise sex between men.[22]

Constitutional challenges

[edit]

Section 377A has been repeatedly challenged before the courts of Singapore as being unconstitutional. So far, all of the challenges take been importantly based on Commodity 12 of the Constitution of Singapore, which guarantees all persons equality before the law, and Article ix of the Constitution of Singapore, which guarantees all persons the right to life and the correct to personal freedom.


Tan Eng Hong v. Attorney-General


[edit]

On 24 September 2010, criminal lawyer K. Ravi filed an application in the High Courtroom 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.[23]

On xix March 2011, Tan’s case was thrown out of court by High Court justice Lai Siu Chiu, citing “a lack of a existent controversy” for the courtroom to deal with.[24]
This is of import, as according to the Supreme Court of Judicature Deed of Singapore Rules of Courtroom (Cap. 322 § 80, O 18 r. xix, 1996 Rev. Ed.), only cases which are non “frivolous” may exist argued. All the same, on 21 August 2012, the Courtroom of Appeal reversed Lai’due south decision, ruling that 377A did “affect the lives of a non insignificant portion of [Singaporeans] in a very real and intimate mode” and that the example would proceed one time again in the High Court.[25]

Tan’s case was finally heard on six March 2013,[26]
and decided against him by justice Quentin Loh on ii October 2013.[27]
In his ruling, Loh wrote that the issue was one of “morality and societal values” and if information technology were to be changed, it would take to exist by Singapore’s Parliament. Tan appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal, and his example was joined at his request as an intervening political party with
Lim Meng Suang and another five. Attorney-General
(below), which was also pending before the Courtroom of Appeal, on eleven October 2013.[28]


Lim Meng Suang and some other 5. Chaser-Full general


[edit]

After Tan’s successful appeal to be heard past 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 xv years, by attorney Peter Low.[29]
[thirty]
The instance was heard
in camera
on 14 February 2013,[31]
and decided against them by justice Quentin Loh on 9 Apr 2013, for much the same reasons as his determination against Tan (above).[32]
Lim and Chee appealed to the Court of Appeal on 30 April 2013.[33]
[34]
In July 2013, later on a successful crowdfunding entrada, they hired two highly esteemed lawyers: Deborah Barker, Senior Counsel at KhattarWong LLP, and British lawyer, Debevoise & Plimpton partner and erstwhile Attorney General for England and Wales Lord Peter Henry Goldsmith.[35]
Goldsmith had agreed to have the case without pay,[36]
only that September was disallowed from arguing the case before the court by Justice 5. K. Rajah, as he believed that the legal bug were arguable by domestic lawyers, which is preferred past Singapore police force.[37]

Baca :   Contoh Soal Energi Kinetik Rotasi

On 29 October 2014, more iv years after the original challenge by Tan, the Court of Appeal, the highest court in Singapore, rejected Lim and Chee’due south challenge, finally ending the case.[38]
[39]
The court held that 377A was consequent with Article 9 as it is meant to protect against unlawful imprisonment, and that it was consistent with Article 12 equally information technology only mentions religion, race and identify of birth—not gender, sexual orientation, or sex.[38]
As in all judgments before, the courtroom held that whatever legal remedy would have to come nigh through an Act of Parliament.[38]

Compared to news of LGBT rights in other nations such equally Russian federation and the United States, the case and final appeal received little attention outside Singapore.[40]
The Huffington Post
featured Chee and Lim’s story prominently under the headline “How 1 of the Earth’s Richest Countries Is Limiting Basic Human Rights”[41]
and
Bloomberg
also published an commodity on the ruling.[39]


Ong Ming Johnson v. Attorney-General and other matters


[edit]

On 29 August 2018, Professor Ho Kwon Ping in his talk questioned the need for Section 377A in Singapore.[42]
Later on Republic of india’south Supreme Court decriminalised sex between two people of the same sexual activity,[21]
with Professor Tommy Koh encouraging a constitutional challenge of Section 377A and chief of Singapore regime communications Mr Janadas Devan hoping that Section 377A would get,[43]
several constitutional challenges take been brought to the Supreme Court.

