評論
打印
Asia
亞洲版塊
Homosexuality in Singapore
新加坡的同性戀
Crime and no punishment
罪無應得
An anti-gay law is allowed to stay—so long as it is not enforced
一項反同性戀法律只要不被執行就可以繼續存在
IN A REGION where governments often disregard or contort their own laws, Singapore stands out for punctilious observance.
在一個政府經常無視或扭曲本國法律的地區，新加坡以循規蹈矩著稱。
That is why a recent judgment from its high court raised eyebrows.
這就是為什么該國高級法院最近的一項判決引起了人們的關注。
On February 28th the Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge brought by three gay-rights activists against a law, dating from the colonial era, that criminalises sex between men.
2月28日，上訴法庭駁回了由三名同性戀活動人士對一項提出的質疑，該法律可追溯到殖民時代，將男性之間的性行為定為犯罪。
The legislation will remain on the books—yet the court has in effect told the government it can carry on pretending it does not exist.
這項立法仍將停留在書面上，但實際上，法院告訴政府，它可以繼續假裝它不存在。
Section 377A of the Penal Code, which punishes acts of “gross indecency” between men with up to two years in jail, is a “lightning rod for polarisation”, as the justices put it.
根據《刑法典》第377A條：男子之間的“嚴重猥褻”行為，最高可判處2年監禁。法官們說377A是“兩極化的避雷針”。
They have done their best not to get electrocuted.
他們盡了最大努力不會發生“觸電”（處罰）。
The court sidestepped the question of the law’s constitutionality by arguing that the judges had to take into account the government’s stance.
法院回避了該法律的合憲性問題，稱法官必須考慮政府的立場。
When parliament debated 377A in 2007, Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister, declared that it would remain but would not be “proactively enforced”.
2007年，當議會就377A進行辯論時，總理李顯龍宣布保留377A，但不會“主動執行”。
Mr Lee argued that it was necessary to strike a balance between accepting gay men and respecting society’s “traditional” mores.
李顯龍認為，有必要在接受男同性戀和尊重社會“傳統”習俗之間取得平衡。
The court said that this “political compromise” took on legal weight in 2018 when the attorney-general said that it was not in the public interest to prosecute consenting men who engage in sexual acts in private.
法院表示，這一“政治妥協”在2018年產生了法律影響，當時司法部長表示，起訴同意私下進行性行為的男性不符合公共利益。
The law cannot violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, the court argued, if the authorities are not enforcing it.
法院認為，如果當局不執行該法律，該法律就不能侵犯原告的憲法權利。
“This is really a live-and-let-live approach,” says Eugene Tan, a law professor at Singapore Management University.
新加坡管理大學法學譚尤金教授說：“這真是一種和平共處的方法。”
Yet it has satisfied no one.
然而，這并沒有讓任何人滿意。
Though the ruling seems a blow to gay Singaporeans, it is in fact “a partial but significant victory” for them, said one of the plaintiffs, because the court gave legal weight to the attorney-general’s position.
其中一名原告說，雖然這項裁決似乎對新加坡同性戀者是一個打擊，但事實上對他們來說是“一個局部但重大的勝利”，因為法院對司法部長的立場給予了法律上的重視。
That will displease Singapore’s many conservatives.
這將使新加坡的許多保守派感到不快。
But gay activists are also unhappy.
但同性戀活動人士也不高興。
As the court acknowledged, there is nothing to stop the government from deciding to start enforcing the law once again.
正如法院承認的那樣，沒有什么可以阻止政府決定再次開始執法。
Legislation should “provide clarity on how citizens conduct their lives”, says Remy Choo Zheng Xi, a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs.
一位原告的律師瑞美鄭茜說，立法應該“對公民如何進行自己的生活有清晰明確的規定”。
The judgment has instead muddied the waters.
相反，這一判決使事態變得更加混亂。
Keeping the law on the books, he says, makes “a mockery of what the rule of law is supposed to be”.
他說，將法律停留在書面層是“對法治的嘲弄”。
