评论
打印
Asia
亚洲版块
Homosexuality in Singapore
新加坡的同性恋
Crime and no punishment
罪无应得
An anti-gay law is allowed to stay—so long as it is not enforced
一项反同性恋法律只要不被执行就可以继续存在
IN A REGION where governments often disregard or contort their own laws, Singapore stands out for punctilious observance.
在一个政府经常无视或扭曲本国法律的地区，新加坡以循规蹈矩著称。
That is why a recent judgment from its high court raised eyebrows.
这就是为什么该国高级法院最近的一项判决引起了人们的关注。
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，上诉法庭驳回了由三名同性恋活动人士对一项提出的质疑，该法律可追溯到殖民时代，将男性之间的性行为定为犯罪。
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.
这项立法仍将停留在书面上，但实际上，法院告诉政府，它可以继续假装它不存在。
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.
根据《刑法典》第377A条：男子之间的“严重猥亵”行为，最高可判处2年监禁。法官们说377A是“两极化的避雷针”。
They have done their best not to get electrocuted.
他们尽了最大努力不会发生“触电”（处罚）。
The court sidestepped the question of the law’s constitutionality by arguing that the judges had to take into account the government’s stance.
法院回避了该法律的合宪性问题，称法官必须考虑政府的立场。
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，当议会就377A进行辩论时，总理李显龙宣布保留377A，但不会“主动执行”。
Mr Lee argued that it was necessary to strike a balance between accepting gay men and respecting society’s “traditional” mores.
李显龙认为，有必要在接受男同性恋和尊重社会“传统”习俗之间取得平衡。
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，这一“政治妥协”在2018年产生了法律影响，当时司法部长表示，起诉同意私下进行性行为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.
法院认为，如果当局不执行该法律，该法律就不能侵犯原告的宪法权利。
“This is really a live-and-let-live approach,” says Eugene Tan, a law professor at Singapore Management University.
新加坡管理大学法学谭尤金教授说：“这真是一种和平共处的方法。”
Yet it has satisfied no one.
然而，这并没有让任何人满意。
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.
其中一名原告说，虽然这项裁决似乎对新加坡同性恋者是一个打击，但事实上对他们来说是“一个局部但重大的胜利”，因为法院对司法部长的立场给予了法律上的重视。
That will displease Singapore’s many conservatives.
这将使新加坡的许多保守派感到不快。
But gay activists are also unhappy.
但同性恋活动人士也不高兴。
As the court acknowledged, there is nothing to stop the government from deciding to start enforcing the law once again.
正如法院承认的那样，没有什么可以阻止政府决定再次开始执法。
Legislation should “provide clarity on how citizens conduct their lives”, says Remy Choo Zheng Xi, a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs.
一位原告的律师瑞美郑茜说，立法应该“对公民如何进行自己的生活有清晰明确的规定”。
The judgment has instead muddied the waters.
相反，这一判决使事态变得更加混乱。
Keeping the law on the books, he says, makes “a mockery of what the rule of law is supposed to be”.
他说，将法律停留在书面层是“对法治的嘲弄”。