The outset challenge later on India’s ruling was filed on x September 2018 by Johnson Ong, known by stage name DJ Big Child, and was based on Article 9 of the Constitution.[44]
The second challenge was filed by LGBT rights activist Choong Chee Hong in Nov 2018 and argues that Section 377A is inconsistent with Articles 9, 12 and xiv of the Constitution.[45]
A 3rd was filed by retired general practitioner Tan Seng Kee on 20 September 2019, also based on Articles nine, 12 and xiv of the Constitution. In improver, he argued that although the Government will non enforce the law on acts done in private, the Public Prosecutor can determine whether to prosecute someone under Section 377A, which would be inconsistent with Department xiv of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires the police to “unconditionally investigate all complaints of suspected arrestable offences”.[46]

On 30 March 2020, justice Run across Kee Oon consolidated the three challenges into one instance and ruled against them, arguing that the law was intended to safeguard morals and prosecute all forms of indecency betwixt men whether in public or private, and non merely male prostitution when the law was made in 1938. 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.[47]
[48]
Appeals were filed on 31 March 2020.[49]

On 28 February 2022, information technology was ruled by the Court of Entreatment that, because the police force is non enforced, the ramble challenges against information technology had failed.[one]
[50]

Proposed repeal of Section 377A

[edit]

On 21 August 2022, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced during his National Twenty-four hour period Rally speech for 2022 that department 377A would be repealed by the government. Lee stated that “I believe this is the correct thing to do and something that most Singaporeans volition now accept. This will bring the law into line with current social mores and, I hope, provide some relief to gay Singaporeans.”[iii]
[4]

Run across besides

[edit]

  • Criminal constabulary of Singapore
  • LGBT rights in Singapore
  • Sodomy law
  • Paragraph 175
  • Pinkish Dot SG

References

[edit]

  1. ^


    a




    b




    c




    Lum, Selina (28 Feb 2022). “Court of Appeal rules Section 377A stays but cannot exist used to prosecute men for having gay sex”.
    The Straits Times. Singapore.


  2. ^


    a




    b




    Yuen-C, Tham (xvi June 2022). “Support for Section 377A drops as attitudes towards same-sex relationships shift, survey finds | The Straits Times”.
    www.straitstimes.com
    . Retrieved
    28 June
    2022
    .


  3. ^


    a




    b




    “NDR 2022: Govt to repeal Section 377A, amend Constitution to protect matrimony definition from legal challenges”.
    TODAY
    . Retrieved
    21 August
    2022
    .


  4. ^


    a




    b




    Car, Hermes (21 August 2022). “NDR 2022: Govt will repeal Department 377A, decriminalise sex between men | The Straits Times”.
    www.straitstimes.com
    . Retrieved
    21 August
    2022
    .


  5. ^


    a




    b




    c




    “377 and the Unnatural Afterlife of British Colonialism in Asia”,
    Asian Periodical of Comparative Law, Douglas E. Sanders, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia; LL.M. Professor, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand; Academic Committee Member, Doctoral Program in Human Rights and Peace Studies, Mahidol University, Volume 4, Issue 1, 2009″
    (PDF).


  6. ^


    a




    b




    c




    “This Alien Legacy: The Origins of ‘Sodomy’ Laws in British Colonialism”, Human Rights Watch, 2008″
    (PDF).



  7. ^


    Public Prosecutor 5 Kwan Kwong Weng
    [1997] 1 SLR(R) 316 at [29]–[31].

  8. ^


    “Penal Code (Subpoena) Act 2007 – Singapore Statutes Online”.
    Singapore Statutes Online.



  9. ^


    “Penal Code 1871 – Singapore Statutes Online”.
    Singapore Statutes Online
    . Retrieved
    23 August
    2022
    .



  10. ^


    “Romantic rabble v coy courtroom”.
    Yawning Bread. 21 November 2010. Retrieved
    18 October
    2019
    .



  11. ^


    “Section 377A in Singapore and the (De)Criminalization of Homosexuality”
    (PDF). National University of Singapore. Archived
    (PDF)
    from the original on 20 September 2018. Retrieved
    1 June
    2019
    .
    Section 377A but criminalizes sex betwixt males, but not betwixt females.



  12. ^


    “Penal Lawmaking 1871”.
    Singapore Statutes Online.



  13. ^


    Chua Kher Shing, Lynette J. (2003). “Saying NO: SECTIONS 377 AND 377A OF THE PENAL Code”.
    Singapore Journal of Legal Studies. pp. 209–261.



  14. ^


    Ng, Gilaine (10 September 2018). “55 per cent of Singapore residents support Department 377A: Ipsos survey | The Straits Times”.
    www.straitstimes.com
    . Retrieved
    28 June
    2022
    .



  15. ^


    “Singapore Lawmakers Debate Petition to Abolish Gay Sex Ban”.
    Fox News. Associated Press. 25 March 2015. Retrieved
    eighteen October
    2019
    .



