You can't do that!

Singapore law makes sexual intercourse between males a criminal offence.

Section 377 of the Penal Code says, "Whosoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, 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 a fine."

From previous cases, "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" includes anal sex and oral sex, although recent cases seem to have established that heterosexual oral sex is excluded if meant as foreplay (see below). Penetration with the penis into the anus or mouth constitutes the offence, even if the act is consensual between both parties, and done in private.

Section 377(a) says, "Any male person who, in public or private, commits or abets the commission of or procures 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."

"Gross indecency" is a wide term which, from precedents, covers mutual masturbation, indecent physical contact to the groin, or even indecent behaviour without physical contact. As you can see, section 377(a) is specific to male-to-male relations, and again, doing it in private is no defence either.

There is no law equally specific to lesbian sex.

In August 1995, a despatch rider Tan was charged under section 377 (among other charges, including rape) for having oral sex with his girlfriend. The defence lawyer argued that oral sex was a natural act during love-making and was practised by couples in Singapore and around the world. He led evidence to show that in 1982, out of 1,012 Singapore women surveyed, 434, or 43 percent, admitted to performing oral sex. In his judgment, Justice Lai Kew Chai said that oral sex between two consenting adults (I don't think he meant same-sex adults) was not an offence if performed as a prelude to natural sex and not as a substitute for it.

Many lawyers felt that the condition "if performed as a prelude . . ." could lead to a lot of ambiguity. However, within a year, another case came up which tested the issue again.

In this case, in September 1996, a technician Kwan Kwong Weng was also charged with having unnatural sex with a 19-year-old young woman under section 377. He was acquitted, and in his judgment, Judicial Commissioner Amarjeet Singh said that fellatio, or oral sex, did not come under section 377 of the Penal Code, and that it was not an offence against the order of nature.

This was appealed, and the decision was reversed. The interpretation by Justice Lai Kew Chai in 1995 that oral sex was unnatural sex, except if it led to vaginal intercourse, was reaffirmed. [1]

Section 377(a) was invoked in a widely-reported case early 1996, involving two men. A well-respected lawyer, Ashok Kan, was charged with having sexual contact ("gross indecency") with a draughtsman Tan Fock Jee. The latter was the complainant and a prosecution witness, though in the end, the court found his evidence weak. Furthermore, the defence pointed out that Tan Fock Jee had asked for money from the defendant Kan, raising the suspicion of blackmail. Kan was acquitted, but this case did not involve any re-interpretation of the law.

My friend Russell had this to say about the case:

". . . the point here is that if Singapore had repealed such anti-homosexual laws, then [Kan] would probably not have been charged in the first place, suffer the psychological pressure of publicity, bear legal costs and leave the law firm where he was a partner.

"That is to say, the anti-homosexual laws extract a great human cost. The injustice of the case even though he was finally acquitted is deepened by the fact that [Kan] has done what many of us would deem the safest and most civilised way to court a man, or for that matter, a woman. You get to know him through several dates. If he finally says no, fine you go your separate ways, ego a bit bruised, but that is the way it is in courtship. Only, in this case, the guy asked for money. It sounds like blackmail and it can happen to any one of us. The lesson for everybody here is that don't think that if you avoid slutting around and therefore do not risk entrapment by the police, you would be fine. The criminalisation of homosexuals can catch up with you in other ways.

"Furthermore, try to imagine what if a person does not have enough fortitude to say no to the demand for money; think of the frightened people who may have chosen to pay up and whom we therefore did not get to read about in the media; the victims we have not counted. Think also of those who could not afford to pay but were still petrified by the prospect of a public scandal threatening career and family. Could some of them have committed suicide? The next time you see an obituary of a young unmarried man who has died, think of suicide arising from a destroyed life. Think about this unknown statistic within the gay community and you may understand this human cost of the criminalisation of gay people better."

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

1. For full details about the case and appeal of Kwan Kwong Weng, tried in Singapore under Section 377, see http://www.geocities.com/law4u2003/kwankwongweng.htm 
   Return to where you left off
2. See also the articles Sodomy laws and The map's tale

Addenda

None