  16. ^


    “Repeal377A.com”. Archived from the original on 11 Oct 2007.


  17. ^


    “Keep377A.com”. 2007. Archived from the original on 16 May 2008.


  18. ^


    “keep377a overtakes repeal377a”. Family&Freedom. twenty October 2007.


  19. ^


    Mokhtar, Faris (9 September 2018). “Penal Code set up to undergo overhaul, to meliorate protect vulnerable victims against corruption and sexual crimes”.
    Today
    . Retrieved
    iii Oct
    2019
    .



  20. ^


    Chua, Alfred (xxx September 2018). “Activists submit online petition, but Govt has ‘no plans’ to repeal S377A”.
    Today
    . Retrieved
    three Oct
    2019
    .


  21. ^


    a




    b




    “Republic of india’s top court lifts ban on gay sex in landmark ruling”.
    The Straits Times. 6 September 2018. Retrieved
    1 October
    2019
    .



  22. ^

    Homosexuality laws of the world#Due east Asia

  23. ^


    Keat, Leong Wee (29 November 2010). “Lawyer challenges gay sex constabulary”.
    Today. Archived from the original on 29 November 2010. Retrieved
    10 Dec
    2016
    .



  24. ^


    Waipang, Alex Au (19 March 2011). “Loftier Courtroom waves away 377A controversy”.
    Yawning Staff of life
    . Retrieved
    x December
    2016
    .



  25. ^


    Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, 5 1000 Rajah JA and Judith Prakash J (21 August 2012). “Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-Full general”.
    singaporelaw.sg. Courtroom of Entreatment of Singapore. Archived from the original on 23 November 2016. Retrieved
    ten December
    2016
    .



  26. ^


    “Second of two 377A challenges may accept to wait a long fourth dimension for a decision”.
    Yawning Bread. 10 March 2013. Retrieved
    10 December
    2016
    .



  27. ^


    “Singapore High Court upholds anti-gay law in Tan Eng Hong’s case”.
    Fridae: Connecting Gay Asia. 2 Oct 2013. Retrieved
    ten December
    2016
    .



  28. ^


    “Court of Entreatment Does Correct By Tan Eng Hong: Articulation hearing for department 377A appeals”. IonSG. xi October 2013. Retrieved
    10 December
    2016
    .



  29. ^


    “Singapore couple sue to terminate sodomy law”.
    San Diego Gay and Lesbian News. i December 2012. Retrieved
    10 Dec
    2016
    .



  30. ^


    Waipang, Alex Au (2 December 2012). “New constitutional challenge to Department 377A filed”. Yawning Bread. Retrieved
    10 December
    2016
    .



  31. ^


    Lim, Leonard (14 Feb 2013). “Legal challenge to Section 377A begins in the High Court; judgment reserved”.
    The Straits Times
    . Retrieved
    10 December
    2016
    .



  32. ^


    Wong, Tessa (9 Apr 2013). “Loftier Court upholds anti-gay sexual practice law, dismisses legal challenge”.
    The Straits Times
    . Retrieved
    10 Dec
    2016
    .



  33. ^


    “Gay Singaporean couple file appeal over ban on private consensual sexual practice”.
    LGBT Weekly
    . Retrieved
    10 December
    2016
    .



  34. ^


    AndrewPhang Boon Leong JA, Belinda Ang Saw Ean J and WooBih Li J (28 October 2014). “Lim Meng Suang and another v Chaser-Generaland another appeal and another thing”.
    singaporelaw.sg. Court of Entreatment of Singapore. Retrieved
    ten Dec
    2016
    .



  35. ^


    Xin, Sia Ling (9 July 2013). “Southward’pore gay couple hire top lawyers for Section 377A entreatment”.
    Yahoo! News Singapore
    . Retrieved
    10 December
    2016
    .



  36. ^


    Kriegler, Yun (11 July 2013). “Goldsmith to claiming Singaporean government on anti-gay laws”.
    The Lawyer
    . Retrieved
    10 December
    2016
    .



  37. ^


    Burton, Lucy (20 September 2013). “Goldsmith kicked off anti-gay challenge by Singapore High Court in favour of local counsel”.
    The Lawyer: Advancing the business of constabulary
    . Retrieved
    x Dec
    2016
    .


  38. ^


    a




    b




    c




    Lum, Selina (29 Oct 2014). “Court of Entreatment rules that Section 377A that criminalises sex between men is constitutional”.
    The Straits Times
    . Retrieved
    10 Dec
    2016
    .


  39. ^


    a




    b




    Tan, Andrea (29 October 2014). “Singapore’s Ban on Gay Male Sex Is Upheld past Height Court”. Bloomberg Fifty.P. Retrieved
    ten December
    2016
    .



  40. ^


    Allegretti, David (22 June 2016). “What It’s Like to Be Immature and Gay in Singapore”.
    VICE
    . Retrieved
    10 Dec
    2016
    .



  41. ^


    Mosbergen, Dominique (13 Oct 2015). “How Singapore Is Limiting Bones Human Rights”.
    HuffPost
    . Retrieved
    10 December
    2016
    .



  42. ^


    Ho, Olivia (29 August 2018). “Businessman Ho Kwon Ping opens upward on his ISA detention at packed ST Book Club event”.
    The Straits Times
    . Retrieved
    1 October
    2019
    .



  43. ^


    Yahya, Yasmine (7 September 2018). “Tommy Koh’s Facebook comment reignites argue on Singapore’s gay sex law”.
    The Straits Times
    . Retrieved
    one Oct
    2019
    .



  44. ^


    Chua, Alfred (12 September 2018). “Repeal of section 377A will end ‘online vitriol and abuse’ against LGBTQ community, says DJ who filed legal challenge”.
    Today
    . Retrieved
    one Oct
    2019
    .



  45. ^


    Alkhatib, Shaffiq (22 January 2019). “LGBT rights abet files case against Attorney-Full general, stating Section 377A of Penal Code is void”.
    The Straits Times
    . Retrieved
    3 October
    2019
    .



  46. ^


    Kurohi, Rei (25 September 2019). “LGBT activist and retired GP Roy Tan files new court claiming against Section 377A”.
    The Straits Times
    . Retrieved
    3 October
    2019
    .



  47. ^


    Kurohi, Rei (30 March 2020). “High Courtroom dismisses challenges against law that criminalises sex between men”.
    The Straits Times
    . Retrieved
    thirty March
    2020
    .



  48. ^



    Ong Ming Johnson v Attorney-Full general and other matters
    , 2020 SGHC 63 (High Court of the Democracy of Singapore 30 March 2020).

  49. ^


    Kurohi, Rei (31 March 2020). “Two men file appeals confronting High Court conclusion to dismiss Section 377A challenge”.
    The Straits Times
    . Retrieved
    19 April
    2020
    .



  50. ^


    “Singapore’s top courtroom dismisses endeavour to overturn gay sexual practice ban”.
    Reuters. 28 Feb 2022.


Further reading

[edit]

  • Young, Ted (24 October 2007). “Our Time Has Come”. Trevvy. Archived from the original on 25 October 2007. Retrieved
    24 Oct
    2007
    .

  • Original PDF version of the academic paper, “377 and the unnatural afterlife of British colonialism” past Douglas Saunders, August 2007:[i].
  • Au, Alex (May 2007). “Why section 377A is redundant”. Yawning Bread. Retrieved
    20 October
    2007
    .

  • Gopalan, Mohan (May 2007). “A heftier list of due south. 377A cases”. Yawning Staff of life. Retrieved
    xx October
    2007
    .

  • Au, Alex (March 2005). “The picture that emerges”. Yawning Bread. Retrieved
    xx October
    2007
    .

  • Au, Alex (March 2005). “List of department 377 and 377A cases”. Yawning Bread. Retrieved
    twenty October
    2007
    .

  • Chua, Lynette J. Kher Shing (2003). “Maxim No : Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Lawmaking”.
    Singapore Journal of Legal Studies: 209–261.

    .
  • [Lim], Wee Kuan (1 October 2002). “Gay constabulary : Emancipation and emasculation”. Safehaven, Free Community Church. Retrieved
    20 October
    2007
    .


    A review of all Singaporean laws governing homosexual behaviour.
Baca :   Kecepatan/kelajuan Merupakan Besaran Turunan Yang Diturunkan Dari Besaran Pokok

External links

[edit]

  • Keep377A.com – campaign for the retention of department 377A of the Penal Code
  • Repeal377a.com – campaign for the repeal of department 377A of the Penal Lawmaking
  • Singapore Daily page on 377A – collection of blogger postings on section 377A of the Penal Code
  • Archive of newsclips relating to Section 377A – a YouTube playlist
  • Wikileaks US Diplomatic mission report of Department 377A Wikileaks US Embassy report of Department 377A



Tan 120 Derajat

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377A_(Singapore)

Check Also

Contoh Soal Perkalian Vektor

Contoh Soal Perkalian Vektor. Web log Koma – Setelah mempelajari beberapa operasi hitung pada vektor …